Doing the Numbers on No. 1

[Janus58]

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.

In actuality, the the fact that Earth's orbit changes hurts your argument. Take the number of seconds in a year vs. the digits of Pi. Right now, the number of seconds in ~0.45% greater than 10,000 Pi. However, since its birth, the sun has been steadily losing mass, which resulted in the Earth moving away slowly. The combined effect is that length of the year has been growing slightly over time. This also means that the number of seconds in a year would have even closer to an even factor of 10,000 larger than Pi than it is now. At the rate the sun loses mass, the point where you get an exact 10,000 to 1 ratio was some 76 million years ago, long before the genus Homo ever appeared on the scene and before the K-T extinction event.

As far as eclipses are concerned, the time scale over which they are possible is much larger than a few million years. The angular size of both the Sun and Moon vary due to the eccentricities of both the Earth's and the Moon's orbit. The Sun varies from 31.5-32.5 min of arc and the Moon from 29.33-34 min of arc. For there to be no more total solar eclipses, the Moon would have to recede so that its largest angular size, no longer covered the Sun when it was at it smallest. At the rate the Moon is receding, this is somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 million year from now. Going backwards, you'd have to decide what you would consider the "cut off" point for when the Moon is "too big" to create a "bonfide" solar eclipse. ( at present, when the Sun has its smallest angular size and the Moon its greatest, you can get an eclipse where the Moon is nearly 8% wider than the solar disk, and it still produces a good eclipse. So even if we put the present 8% excess as the limit ( and in reality there's probably some give and take in this.), We were getting total eclipses ~ 1.6 billion years ago. Given the length of time that man has been on the scene, the time scale over which eclipses would be visible is huge (and the age of the Man isn't at the midpoint of this time period. We probably aren't even existing at the "height" of the "eclipse age".

 

[nebel]

How can you know what "the norm" is?

well, we would assume it is the averaged out of all the data on similar entities.
for example most of the planetary mass has a ten hour day, but we don't, but would too, if the moon's angular momentum would be drawn down to the equator ( I read)

some of them wrapped up even nicer than ours.

yeah, Saturn has those rings, Trappist will burn longer than our sun, but for the stark reality we face on this planet, the 10 iish artwork is quite nice. thank you.

 

[nebel]

the point where you get an exact 10,000 to 1 ratio was some 76 million years ago, long before the genus Homo ever appeared on the scene and bef

arguments well taken, I am not arguing like Newton that g.o.d. (guardian of dimensions) fine tunes once in a while the solar system/ universe to give whole numbers. specially good for us, the only ones here that can make sense of it. Give a break to the likes of Brahe and Kepler, and their level of instrumentation.

the Moon is nearly 8% wider than the solar disk, and it still produces a good
eclipse

Thank you, glad that the last one lasted as long as it did, because of that 8%, and the jets roaring overhead, to keep in the shadow longer. 1966 days to the next one made in North America. Hopefully no cirrus clouds that form at the average heights of 10 km.

 

[sideshowbob]

well, we would assume it is the averaged out of all the data on similar entities.

But we have no data for the vast majority of planets in the universe. We've only just recently discovered that they exist.

You're like the blind men and the elephant: It's like a tree. No, it's like a rope. No, it's like a fan. No, it's like a wall. No, it's like a spear. No, it's like a snake.

From your viewpoint the magic number is 10. From some other viewpoint in the universe the magic number might be 47. The bottom line is that there is no magic.

 

[nebel]

From your viewpoint the magic number is 10. From some other viewpoint in the universe the magic number might be 47. The bottom line is that there is no magic.

could not have said it better. The number of 10s for No.1 are Earth specific. We did not plan it that way, that how it turns out. That is why the Celsius temperature scale does not make the list.
Now, if we could keep improving our research tools and discover exoplanets with life, No.2 No.3 in the Goldilocks zone, and the denizen would give us the finger[count] and it corresponded with their position in their exo-Tietze -Bode sequence ---
It still would not be magic, it would be nature's laws working out in specific ways. like the song said " you decorated my life--"
If we never found any correlation, Our situation would truly be unique. not based on an universal law.

 

[sideshowbob]

The number of 10s for No.1 are Earth specific.

But you're ignoring the non-10s. You can come up with any "special" number you want if you ignore the cases that don't fit your desired conclusion.

 

[nebel]

But you're ignoring the non-10s. You can come up with any "special" number you want if you ignore the cases that don't fit your desired conclusion.

what non-10 numbers?

 

[sideshowbob]

what non-10 numbers?

One obvious example is cats' toes, 18. I'm sure you can think of many others yourself. After all, we have a number system because there are other numbers besides 10.

 

[nebel]

One obvious example is cats' toes, 18. I'm sure you can think of many others yourself. After all, we have a number system because there are other numbers besides 10.

Of course. I did not suggest that all data related to No. 1 should be 10, like the no. of hair on my head, although if I live long enough, it might come to that.

 

[sideshowbob]

I did not suggest that all data related to No. 1 should be 10....

So you're not making a mountain out of every molehill, just one.

 

[nebel]

So you're not making a mountain out of every molehill, just one.

Yes, the theme is No.1 and we have a mountain chain of 10.s that we not build.

 

[sideshowbob]

So, to summarize:

Me: You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
You: Yes.

 

[DaveC426913]

The fact that you have to resort to nit picking

Evel Knievel jumped a 100 foot gap and made it 95 feet. That's a margin of error of only 5%!

He made the greatest jump in the world ... unless you're a "nit picker".

 

[nebel]

Me: You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

You mentioning molehills, that is why you are a sideshow, well named.

Evel Knievel jumped a 100 foot gap and made it 95 feet. That's a margin of error of only 5%!

He made the greatest jump in the world ... unless you're a "nit picker".

It is a big jump from inviting refutes to the 1000 light second, 10 on the bode scale for N.1 to the hunt for a stunt. pit nicking & conniving.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are innumerable properties about our planet and its environs; you have simply selectively chosen a few that confirm your ideas.
Naturally, you do not list the thousands of other possible properties that could be measured, but that do not confirm your bias.

What you've done is tantamount to looking at the acorns fallen from an oak tree, and making a list of the 20 or so that landed o̶n̶ within a couple of inches of the cracks in the sidewalk - ignoring the other 980 that did not - as evidence that acorns have a special connection with sidewalk cracks.

Numerology is a very easy trap for the naive to get caught in. Humans have a propensity for making patterns where none exist.

 

[nebel]

Numerology is a very easy trap for the naive to get caught in. Humans have a propensity

there are many data that are total noise to the striking ones I highlighted, always remember Newton's comments:
"It is only that I have found a few really good polished pebbles on the beach."
The issue is not the noise, the issue is the 10s.

 

[DaveC426913]

there are many data that are total noise to the striking ones I highlighted, always remember Newton's comments:
"It is only that I have found a few really good polished pebbles on the beach."
The issue is not the noise, the issue is the 10s.

Yes. Which is synonymous with you choosing which points suit you.
i.e. it is not a pattern in nature; it is a pattern chosen by you.

If you only choose the pebbles in a row and exactly 10 inches apart, you can certainly say you've defined a pattern of pebbles in a line. But those are not special pebbles, except to you.
In fact, two pebbles ten inches apart have no more a natural connection than any other two pebbles on the breach.
i.e. there's no natural signal in that noise.

 

[nebel]

But those are not special pebbles, except to you

well, this planet is kind of special to us. including you. while 426913 might be special, meaningful to you, the 10s in no. 1 are shared by us all,
even if we are not average 10 feet tall
as ssb suggested.
My point is: there might be a yet to be seen reason for the 10s in so far as orbital mechanics requires. the rest might just be redundant nicely turned out decorations. pretty. so, don.t be petty.
you are making Newton's remarks into too much of an allegory. imho.

 

[DaveC426913]

My point is: there might be a yet to be seen reason for the 10s in so far as orbital mechanics requires. the rest might just be redundant nicely turned out decorations. pretty.

Again: self-fulfilling. You could find any pattern you want if you only look at numbers that fit your idea.

I think this has been beaten to death.

 

[nebel]

lets nor beat around the bush:
no amount of beating will erase the 10s on N.1.