# Doing the Numbers on No. 1

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Apr 30, 2018.

1. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,205
8/8. Or 5/5. Or 43/43. The number itself is irrelevant.

The ~ is what kills your argument. You can round off 8 to the nearest 10 and make anything work out. The average human is ~ 10 feet tall.

exchemist likes this.

3. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
The 8 was not my idea. but even then the ~ meant 5%. look at any science graphs, main sequence stars, planetary ratios, there is a scatter.
In the 10 s of tens for No/1. us, I gave it a .4 % that is 4/thousanth. of a margin +-.
You are welcome to come up with substantial arguments, not nit picking, quibbling over .0004 accuracy. This a broad strokes picture.
The average human is not ~10 feet tall, as you assert. that kills your argument, might even affect them in the future.

5. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,205
Again, that is what kills your argument. In the broad picture, a cloud might look like a horsie or a duckie but in the final analysis, it's all in your head.

7. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
You are so wrong.
Even on the broad stroke picture, the numbers are right within .4 % 4in 1000.
none are so blind than those that do nor want to see.
The fact that you have to resort to nit picking rather than refute any of the 10 times 10 published and NSA data, shows your level of competence. where you are coming from, where you want to go.

Last edited: May 2, 2018
8. ### gmilamValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,239
So what do you think these numbers prove?

9. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
I think there is something special about this planet, life, and the numbers prove it. Some of them have nothing to do with our control, but come together after the fact. or before. So:
it behooves us to keep searching.
To me it looks like a set-up from way back. like the coming eclipse 1968 days from now.

Last edited: May 3, 2018
10. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
with due respect, you are out by nearly half. the numbers done on N.1 by only .4 %to 5 %. respect a superior match, argument.

11. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,021
Yes I can see the headlines now

BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS WINS THE NEBEL PRIZE FOR CORROLATINC THE NUMBERS OF ANTS IN A COLONY WITH THE NUMBER OF CRATERS ON THE MOON

What inspired you sir?

I read somewhere the words of a Babbel speaker it behooves us to keep searching and I thought why not?

Why not indeed sir? Would you like those restraints loosened? Ok enjoy your ice cream with your medications

sideshowbob likes this.
12. ### gmilamValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,239
Searching for what? More coincidences?

13. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
Compared to the great possibilities that the BB setup afforded us, these numbers are just the tip of the ice[cream]berg'
Yes I believe scientists will discover other connections between these figures and nature.

sorry about that be-hoofing around. Shows my high regard for science work, our activities at the highest level.
Have not had ice cream in decades, the 1 medication keeps my levels low. relief only max 30 years away.

14. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,205
And you resort to cherry-picking. Try listing all of the phenomena that don't agree with your numerology.

I'm not denying your data. I'm saying the numerological conclusions are rubbish.

15. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,205
The point was about rounding error, not the magnitude of the error. You can make things look significant by rounding off the "insignificant" parts.

16. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
These are not errors, but are deviation from a norm caused by other conditions. resonances for example.

like the analogy
As you toss the gift wrapping in the rubbish bin, you might realize, it was so nice that the gift, No.1, had such interesting bows tied around it all looping into 10.

17. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,181
A big problem here is that there is no unique significance to the number 10. It is just the base humans decided to use for their number system. Neither is there any real significance to the length of a second, other than we thought it was convenient to divide a day to 24 hours of 60 min, each in turn, made up of 60 seconds. These divisions were based on the number 12 because it was evenly divisible by so many factors. So, in a way, base 12 would be a more "natural" number than base 10 ( and more consistent with how we divided up the day time-wise).
In such a base we would need two more digits after 9. Borrowing from Hexadecimal notation, I'll use the A and B for these new digits So, in this case, the number we write as 1000 in decimal would be 6B4 , with no special meaning or significance, not being a number equally divisible by its base.

In other words, there is nothing "natural" about neither our number system nor the defined length of the second. They were both arbitrary choices.

For example, we could have decided to make the division of the day based on 10 like our number system, and have a day of 10 "hrs" made up of 100 "minutes" each 100 "seconds" long, giving us 100,000 "sec" to a day instead of 86,400 seconds. In which case, a year would be ~36525000 "seconds" long, which is nowhere near any multiple of pi. ( depending on whether you are talking about a Julian year, Tropical year, or Sidereal year. A Julian year is 365.25 days, a sidereal year is 365.25636 days and the tropical year is 365.242189 days. Astronomers tens to use the Julian year, but not because it is more "natural". In fact, it is the least natural definition of a year. It is merely a convenience because the length of the other "natural" years change in duration over time )

18. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
Very good points, well expressed. That is why I classed the coincidences by a 1 * and two asterixs in he OP.
Nobody knew that the length of the meter in Paris would yield these results. but they did.
The killer of course is Tietze/Bode, where no dividing finer or longer will yield such a clear 10 with 4/1000 accuracy to Jupiter, and not more than 5% with the most deviant other "wanderers)
nobody deliberately created units that would give that perfect score of 10. (score actually meaning 20)

Last edited: May 3, 2018
19. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,181
Except that a miss of 0.4% to 0.5% is huge compared to the known accuracy of the values you are comparing. Take the Julian year of 31557600 sec. By definition, that is exact meaning its value is 31557600.000... sec with an infinite number of zeros after the decimal point. You can also take Pi to any accuracy you want. But the number of secs in a Julian year and value of Pi deviate at the third significant digit. which actually mean that the variance in these values are infinitely larger than the known accuracy of the values.
Of Course the Julian year is a length chosen for convenience and dosen't have any real physical significance, so let's choose a year measurement that does have a physical meaning, the sidereal year, which is 31558149.5 sec. which means we know its value to the nearest 1/10 of a sec. It also means we know its value to within 0.0000032%. The number of seconds in the sidereal year is 10045270.98 times the value of Pi or 0.45% off of 10^7 0.45% is 140625 times larger than this. For the 0.45% miss to have any significance, it have to be at least the same order magnitude as our uncertainty in the compared values. This doesn't even come close. *

Another example, the speed of light is 299792.485 km/sec exactly. The mean orbital velocity of the Earth (it actually varies throughout the orbit), is 29.78469 km/sec taken to the nearest cm/sec, an accuracy of 0.00034%
The mean orbital velocity divided into the speed of light is ~10065.32 or ~0.65 percent greater than 10,000. The "miss" is greater than the known accuracy by a factor of ~1912. Again, in order for a miss to be considered close, it would have to have been in the order of 0.00034%.

Both of the examples above are a case of "A miss is as good as a mile"

*And even this apparent "near miss" is just an accident by virtue of our choice of number system. In the aforementioned base twelve system, there would be A99A60 sec to a Julian year and the first few digits of Pi would be 3.186..., And the number of secs in a Julian year would be 344514 times larger than Pi ( in base twelve math).

20. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
May be in the learned circles you teach in. in many accepted theories, a scattering from the graph of 5 % would still confirm a trend. We are comparing 1000 seconds to 9978. A value that is going to change over time anyway.
Even when considering a sidereal year, it should not vary by more than .3 % and somehow mitigate what solar lunar variances introduce. or?

Last edited: May 4, 2018
21. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,021
So you are confirming the line up of certain numbers / ratios / pretty patterns is crap?

Got it

22. ### nebel

Messages:
2,195
No, I confirm that it is considered crap by some, but that is understandable.
The alignment of the 10 out of 10 is confirmed by the data, and acknowledged.
The fact that it is unique to our being here now, strengthens the argument. Same with the eclipse coming up in ~1968 days, a few millions years from now, there might be no such eclipses, or were not in the past, because the Sun and Moon did not appear so closely matched in apparent size. time is prime.

23. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,205
How can you know what "the norm" is?

You need to look under the Christmas tree again. There are lots of gifts under there, some of them wrapped up even nicer than ours.