Bode's Rule

[Mistermystery]

The asteriod belt is a feature of our solar system that orbits about the sun.

So why not the kuiperbelt objects?

All planets have an elliptical orbit, AU refers to the average distance, not their perihelion or aphelion distances.

Well some are not entirely elliptical, but you're correct on the rest.

The number doesn't jump between Mars and Jupiter, there is an asteriod belt in the way.

But not a planet... which should have been there according to the formula... And that doesn't explain why you haven't included the kuiperbelt.

Lastly, Pluto is not a planet.

So we include the astroid belt because it fits into the formula, but we don't include pluto or the kuiperbelt object because it doesn't fit in. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[David Waffen]

Pluto is an object of the belt.

It is interesting to note that the asteriod belt, is the divisor between the jovian and terrestrial planets.
-Sun-
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
-asteriod belt-
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
-belt-

Very interesting.

 

[The Bellman]

There is no profit except to watch evolutionists squirm as I trap them with math and science.

Great. Let us know when you - or anyone - does, okay?

 

[David Waffen]

I've been doing it since I got here.

 

[Mistermystery]

Pluto is an object of the belt.

It is interesting to note that the asteriod belt, is the divisor between the jovian and terrestrial planets.
-Sun-
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
-asteriod belt-
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
-belt-

Very interesting.

Indeed. Very intresting!....

....But doesn't prove that God created the universe, or anything.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I said it was considered factual or reasonable. Evolutionists accept it, but reject it when it doesn't acheive their goals.

First I said you were misunderstanding what a p value of < 0.05 means. Now I that I have explained it I say that you are mistrepresenting what it means. It may be a fact that you can get a p value of 0.05. If so it means that it is a fact that there is about 1 chance in 20 that your results are due to chance, assumig you calculated it correctly and didn't cheat by leaving out things that don't fit or picking only certain planets and orbital parameters to improve your fit. A difference at the 95% confidence level is considered to be statistically signifcant and the null hypothesis can be rejected with a confidence of 1 chance in 20 of reaching an incorrect conclusion. This is not the same as saying it is a fact.

If you examined 20 more planetary systems and got the same result every time without arbitrarily leaving out some planets that don't fit you might have a point. If you could then rule out a natural feature of planet formation that led to such a relationship from physical principles you have a further point. It is possible to find many such apparent correlations in nature if you look hard enough. I recall when there was a very strong (>95%) correlation between whether a team from the old AFL or the old NFL won the superbowl and whether the stock market rose or fell in the following year. Correlation does not prove causality and apparent correlation that can't be easily explained does not prove supernatural intervention.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jet Black]

I said it was considered factual or reasonable. Evolutionists accept it, but reject it when it doesn't acheive their goals.

and what pray tell, are the goals of "evolutionists" regarding the positions of objects in the solar system?

It is quite plausible that the positions of objects in the solar system could be due to resonance properties resulting from the early conditions of the solar system, much like the resonances seen in the day/year length seen in several objects - mercury venus and the moon for example, and the resonances in the earth-venus orbit which astrologers like to make much of, as I alluded to earlier in the thread. Bode's Rule is a reasonable indicator that the planets are not just in a random position, but this non-randomness in their position does not have to mean "therefore God" just as electrons around atoms are not in random positions, and waves in the ocean are not at random positions relative to one another.

 

[monkenstick]

I've been doing it since I got here.

amusing us with your wacky theories?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Using methods employed in the biological and medical fields, let's see the odds of this happening. Keep in mind that 5% or less chance of something being due to chance alone is considered 'factual' in the world of biology.

Here we use (Outcome - Expected)^2 divided by the expected to determine deviation:
M(.01)(.01)/(.39) = 2.56 x 10^-4
V(.029)(.029)/(.729) = .0012
E(0)(0) = 0
M(.08)(.08)/(1.52) =.0042
J(0)(0) = 0
S(.46)(.46)/(9.54) = .0482
U(.4)(.4)/(19.2) = .0208
N(8.7)(8.7)/(30.1) = 2.5146

We see that the first seven categories only add up to .0744.
We can have as much as 1.239 deviation to conclude a 99% chance that this data is not due to chance alone.

We see that all eight categories add up to .2589, when 2.733 deviation is allowed for a 95% chance that this data is not due to chance alone.

You don't know how to do statistics.

Bode's law (or an equivalent relationship) is very likely to occur.

 

[michabo]

70 posts and still no clear argument. w00t w00t!


So can you tell us how to connect the dots between Bode's Law and Jesus now?

 

[Mistermystery]

My geuss his claim would be something like "if Earth is so perfectly* positioned, and if our solar system is so perfect*, and if every condition on this Earth is perfect*, then that is evidence that there is a god**"

* = Perfect may not be perfect
**= This is of course the only true god, the Christian God.

 

[MSBS]

Hey wait a minute... Besides including the astroid belt ( pretty funny actually), and excluding pluto out of the equation(Its distance from the Sun ranges between 30 and 50 AU) (btw Neptune and pluto have an eleptical (not to mention tilted)orbit), Why does the number jump between mars and Jupiter? Let me geuss, it didn't fit into the equation, so we left it out?

Edit: Of course if we include the atroid belt, why not the kuiper belt as well?

You're forgeting Ceres! It fits right in there.

 

[Mistermystery]

You're forgeting Ceres! It fits right in there.

Myeah. In anycase, I still fail to see the point of this thread. If it's possible to tell how planets are formed using a formula (quite possible btw. I'm not denying that), I can't see how God comes into this equation. Or how this could be 99% sure.

 

[MSBS]

I doesn't have much of a point. IIRC from undergrad astronomy, Bode's "Law" has been known as a psuedo-theory for quite some time. There is no underlying mechanism suggested and the predictions didn't pan out with Neptune and Pluto. Ceres, at the time of its discovery and since it was in the right spot for the predicted fifth planet, was thought to have been vindication of Bode's Law by some, but later discoveries (not to mention all those pesky other asteroids) didn't bode well for the Law.

Anyways, all that it's ever gotten up to is that there does seem to be some sort of approximate correlation. Still and all, it's just another God-of-the-gaps argument. The premise of the OP is that we don't know why, therefore God.

(sorry for the shameless pun )

 

[lucaspa]

Should I work out the odds that this is due to chane alone or are you convinced yet?

1. Statistics are only used when you have two sample populations to compare. You don't have that here because you don't have another solar system. You have a misuse of statistics.

2. Eliminating chance does not mean intelligent cause. It's not chance that aspirin reduces headache pain, but that doesn't mean that God directly intervenes to make aspirin work.

It's a strawman of creationism that evoution and science rely on "chance alone". The processes in the universe are not chance. Gravity isn't chance. Chemistry isn't chance. Evolution by natural selection isn't chance.

 

[lucaspa]

Actually, it is about double standards. 95% rule is employed by biologists to 'prove' something, yet is quickly dismissed by you.

Not dismissed, but you have a misconception of what statistics "prove". What we do at the p < 0.05 level is that the samples were drawn from a single population by chance. That doesn't mean much to you, does it?

A population is all of the possible objects in the universe. In this case, it would be all the solar systems and the relative distances from their respective suns. But we don't have that, do we?

So, let's take another example. Let's try all the people who have ever had or will have heart attacks. But we can never test an entire population, can we? What we test are samples of the population. Now, supposedly we choose our samples at random out of the population. So, we take people with heart attacks and give them urokinase (one of the "clotbusters") and measure their survival. This group is compared to those without urokinase. The question is: what are the odds that, if I randomly pull samples from all heart attack patients, will I find the difference I do observe between the 2 groups by chance? That is what statistics determines -- the odds that I accidentally got all the people who would do well anyway in the urokinase group and all the patients who would do poorly anyway in the control group. We arbitrarily accept a probability (p value) < 0.05 that the results didn't occur by chance. That means that only 1 time in 20 would the results occur by chance. However, there is that chance and this is called a Type I error -- when you say it is significant but it's not. Notice that even if you have a p < 0.0000001 there is still a chance of a type I error. People do win the lottery. There is also a Type II error, where you miss a difference that is real. You can do a test called a Power Analysis to minimize your chances of a Type II error, but it is still there.

Now, the "proof" of the cause of the difference between groups isn't found in the statistics. That is, you can't conclude urokinase is the cause solely from the statistics. You have to look more carefully into the experimental design and determine that all other possible causes have been eliminated by the appropriate controls.

However, in your "statistics" calculation you aren't doing any of this. You are looking at a sample of one. What you are comparing is the relative distances of the planets to a completely random distribution. But you have no idea whether the distribution should be random. IOW, you have a made-up second sample set. Also, you have no experimental design to eliminate all other possible causes -- such as gravity -- as a cause. Therefore, you have no way to conclude what you call "design" -- manufacture by an intelligent entity.

 

[Mistermystery]

I doesn't have much of a point. IIRC from undergrad astronomy, Bode's "Law" has been known as a psuedo-theory for quite some time. There is no underlying mechanism suggested and the predictions didn't pan out with Neptune and Pluto. Ceres, at the time of its discovery and since it was in the right spot for the predicted fifth planet, was thought to have been vindication of Bode's Law by some, but later discoveries (not to mention all those pesky other asteroids) didn't bode well for the Law.

Anyways, all that it's ever gotten up to is that there does seem to be some sort of approximate correlation. Still and all, it's just another God-of-the-gaps argument. The premise of the OP is that we don't know why, therefore God.

(sorry for the shameless pun )

Well the way how planets are formed is directly related to the sun, so if there is some mechanism involved, it depends from sun to sun, because some suns are bigger/smaller/denser/etc. So this bode's "law" probably works only in our solar system.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Some snips from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bode%27s_law:

A weaker formulation with no geocentric point of view and less "ad-hocism" reads:

The distance of one planet to the innermost one is about twice as much as that of the previous one.

and

Currently the most likely explanation other than chance is that orbital resonance (see Planetary pairs) from major orbiting bodies creates regions around the Sun that are free of long-term stable orbits. Results from simulation of planetary formation seem to support the idea that laws like the Titus-Bode law are a natural consequence of planetary formation, according to the current theories in this area.

Given the limits of current teloscopy, there are a decidedly limited number of systems on which Bode's law can be tested. Two of the solar planets have a number of large moons that appear possibly to have been created by a process similar to that which created the planets themselves. The four large satellites of Jupiter plus the largest inner satellite -- Amalthea -- adhere to a regular, but non-Bode, spacing with the four innermost locked into orbital periods that are each twice that of the next inner satellite. The whole lot are thought to be moving outward under the influence of tidal drag to lock to the period of the outermost large moon Callisto. The large moons of Uranus have a regular, but non-Bode, spacing.

Recent discoveries of extrasolar planetary systems also indicate that some form of this rule may be present universally, but the evidence is still too weak to draw any strong conclusions. The law provides a challenge for statistical analysis as it falls into the category of uncomfortable science where inadequate data are available for formal validation of an hypothesis.

So, no divine intervention seems to be needed for a regular spacing of planetary bodies to occur.

 

[Jet Black]

Some snips from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bode%27s_law:

So, no divine intervention seems to be needed for a regular spacing of planetary bodies to occur.

oh well, the "Bode's law therefore God" idea seems to have been debunked.

 

[Norseman]

I smell *sniff sniff* BS!

If a mathematical equation is true, David can/will say it proves god.
If a mathematical equation is false, David can/will say it disproves science.

The OP argument uses the existence of math to prove god, nothing more and nothing less. This is roughly the same as the following argument:

1. See those flowers?
2. They smell good.
3. Good is a sign of god.
4. Therefore god exists.

I don't have any intention to become christian just because the world exists, nor does David have any intention to became islamic just because the world exists. An argument like this isn't going to change anyone's minds.