Originally posted by Jahiro
Bodes' Law was simply referenced because of the doubling nature of the equation used in the PDF--and because they both deal with planetary distances.
Bodes' Law is a cutesy little mnemonic, like using "ROYGBIV" to remember the colors in the rainbow. It has no physical significance. It never did.
You're right, the actual constant is 1/137, which again isn't quite accurate-but nonetheless is an accepted number when expressing the fine structure constant.
It's a theory of planet orbital distances that's based on the numerology of the denominator of an approximation to an arbitrarily-chosen physical constant which the author himself admits he does not fully understand... and you see nothing wrong with that?
As he stated, the key to any type of PROOF for this solar model is watching to see at what orbits the next planets discovered in our solar system are found to have.
Uh yeah. Amen. We'll keep our eyes peeled!
"He thinks the Zetas found a planet -- but it just happens to not exist anymore... " - Really, is this so hard to believe?
Ummm... let's think about this for a minute. Let's just let it sink in. Deep breath.
He thinks that the formula xi = 2 xi-1 + 1 is divinely inspired...
- Explain that one to me...
The sum of his understanding of the fine structure constant is that the digits of the denominator of a common approximation are the first three digits in the sequence x<sub>i</sub> = 2 x<sub>i-1</sub> + 1. He explained in painful (yet hysterical) detail that he has explained the significance of the fine structure constant to many people: double and add one.... double and add one.... double and add one...
My birthday is 5/3/79. If I were European, it would be 3/5/79, and thus would be first five odd numbers, in order, excepting one. I believe this makes me God. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
So Jahiro, do you really not see that this entire 'essay' is insane rambling? thick, hot, steaming bullshit?
The formation of planetary systems has nothing to do with numerology. Nor does the fine structure constant. 137 is 211 in octal. I could continue to do all my arithmetic in octal, and produce all the same quantum-electrodynamical conclusions. Is 211<sub>8</sub> numerologically significant?
Besides, we've detected something like 100 planetary systems around nearby stars now -- if this numerological hocus-pocus bullshit had any kind of plausibility, don't you think it'd apply there too? If not, why not?
I thought the best part was how he came up with the conclusion that there was a planet 0.4 AU from Saturn, but cleverly avoided the conundrum by deciding that Saturn 'absorbed it.' First of all, exactly how do planets absorb each other when separated by
37 million miles? Second, exactly how would Saturn have remained in its 9.6 AU orbit after having swallowed some other planet telepathically from 37 million miles away? There's a little thing called the conservation of angular momentum to worry about.
I'm not even going to START on the gematria and 'evil' crap. It's just too **** nutty to even bother picking apart.
If you actually believe THING ONE this Sollog **** says, you're doing yourself a horrible, despicable disservice. I feel sorry for you and every other **** that can't tell **** enough to recognize this idiocy.
- Warren
Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.