h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Whoa whoa back up a second here.

Taff is definitely right about the length of the year being longer and the days being shorter in pre history. Having been over this with warner about how old the earth is, corals have annual growth rings like trees, and these are preserved in fossilised coral beds, providing a record going back millions of years to the Devonian and Pennsylvanian layers in the geologic collumn (and beyond) Iago's our resident geologist he could back me up on this I'm sure)

Through Uranium - Thorium dating an age of the rock can be determined and comparing that with the position in the geologic column which gives an accurate picture for how old the fossil rock is.

When you examine the corals what you see is that the annual layers have growth lines that exceed 365 per annual layer.

How can this be?

Well basically the earth's orbital speed hasn't altered much however it's rotational speed has, and at a calculable rate of about 2 seconds per 100,000 years due to the dissipation of energy through the rotational shlopping of the oceans lapping around the Earth and interacting with the Moon's gravity in the tides, right down to the planet's molten interior.

The practical upshot of which is a yearly orbit has been about stable but The Earth has been able to cram in more 'less-than-24-hour-days', into each year. As the day has been lengthening the year has been shortening and the corals record that transition having annual growth patterns as high as 424+ coming down to 396 in the Devonian (345mya), 390 in the Pennsylvanian (280mya) at the time the last dinosaurs glanced upwards and said to each other 'what's that funny light in the sky?' the number of days in that year would have been about 371.

Human civilisation has been using diurnal cycles for a crude calendar system since the Ancient Egyptians and that's as long as calendars have been around for about 10,000 years (i.e so short as to not appreciate this lengthening effect) That the year happens to be calculated to be 365 days at present (with the fix for leap years and accounting for the occasional adjustment of a leap second, which is exactly the slow winding down I'm talking about) is little more than historical happenstance.

----------------------------

Re:

>billion year planning?
>I don't see why not. It's more consistent with the evidence than no planning at all.

If there is one thing that people like myself take great joy in it's listening to people who claim the world was designed when all the evidence runs completely counter to that. It's natural unguided unthinking processes all the way down.

You say planning is more consistent with the evidence - go on then - what evidence? You have some I presume (and this differs from your numerological claims about coincidences in phone numbers and birthdays)


----------------------

>>some of the dinosaurs have been preserved<<

Not loony at all. We call them birds.

The sentence beginning "Taff is definitely right here.. put me off reading through the whole post, because I did not indicate that I thought he was wrong about that. I know that!

I said no real work on this until after the game. You'll note that I have 11:30 on my clock and that's AM, and I have to buy cigarettes before I go to bed for the night--last night!

I'm done with Clive. If I can't use my numbers as evidence of planning, I don't have a case; if he is going to try HI as a source, he's just trying to offend. My life is simpler just putting it in book form. I will say that I said before that it's a naturalistic world, and I presume that's because we're supposed to understand nature as it stands without a higher intelligence before we understand the higher intelligence. Say whatever you want that's relevant to the thread, people. What I have to say about atheists I know is that they seem blinkered almost as much as religious people. But, then again, there aren't geniuses hanging out here, and I haven't tried to discuss this with any of the geniuses I used to hang out with.

Fair enough. I make a reasonable evidence based post you ignore it then proceed to explain you're going to ignore me. A peculiar attitude but one I shan't attempt to change. as I've pumpkins to carve , which believe I'd much rather be doing.

>>if he is going to try HI as a source, he's just trying to offend<<



Well let's put to one side for the moment that Iago is a friend and although I know you two have had a bad-tempered spat over the last few days, I'll be damned if I'm not going to suggest he knows a thing or two about geology. That's a remarkably paranoid attitude you have if you ascribe to me intentions to do you harm that I simply do not possess.

>>If I can't use my numbers as evidence of planning, I don't have a case<<

Some might see that as honest.

However, as I said last night I granted you the suspension of my disbelief; I went out of my way not to challenge anything you said I took it as given the numbers you were providing are correct and invited you to explain to me what it all signified, even though I doubt it signifies much of anything I asked you to put forward your case and I would listen to it.

What you did was expand a little on the tremendous insight you feel you have and you answered my question about who controls the galaxy - but you didn't go onto explain why that should have any impact on birthdays, telephone numbers and the other significant dates you seemed to centre your argument around.

I tried to suggest coincidences of numbers was like velocity measurements of distant galaxies, Hubble was able to say having identified and measured the dat what this data implied, and by what mechanism his data became what he perceived (i.e that the universe was expanding) - what I was (and still am ) waiting for is a coherent explanation of 'how?' your coincidences are evidence what what you suppose is true. You say they denote manipulation - of what, when, by whom and how?

My most recent post, was a reprise of a debate I had with Warner a while back - it's a fabulous piece of physical evidence principally about the age of the earth but it has the odd kink which shows how the natural world has changed over the last few million years.

I hadn't picked up on it, but you mention the significance of 365 votes of Obama on your PS, and what Taff did was to say you do realise that if the significance of 365 is related to 365 days in a year then you should know that this has been changing over time - my post was in reply to that to try and justify that claim by telling you where that evidence can be found.

Here's a link to show I ain't just making it up.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/160322/Devonian-Period/69880/The-Devonian-environment

That was just by way of backing up Taff, who I felt looked a bit isolated making what seems like a counter intuitive point about the annual cycle and after that the conversatino veered off somewhat into dinosaurs on Mars or something.

And you think that's me being blinkered do you?

I really cannot honestly understand why because here I'm discussing physical evidence that's been published and peer reviewed and so has a kind of status of being about as right as can be.

Unlike say.... mmm.... numerology.


>>there aren't geniuses hanging out here<<

Just us chickens.

I just came back to say I'm taking an aspirin now--minor heart attack, I'm sure. You don't get it, Clive. You're flooding. My evidence is all numbers, yours is all science without analyzing the numbers properly to see what they really say.

>>You don't get it, Clive.<<

Clearly.

>>You're flooding.<<

Funny; coming from the guy with the saturated trousers up to his knees.

Pretending to give the benefit of the doubt is what it seems like to me. Give me a short post about what's wrong with A-->B, where I earlier had to define your A and B for you in regard to a post about defining terms. You say terms should be defined. I define terms you give for you. You act like someone whose never met a genius.

>>My evidence is all numbers, yours is all science without analyzing the numbers properly to see what they really say.<<

Whereas you say that your science is all based on numbers that only you can understand.

'My science', at least when it comes to geology is based on rocks that anyone can pick up, analyse and compare, throw in a bit of basic chemistry and Robert's your father's brother. That's how good science works: being able to communicate what the evidence implies (even the high numerical data generated) that presents a coherent and testable hypothesis.

You say coincidence proves manipulation - where is the physical evidence of the manipulation that corroborates that?

>>You act like someone whose never met a genius.<<

Correct.

I just simulposted a message to you on this subject.

I saw.

From that:

>>There is nothing wrong with saying the physical evidence omits this 'God's' presence, but only up to the point where you see all the numbers related to 365.25.<<

Why what happens to the evidence for god at 365.25?

(Incidentally how do you arrive at that number? - I must have missed that in the backlog too.)

>>you might consider my very own freakish nature with regards to numbers as a piece of physical evidence.<<

I don't honestly know you that well to call you anything as rude as 'freakish'.

What, if I may ask, is it that you consider freakish about yourself?

<>

and i am still waiting

It was for me--as it is generally--the 'natural approximation' to the number of days in a year in getting what I refer to as 'The Main Fact', which is the surprising start of a general arithmetical gestalt on the number. In the basic question in probability that I first asked myself when I discovered the 'core' of my birthday coincidence, I wanted to know what 1/(365.25)^4 equalled. I simply stopped short, knowing numbers as I do, when I saw that (365.25)^4 had six 7s in its whole part and then had the ratio 49/256=7^2/2^8 as its fractional part. I'll fill out this gestalt in pieces later on, but now I really should get some sleep if I can so that I can watch baseball tonight.

Let's try to stay on decent terms, and hopefully Honest Iago will have actually thought about what he most recently yikesed me for by, say, a week from now. It was an attempt on my part to mend fences, not having realized that he had already said he would never speak to me about anything ever again.

You'll note that you are a bit impatient and did not allow me to respond before posting twice more.

I noticed the mention of numerology. I've red the last post about it it does confirm my assertion that numerology is rubbish.

That is my last word on the subject as it doesn't even warrant any more time.

Well, let me remind you that I actually know real mathematics and statistics to a very high level, 3dots. You can simply ignore what I have to say.

<>you keep doing this as well,

streams of data then, i'll fill this in later, or, that can be found on another thread, or, you'll find it in my PS, or, i have dotted about,........

and you wonder why we don't take your word as gospel

and then you expect us to do complicated math problems to solve, which we probably can't(because you made 1 tiny error but didn't tell us) so that you can crow about how bright you are and how dumb we are because we don't know the sq. root of 2 is 1.414, and our psycic powers are off, because we cant read your mind and find all these errors that you make and come up with coincidences that fit better and so you don't go back and try the original problem you just keep the error as some sort of example of how alien gods are guiding you to reveal them, a secret they have been keeping since the dawn of history,

and for your phone number to be part of the plan the god alien must have interfeared in the development of the phone just so you had one for the numbers to match.....sorry for the numbers to be 1 out

I figure that was so I wouldn't have said "Hey, PAL, call me," and we'd have this freaking argument instead where I've told practically everyone the number.

I'm going to keep this all on the "There is no power greater than God" thread, and I'm going to remove 'almighty' at least when I post. This isn't about the stuff this thread is supposed to be about, and I want to be fair to people like 3Dots. I basically agree with atheists on a lot more than I disagree with them as compared to religious folk.