Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Don is claiming that the Planets were designed
> to have a ratio based relationship with each
> other. ... True
>
> ... Don is insisting that we prove to him that
> the Creator did not intend this. ... Untrue. I
> simply am proving that there is a simple basic
> mathematical order with our solar system. No one
> anywhere to the best of my study can or has
> offered an alternative explanation of why the
> planets came to form where they did in our solar
> system. Understand that ... No one !!!!!! Yet I am
> judged incorrect or simply wrong when there is
> nothing to compare my figures to. You all make me
> laugh here by calling yourselves Ma'at.
>
> ...IOW's he is insisting that we question HIS
> personal beliefs, and is beating us over the head
> with our reluctance to do so.
>
> Warwick you always pull out the religion card when
> you are incapable of answering directly.
>
> And then you state arbitrary . I have asked you
> what you mean by arbitrary and you never answer.
>
> And I state again:
>
> What is the present theory on why the planets are
> where they are in relation to The Sun since we
> know The Titius-Bode Law is no longer accepted
> because it is so inaccurate. What is the new
> present standard ?
>
> And did you know that if you add the diameters of
> all the planets together you get 1/10 th the
> circumference of The Earth in kilometers ? Just
> curious what the scientific explanation of that
> is.
>
> And did you also know that it then follows that
> the total diameter of the 8 planets (excluding
> Pluto) is Pi x 10 Earth diameters
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> .
>
> Diameter of Earth = 12 756.2 kilometers
>
>
> 12 756.2 x 3.1415926536
>
> = 40074.784 x 10
>
> = 400747.84 kilometers
>
> Accurate to 400747.84/400744.08 or
>
> 99.9991 You see that Warwick ? 99.999 % By all
> means pick whatever diameters you can find on any
> site and compare to mine. You will still arrive at
> probably no worse that 99.98
>
> Just curious if the scientific community in
> Astronomy is like The Egyptologists of the world
> in regards to Giza and sum everything like this up
> to co-incidence.
>
> and just curious again how the world of astronomy
> views the fact that The Great Pyramid (440 cubits)
> is EXACTLY in relationship to the overall height
> of The Giza Plateau (from south side of G3 to
> north side of G1 or about 1732.05 cubits) in the
> EXACT SAME PROPORTION as Mercury's distance from
> The Sun is to Mars distance from The Sun - namely
> 1:3.93648 or 3.93648 to 1.
>
>
>
> 1732.05 / 440 = (Mars) 227,944,149.58 km /
> (Mercury) 57,909,100.876 = 3.93648
>
> and an answer ...
>
> Jonny:
>
> ... As I said, no theory other than orbital
> resonances to explain their relative positioning.
> there are some ideas obviously that Jupiter
> prevented a planet forming between Mars and itself
> etc. there are also ideas of why planets in
> certain positions have particular compositions
> etc. But no ab initio theory or model where they
> can predict where planets will form from first
> principles. ...
>
> So if there are no other theories out there
> ANYWHERE how the hell can I be judged wrong? On
> what basis ? This is Ma'at? Velikovsky move over I
> coming to join you.
>
> Regards
> Don Barone
>
> ... And I saw written on them that generation
> upon generation shall transgress, till a
> generation of righteousness arises, and
> transgression is destroyed and sin passes away
> from the earth, and all manner of good comes upon
> it. --- From The Book of Enoch and thought to be
> from The Lost Book of Noah
>
> A reminder of what I was about


Don, shouldn't you find pi when measuring spheres??

Yes, I have been reading and yes, my shoulder is killing me. I do, however, have surgery slated for late July, so in a few months I'll be able to do more than peck out a few lines.