jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (26 posts)

Laws of nature

  1. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    http://i.imgur.com/N2np3Xy.jpg

    Is it possible there are laws of nature we don't know about or understand yet? How else do you explain this?

    http://i.imgur.com/dCMQFil.jpg

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Why do the Earth and Moon fit so perfectly into  the squared circle this way? The planet WE are on? The only planet we know of that has life?

  3. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    http://i.imgur.com/6l7obfo.png

    And how did the builders of Stonehenge know? The numbers are even the same.

    5040 miles
    2160 miles
    7920 miles

    50.40 ft
    21.60 ft
    79.20 ft

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually you will find a lot of numbers that relate to nature. The Fibonacci sequence for instance. Many now say mathematics is the language of nature. I tend to agree.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. Those same numbers are found in the platonic solids, basic geometry, and lots of other places. Including the dimensions of ancient buildings.

        The golden mean, is found all over nature, including what people consider to be "beautiful", like human faces, dimensions, and art. Even iphones and technology.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
          Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That is exactly why I love chaos theory.

  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    Unfortunately, the figure you show as 5040 is actually 5029.  (7900+2157)/2

    The polar diameter of earth is only 7900, not 7920 and the moon is slightly smaller as well.  When playing with numbers precision is #1.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have 12,742 km as the average diameter, which is 7,926 miles. The polar is 12,713 km or 7,899 miles. Equatorial is 12,756 km.

      It depends on the source you use, it seems.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The photo shows a polar diameter, so that's what I used (7899.98 miles).  Of course, if you moved the moon around just the right amount (not on the equatorial plane or even that of the solar system) it would work. 

        Of course, that's how these things often work; find a fairly close match to some unusual coincidence and start rounding and ignoring until it fits exact.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
          Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed. I haven't investigated the picture or the claims, so I wasn't commenting on them, just the premise of the forum.

    2. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The universe works in ideal numbers.

      Just like the ideal number for the Precession of the Equinoxes is 25,920 years (notice it's divisible by 2160) The numbers are everywhere.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The sources I looked gave figures of 25,772 years, 25765, 25625 and 25772.  None of which is divisible by 2160.  Precision is #1, not "adjusting" the numbers to fit mystical claims.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Precession can't be precisely measure, because it changes. So there is a standard set.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A standard figure...calculated by whom?  The people that want it to be exactly a multiple of 2160 regardless of what it actually is, or someone with the instrumentation and knowledge to measure it accurately?

            Plus, of course, if it changes (and it does) then how can it be a multiple of that number?

    3. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Even if the numbers are wrong, the fact remains that the Earth and Moon still fit precisely into the squared circle. You can easily use ratios and see for yourself.

      How do you explain it? Coincidence? I say there are laws of nature we don't know about.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see a "squared circle" in your picture, and don't know what one is anyway.  A square with sides of Pi*2R/4 of the circle?  Your diagram says the square and circle are "nearly" the same that way, but not identical. 

        (By the way, why isn't the circle drawn in the proper position?  Shifting it down makes a prettier picture and gives the impression that the center of the earth is special in the diagrams, but it doesn't belong there.)

        Either way, though, that 4 times the earths diameter nearly equals Pi times the sum of the earth's diameter plus the moons wouldn't seem to mean much.  Our moon is, after all, abnormally large as moons go (and the earth well under average) and that's the only reason it works at all.  I fail to see where any "laws of nature" might apply, particularly considering how the moon was formed.  I suppose that if we considered the composition, temperature and age of both, speed of collision and the angle of collision of that formation, we might find that we'd get a particular percentage of the total becoming the moon.  If there was nothing else to draw it away than what was here (other planets, sun, comets, etc.).  I wouldn't call that chance a "natural law", though.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          A circle with the same perimeter of the square is a squared circle. They can never be exact, it's mathematically impossible.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Really?  Excepting that Pi is not a rational number, every circle has a "sqaured" circle.  And one much closer than what the diagram shows.  Thousands of them in fact.

            To find that square, find the perimeter of the circle (Pi* diameter) and divide it by 4.  You have the square, and depending on how accurate you measure the diameter of the circle and how many decimals you carry the math to, you will have a square that is very, very close to that "squared circle".

            But if you want a perfect one, use a circle with radius 2.  The perfect squared circle has a side length of Pi.  Mathematically it's easy as pie. smile

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I made a mistake. I meant you can't do it with a square and compass. But you can do it mathematically.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You lost me.  You'll need a ruler of course (to measure the compass setting as well as draw a straight line), but you can then draw both.  What am I missing?

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not good at math, so I don't know. It's just something I keep reading. It says it here.:

                  http://www.cut-the-knot.org/impossible/sq_circle.shtml

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it gives the solution near the bottom.  My own geometry isn't good enough to follow it, but it says the solution is there.

  5. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago
 
working