…and this is a 
I laughed at the God Equation. The author writes to assure me it is very scientific. I laugh some more.
Dear Dr. Myers,
I didn't believe the equation either. I am a skeptic and a great fan of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. so please don't tar this with the pseudoscience brush because it's not appropriate in this case.
I'd ask you to consider the following. In the equation, pi divided by 0.0123456789 equals the 21 cm wavelength for the hydrogen fine transition.
So the equation is frequency of hydrogen fine transition times wavelength of hydrogen fine transition equals the speed of light - a straight down the line 100 per cent correct physics equation.
The Thoms (or megalithic yards) are just a conversion factor that occurs on both sides of the equation and so can be taken out of the equation by simple arithmetic. They are in the equation because this directly relates the equation to the polar circumference of the Earth.
I hope this makes it clear. I understand the implications are mind-boggling. But the equation is simple physics and will become mainstream knowledge.
If you're not acquainted with the physics, please get a friend knowledgeable in physics to check this.
Kind regards,
David
Comments
Posted by: elliot | December 6, 2009 12:02 PM
i love it so. :)
Posted by: Tyler | December 6, 2009 12:05 PM
It's very clear now. The implications are very mind-boggling. Too bad they have more to do with mental health than "megalithic yards".
Posted by: MVH | December 6, 2009 12:08 PM
This is the kind of crap I love to see Martin Gardner destroy.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
December 6, 2009 12:09 PM
Oh numerology, you old scamp, how often you come up again and again.
Yes, it is always how mysterious how one number can be transformed into another number by adding, subtracting and multiplying a set of random numbers to it.
And how amazed a certain type of person always is as long as the numbers added are either sufficiently numerous or can be likened to something in nature (and we add 8 here because there are 8 non-thumb fingers on our hands) or literary (and we also add 16 for there are 16 uses of the letter c on the 42nd page which will be the number we divide by next).
And it's the easiest scam because any number can be transformed into any other number without knowing any math beyond the most basic level (and it works best when you keep it simple like that). Anyone can invent a numerology and seem mysterious and uncovering some basic fact of the universe.
Posted by: Dustin R | December 6, 2009 12:09 PM
Why do weirdos always sign emails with "kind regards?"
Posted by: Zeno | December 6, 2009 12:11 PM
To how many decimal places, David? More than could be explained by mere coincidence? Start with a big enough collection of random calculations and you can be sure of data-sifting an "equation" from it.
If you're not acquainted with the probability, please get a friend knowledgeable in probability to check this.
Posted by: Phycisist Dad | December 6, 2009 12:13 PM
pi/0.0123456789 = 254.46900725644122
So you have to assume mm, and then it only has a 20% error to the 21.10611405413 cm of the hydrogen hyperfine line (taken from Wikipedia). Unless the equation is not talking about vacuum but some unspecified medium with a refractive index of 1.2...
I leave to the readers implications about the experimental sloppyness of the engineer that engineered the equation (or maybe my calculator is bad?).
Posted by: Physicist Dad | December 6, 2009 12:16 PM
Duh! I forgot to convert to megalithic yards!
Anyway, in the metric system the magic constant won't look that magic...
Posted by: scooter | December 6, 2009 12:16 PM
I saw gOD at the Ω house but there was a lot of beer, and oh yeah
some acid too, it was the early 70's
And gOD had on one of those viking hats with the cow horns, he was also really funny, but I knew he was gOD because his whole face crawled around on his skull like that Rorschach guy in Welcome Back Kotter and, oh yeah
the winged sandals, too. Even though it was halloween, this is too much of a coincidence, I knew it right away at the time.
Posted by: rnb | December 6, 2009 12:17 PM
I'm skeptical the guy is actually an engineer.
Posted by: Larry
|
December 6, 2009 12:17 PM
Back in my college days studying electrical engineering, we used to joke about a magical constant we called Theta that one added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into one's answer to get the correct answer.
Apparently, we were wrong to think it was a joke.
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
December 6, 2009 12:17 PM
The hydrogen line must have been 25.4469cm back when Stonehenge was built.
Posted by: Tim | December 6, 2009 12:25 PM
Incredible.
"[Megalithic yards] are in the equation because this directly relates the equation to the polar circumference of the Earth." Errr... why? Who cares?
0.0123456789 Why?
"So the equation is frequency of hydrogen fine transition times wavelength of hydrogen fine transition equals the speed of light - a straight down the line 100 per cent correct physics equation."
So really the speed of light business is just a completely external construct built up on top of the flim flam. The only relevant thing he found was a coincidental relationship to the hydrogen fine transition. Incredible.
Posted by: blf | December 6, 2009 12:26 PM
Only in the vicinity of Stonehenge. Those ley lines mess everything up.
Posted by: MoonShark | December 6, 2009 12:27 PM
So -- *gasp* -- you can add any garbage you want to an equation, as long as you add the same garbage to the other side to cancel it out?? Wow!
I think I'll start writing E=mc^2 as
EZ=mZc^2
where Z is 82.351*e fortnights per gallon. See? That constant e is Euler's number, used as the base for natural logarithms, which makes my formulation FAR more natural than Einstein's :p
Posted by: Tim | December 6, 2009 12:27 PM
The "I have an atheist friend" line at the beginning was also pretty good.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 6, 2009 12:27 PM
No, Mr. Cummings, the relationship the Thoms megalithic yard (MY) has to the Earth's circumference is coincidental. It's true the MY and the metre are similar in length and the metre was supposed to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole on the Paris meridian (it isn't but that's another discussion). And which circumference are we measuring? The Earth is very close to being an oblate spheroid. The circumference at the prime meridian is 12756 km and at the equator is 12713 km, a difference of 43 km. This is not an insignificant number when your equation uses numbers to ten significant figures.
Posted by: Pedro | December 6, 2009 12:28 PM
Quote: "I'd ask you to consider the following. In the equation, pi divided by 0.0123456789 equals the 21 cm wavelength for the hydrogen fine transition. "
What an idiot David! Doesn't he know that he unit "meter", a SI unit, has a numerical value which is chosen totally arbitrarily?
Posted by: stptrck75 | December 6, 2009 12:28 PM
This guy should collaborate with the Time Cube guy. They could hit the lecture circuit together.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | December 6, 2009 12:28 PM
Ommigod! Don't you all realize what he's done?!
He's laid down the mathematical foundation for the infinite improbability drive!
Posted by: Tyler | December 6, 2009 12:29 PM
You guys just don't understand megalithic yards. I wonder how many NASA probes we are going to lose when this all goes mainstream.
Posted by: James | December 6, 2009 12:30 PM
"I'm science guy, I like Dawkins and Hitchens which means I'm not a theist or deist or anything but here's how I prove the existence of God"
I'm paraphrasing of course.
My mind is boggled but probably not in the way they hoped.
Posted by: blf | December 6, 2009 12:33 PM
There's a cup of hot tea involved?
Hum… that does sound like a good idea. 'cuse me whilst I brew up some… cue one infinite improbability drive, with a side order of bagels, coming up!
Posted by: Physicalist | December 6, 2009 12:34 PM
I'm surprised that the second, as a precise unit of time, was in use when Stonehenge was built . . .
Posted by: Zeno | December 6, 2009 12:37 PM
When I was an undergraduate in Pasadena, my classmates and I found it amusing to cite the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight (1.803 × 10^12). I'm sure those units are just as good as the megalithic yard.
If you also toss in firkins as a measure of mass, you get a robust alternative to SI. I just don't know why the FFF system isn't more popular. It's so natural!
Posted by: Elf Eye | December 6, 2009 12:38 PM
In graduate school, whenever I had a few spare moments, I used to amuse myself by coming up with calculations based upon my professors' names that always ended up at the number 666. Textual studies suggest that the number of the beast may in fact have been 612, but my invariably 'successful' calculations just go to show that numerological manipulations allow one to derive any number of nonsensical results--assuming, of course, that none of my professors really were the Antichrist.
Posted by: hyperdeath | December 6, 2009 12:38 PM
If Sarah Palin wins the 2012 election, children will probably be taught this in school.
Posted by: joeyess
|
December 6, 2009 12:43 PM
Having absolutely no scientific background or training, this skeptic isn't going to take a bite of this shiny wrapped bon-bon of metaphysical bullshit.
I don't understand a word of it and I won't go near it. But that doesn't mean that the multitudes of the unspooled won't quote it at length, post it endlessly and probably even use it as a blog banner.
Unspooled. These people are simply unspooled.
Posted by: Luis | December 6, 2009 12:44 PM
So, 0.0123456789 is justified because it comprises all numbers of the decimal system (plus an extra zero for good measure)... Meaning, if you use a hexadecimal system, you'll never see The Truth (TM).
Posted by: scooter | December 6, 2009 12:44 PM
The problem with a Megalithic Yard is first, you have to find undocumented Megalithics to mow the damn thing, and that's not easy, they're not just hanging around in the Home Depot parking lot, you know.
And they have to have diesel powered Yard tools with diamond saw blades, and it makes quite a racket, not to mention the dust.
It's exponentially more difficult than a regular grass and weed yard, which is where the mathematics apply, and you can't get the Megalithics to come over on Sundays, because they are all in church, so that's how the God Equation factors in.
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
December 6, 2009 12:44 PM
If there IS a 'God equation' (or 'most beautiful' equation, then it certainly is Euler's identity!
Now THAT is indeed breathtakingly beautiful!
And there are NO references to pre-historic buildings or arcane measurement systems!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
http://www.mathlesstraveled.com/?p=63
Posted by: gski | December 6, 2009 12:44 PM
Looks like the bible code to me.
Posted by: ABR. | December 6, 2009 12:45 PM
Adding or multiplying a term to both sides of an equation is a mathematical "trick". For his sake, I sincerely hope this guy's emails aren't hacked....
Posted by: Hurin | December 6, 2009 12:45 PM
"I understand the implications are mind-boggling. "
Actually, I think the implications are pretty trivial. The equation doesn't actually predict or signify anything, and apparently it doesn't even compute accurately (see #7).
One other point of contention, the constant 0.0123456789 is an excellent idea, as it had me rolling on the floor, but if we are going ancient (megalithic yards and all that) shouldn't omega be iiiiiivxcm or something?
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | December 6, 2009 12:45 PM
You know, I read the first post. I read this post. I looked really really hard at the equation and (maybe 'cos I'm a lit nerd and not a science geek), I have no idea how it relates to god at all.
So... there's a flaw in your argument right there. Us math 'tards won't get it, so you've got no hope of convincing us that god exists.
Posted by: No BS | December 6, 2009 12:46 PM
David Cumming's Intelligent Earth website;
www.intelligent-earth.com
From what I can see they design software pattern seeking/ tracking software. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com
|
December 6, 2009 12:47 PM
So... this great architect of the universe, to use the Masonic phrase, has a message for builders of the megaliths of the UK, and only the UK, and only if they used a base ten system. Why did this great architect have to be so obtuse?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | December 6, 2009 12:51 PM
all you rationalists who insist on actually doing the math are missing the larger point.
Posted by: Bunk | December 6, 2009 12:51 PM
We all know how important the polar circumference of the Earth is to general physics. Why, without knowing that, we probably wouldn't be able to determine the, um, let's see, oh yeah, the average distance of the hypotenuse of a lunar/polar triangle. Where would all you smarty pantses be without that, huh?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 6, 2009 12:52 PM
Yawn, crackpots think they have made breakthroughs. The usual breakthrough, as in this case, is their brains leaking out...
Posted by: Larry
|
December 6, 2009 12:53 PM
But it's a straight down the line, 100% correct physics equation!!! How can that possibly be wrong? It puts those non-physics type equations to shame.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 6, 2009 1:00 PM
pi smoots = 107 × 107 beard-seconds
107 is the atomic number of bohrium.
Posted by: blf | December 6, 2009 1:00 PM
No, universal education didn't exist in the 3rd century. Neither did algebra. Besides, the children will be too busy with their babble befuddlement to bother with this maths shite. And the Earth isn't round anyways!
Posted by: Frank | December 6, 2009 1:01 PM
http://web.mit.edu/tarvizo/Public/fractal-wrongness.jpg
Some things can only be answered with memetic pictures.
Posted by: Katharine | December 6, 2009 1:03 PM
They apparently don't teach much actual science to computer scientists.
(full disclosure, my best friend is a computer science major who's pretty good with science; I'm not insulting all compsci majors, just noting that the absence of most science education in the compsci curriculum makes it almost as bereft of actual scientific principles as the liberal arts.)
Posted by: Terry | December 6, 2009 1:03 PM
What I read there was
(frequency)(wavelength)= c
(Trivial constant)(frequency)(wavelength)=(Trivial constant)*c
Posted by: ekcol | December 6, 2009 1:05 PM
I'm pretty sure it already is. I was taught "frequency * wavelength = speed" in secondary school. I'm having trouble seeing what's mind boggling about it though.
Posted by: PaulG | December 6, 2009 1:07 PM
It occurs to me that
1 / 81 = 0.01234567890123456789...
No surprise at all that they're holding the thing upside down.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 6, 2009 1:09 PM
So the person is a crank.
The implication is clear.
But it's not mind buggling.
Posted by: cag
|
December 6, 2009 1:10 PM
Among many constants in nature and physics we can now add 0.0123456789 as the WOO factor.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
December 6, 2009 1:11 PM
Dear David,
please specify the dimensions of the number 0.0123456789, and show your work.
If you don't understand this question, or why it's so important, please get a friend knowledgeable in, well, pretty much anything vaguely science-related to explain why this is important
Best Regards
(My) Brain Hertz
I guess I have an answer to my question: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_god_equation.php#comment-2124933
Posted by: Scott de B. | December 6, 2009 1:14 PM
Note that the whole concept of the "Megalithic Yard" hsa also been debunked. It's not true that all Neolithic/Bronze age monuments are constructed to the same measurement system or even that most of them are.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | December 6, 2009 1:14 PM
Ah yes, the megalithic yard, an ancient unit of measurement which was first used in ... the year that Pimp My Ride started on MTV.
That's not a joke. It's theorized in the 1950s, but no one actually knows if it was used, they've not found, for example, anything at all that was used to measure things. The first people who put a figure on it were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_One
And their main thesis is that imperial measurements are more 'natural' than metric.
I think the moral of the story is that you don't need to divide pi by something to detect balls.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 6, 2009 1:16 PM
... man. And I can so picture that press conference:
'Yeah... Um... Well, see, the one subcontractor was presumed to be working in biblical cubits, but somehow in the requirements they got, that got rewritten as megalithic yards...
'... Anyhoo, the point is: no, the vehicle isn't going to get anywhere near Mars... But on the bright side, we might be able to coax it into doing a nice flyby of Eris sometime in... umm...
(Busts out stone slide rule, wiggles it around...)
'... how's January of 2061 work for everyone?'
(/You laugh, but I'm betting somewhere in the Bush administration, there was a working group trying to talk NASA and the major military suppliers into working in cubits.)
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 6, 2009 1:16 PM
-But the equation is simple physics and will become mainstream knowledge.-
I think someone has missed the point. I think that same person is easily "boggled".
Posted by: superposition
|
December 6, 2009 1:16 PM
Dustin@5:
That's pretty common outside the US.
I wonder if this guy has seen "A Beautiful Mind?"
Posted by: Ymir | December 6, 2009 1:16 PM
I'm a graphic artist, not a science guy, but wouldn't an equation proving the absolute existence of god first require an absolute fixed definition of said god?
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 6, 2009 1:17 PM
teachingsapiens wrote:
Ah... see, now I'm starting to think there might be something in it.
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
December 6, 2009 1:17 PM
#48 "It occurs to me that
1 / 81 = 0.01234567890123456789..."
It isn't. Close, but not quite. (The '8' is missing)
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 1:17 PM
David Cumming's Intelligent Earth website;
www.intelligent-earth.com
From what I can see they design software pattern seeking/ tracking software. Why am I not surprised?
Yes, it really worries me that the British police are apparently involved with this loony. No wonder they shoot Brazilian electricians in mistake for Islamist terrorists.
Posted by: Sir Craig | December 6, 2009 1:17 PM
I remember when I used to amuse myself by calculating the largest number possible that was divisible by nine. It's easy: Take any set of numbers and add their individual integers. Keep going until you end up with a single number. If that number is nine, voila! You have a large number that is divisible by nine.
But now it occurs to me: This is a sign! The universe is actually nonary-based! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!
Ergo, God...
</numerology idiocy>
Posted by: Dutch Delight | December 6, 2009 1:17 PM
"I understand the implications are mind-boggling."
It's ok, don't try to hide your pretentiousness David. It makes for better comedy when you don't. Do you make YT videos too?
Posted by: Hurin | December 6, 2009 1:18 PM
"You know, I read the first post. I read this post. I looked really really hard at the equation and (maybe 'cos I'm a lit nerd and not a science geek), I have no idea how it relates to god at all.
So... there's a flaw in your argument right there. Us math 'tards won't get it, so you've got no hope of convincing us that god exists."
Oh, don't play dumb. Arbitrary relationship between a bunch of unrelated important stuff, therefor God. What could possibly be wrong with that logic?
Posted by: Wendy | December 6, 2009 1:20 PM
I love how it's not pseudoscience simply because he's "a great fan of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc". Whole lotta sense THAT makes. /sarcasm
Posted by: Kichae | December 6, 2009 1:22 PM
As others have stated,
pi/0.0123456789 = 254.46900725644122 (presumably the constant omega has units of 1/mm)
which clearly isn't 21. Adjusting for megalithic yards, though, we find
254.46900725644122 * 0.82966 = 211.1227566!
According to Wikipedia, the 21 cm line has a wavelength of
21.10611405413 cm
211 mm!
Well, I'm convinced. Just nobody look at all of those other numbers.
Multiplying by the frequency for the hydrogen line (1420.40575177 MHz according to Wikipedia) gives 299,879,977.8 m/s. Clearly identical to 299,792,458 m/s!
I mean, just look at it!
Now, as a true believer I know I'm not supposed to ask questions, but...
if "The Thoms (or megalithic yards) are just a conversion factor that occurs on both sides of the equation and so can be taken out of the equation by simple arithmetic," then why does the conversion only work if you apply the megalithic yard conversion to one side of the equation?
I'm not sure Mr. Cunningham knows what "both" means.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | December 6, 2009 1:23 PM
Arbitrary relationship between a bunch of unrelated important stuff, therefor God. What could possibly be wrong with that logic?
*facepalm!* Now it all makes sense!
Posted by: DrA | December 6, 2009 1:29 PM
Oh where is Dr. Matrix (Martin Gardiner) when you need him? No one was better at finding numerical "coincidences".
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 6, 2009 1:32 PM
@61
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... etc
Your way is good too.
Posted by: PaulG | December 6, 2009 1:34 PM
@dutchdoc
Aw nuts. Still, if you're supposed to multiply by 81 instead of divide by 0.0123456789, the implications are startling. It implies we should be doing things in base 9. God has nine fingers. Or nine tentacles!
Posted by: Mr T | December 6, 2009 1:36 PM
Cumming's doing it all wrong.
Let:
Bs = 9.876543210 (this is a far more parsimonious number to pull out of one's ass)
π2 = 9.869604401 (NB: my calc can only do 10 decimal places)
Bs - π2 = 0.006938809... (NB: the ellipsis doesn't indicate a repeating decimal, but an arbitrary sequence of numbers we shall ignore.) This is how we derive the Fudge factor:
Ff = 0.006938809
1/Ff = 144.1169534
Now, c = 299,792,458 m/s
If we convert c into the number of photons inside a black hole in units of hogsheads per megalithic yard3, we discover there is an exact relationship such that (c / Ff) / 0 = ∞
∞ = YHWH !!!!
Posted by: Vineeth | December 6, 2009 1:37 PM
A simple example of GIGO(garbage in garbage out). Don't lend unnecessary credibility by talking about it. Or it might end up being the next "controversy".
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
December 6, 2009 1:41 PM
I've just noticed that if you use a value for pi of 2.60569306, you don't need to bother with all that "megalithic yards" crap.
By the way, which god does this prove?
Posted by: Furies | December 6, 2009 1:44 PM
0.0123456789
I had always suspected that the designer of our Universe worked in base 10. Now we know for sure! Thanks David Cumming for making this mainstream knowledge!
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 6, 2009 1:45 PM
DaveH@42: "beard-seconds"
also known as the "Crist Constant?"
Posted by: Peter G.
|
December 6, 2009 1:50 PM
I think I've spotted a critical flaw. He's neglected to multiply by the sine of the angle of the dangle.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
December 6, 2009 1:52 PM
Terry #46:
Exactly. And since speed = frequency * wavelength, if you use the frequency and wavelength of the same (light) transition, you're going to get the speed of light. Why this surprises him is the real mystery here.
Brain Hertz #51:
Obviously the units are seconds per meter, making it the inverse velocity of all the numbers in the base 10 counting system. That makes sense.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 6, 2009 1:54 PM
Jim, only if Jaysus was a physicist too.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 6, 2009 1:56 PM
...Unless you mean the governor of Florida, but I know nothing about him.
Posted by: Nomen Publicus | December 6, 2009 1:57 PM
But god measures things in "pyramid inches". This was fully explained by Astronomer Royal of Scotland Charles Piazzi Smyth in his book "The Great Pyramid: Its Secrets and Mysteries Revealed."
Posted by: strangest brew | December 6, 2009 1:58 PM
Methinks a cretinist spiked David's cocoa with megalithic psilocybin...and David liked it!
Posted by: Wesley | December 6, 2009 1:59 PM
He has yet to justify the use of 0.0123456789. He might as well say "divide by 430958340.43095843," because those are equally random and justified.
The only reason he seems to give is "it represents all of our numbers." So does 1234567890.0, but he's not using that. And hey, that's the numbers in order as they appear on computers! That means it's a totally important number, right?
And apparently base-10 is the only number system favored by the LORD. Good thing we're not using any other heretical number system.
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | December 6, 2009 2:02 PM
If that were a real engineeringy equation thingy, wouldn't it include a measurement from the place where all engineeringy equation thingies were first thought? Has anyone thought to recalculate based upon the Smoot? If that were done, the equation thingy would thus create a space time continuum bridge thingy across the universe.
[calculating]
Nope. Only across the Charles River.
Damn.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 6, 2009 2:02 PM
DaveH: Perhaps that was too obscure. I was actually referring to Charlie Crist the Florida Governor. He recently married after years of rumors that he is afflicted with Teh Ghey.
Wiki him and you can see why the rumors have some credibility.
Posted by: Jake the snake | December 6, 2009 2:04 PM
You just gotta love this line:
So he claims he included a totally irrelevant number, just for the sake of including a totally irrelevant number. (Of course he's not telling the truth about what he actually did with the "megalithic yard", as others pointed out.) He could have just as easily written:
Posted by: MarcusA | December 6, 2009 2:06 PM
So, the product of two constants (Pi and Hydrogen frequency) divided by an arbitrarily chosen constant, omega = 0.0123456789, equals the speed of light in a vacuum, measured in a made-up metric called megalithic yards?
Me thinks I see the variable part.
Posted by: maddogdelta | December 6, 2009 2:07 PM
@rnb #10
"I'm skeptical the guy is actually an engineer."
Unfortunately, he probably is. Check out the Salem hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
And Dr. Cummings, If you were taking my high school physics class, you would fail, and Dr. Myers would pass. He remembers basic dimensional analysis which is New York State standard knowledge for high school physics. You don't. So, before you start lecturing Dr. Myers about science, why don't you go back to school and actually listen to the lecture. Here, I'll give you a link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJV8CHIqFc
(and here is the video that they don't show in the first lecture...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm0bIuAVmOA)
Posted by: DJ | December 6, 2009 2:08 PM
Thats it, I'm convinced! Where do I send my check?
Hooray for making stuff up.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
December 6, 2009 2:11 PM
Jake the snake #84:
He does the same thing when he admits to using π/0.0123456789 to represent the wavelength. Even if we grant him that this gives the dimensionally correct value for the wavelength (and it doesn't), it's still utterly trivial, it's just the definition of frequency and wavelength:
"Frequency has an inverse relationship to the concept of wavelength, simply, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength λ (lambda). The frequency f is equal to the phase speed v of the wave divided by the wavelength λ of the wave: f = v/λ
In the special case of electromagnetic waves moving through a vacuum, then v = c , where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and this expression becomes: f = c/λ"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
Posted by: xebecs | December 6, 2009 2:11 PM
Apparently, this is just one more part of life that can be turned into Calvinball.
Posted by: Dania
|
December 6, 2009 2:17 PM
Says the guy who came up with an equation that gives the speed of light in MHz...
*facepalm*
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
December 6, 2009 2:24 PM
Or perhaps all of them.
Enjoy.
Posted by: becca | December 6, 2009 2:30 PM
and if you add up the value of one quarter, one dime, one nickle and one penny, you get 41 - clearly Douglas Adams was wrong, and the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is 41, not 42
Posted by: scikidus | December 6, 2009 2:35 PM
I think Wikipedia can sort out this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megalithic_yard&redirect=no
Yep, that about sums it up.
Posted by: Max | December 6, 2009 2:39 PM
It is interesting how one can use the sequence of 123456789 to create 100 !
12 + 3 - 4 + 5 + 67 + 8 + 9 = 100
It's magic so 100 must be the god number and the sequence the way to reach him
but wait
12 + 3 - 4 + 5 + 67 + 8 + 9 = 100
123 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 + 8 - 9 = 100
123 + 4 - 5 + 67 - 89 = 100
123 + 45 - 67 + 8 - 9 = 100
123 - 45 - 67 + 89 = 100
12 - 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + 7 + 89 = 100
12 + 3 + 4 + 5 - 6 - 7 + 89 = 100
1 + 23 - 4 + 5 + 6 + 78 - 9 = 100
1 + 23 - 4 + 56 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 100
1 + 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 + 6 + 78 + 9 = 100
phew therefore many gods, damn time to dump christianity and check out those other guys allowing multiple gods/paths
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 6, 2009 2:49 PM
Atheist equation:
π/(9.87654321)] + [(300 cubits)/(2 of each animal)] ≠ 3 persons in 1 God.
It appears that my inequality cancels out your God equation. Therefore, we are at an impasse.
Posted by: Thorne | December 6, 2009 2:50 PM
Aren't you all forgetting something? God's value for pi is actually equal to '3'not '3.1415...." That screws the whole equation up.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 6, 2009 2:52 PM
Dear David,
I suggest going back to elementary school and learning your arithmetic, or at least learning to use a calculator properly. pi/0.01xxxx cannot possibly equal anything around 21. It is clear that you do not understand physics at all (nor arithmetic) and are merely playing a game of numerology - and one where you can't even do the arithmetic properly. If you're an expert in kabbalah you can probably come up with something funnier by going through any Physics textbook. You may even impress the singer Madonna and make a fortune selling her something. She already has kabbalah water, so perhaps you can try kabbalah matzos or something.
Posted by: Hank | December 6, 2009 2:53 PM
Nine noodly appendages. But every noodle has two ends. Perhaps one is in the shape of a moebius strip?
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 6, 2009 2:55 PM
Wikipedia says he was a "quarterback"
Posted by: Wildflower | December 6, 2009 2:56 PM
It sure will... as an 1 point exercise for 1st year students to show what's wrong with it (or alternatively as part of the yearly "holiday paper" just for the lulz).
Posted by: vltava | December 6, 2009 3:02 PM
Tipler was another physicist to go off the deep end like this. Michael Shermer gave all this kind of nonsense a pretty good thrashing in "Why People Believe Weird Things".
Posted by: NitricAcid | December 6, 2009 3:06 PM
Zeno #25- I see I'm not the only one who has worked in the FFF system.
The unit of force in said system is of course, the flick- the force required to flick a fly a furlong.
Posted by: Pareidolius | December 6, 2009 3:08 PM
The above leads me to believe Cummings is experiencing mathematical pareidolia. Being a somewhat innumerate art director myself, I don't speak that language, but do any of you fluent in numbers think it's possible? Can you see meaningful equations in random crap?
I mean really, this Ω business seems like something I would have come up with when my best friend and I played "Star Trek vs. the Cylons" when I was 12. I was always Mr. Spock, so I would use "math" to save the day (drawn out on my dad's whiteboard in the garage), and it always looked suspiciously like Ω.
Posted by: Xantief | December 6, 2009 3:17 PM
Zeno@25, I've seen your work on the Voyager weekly logs. Unfortunately, they no longer list the furlongs/fortnight equivalent.
Let me guess, you were in Pasadena somewhen around 1992?
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 6, 2009 3:18 PM
DavidH:Wikipedia says he was a "quarterback"
Heh, I would have figured he was at least a full back. His voting record on gay rights suggests he's another politician that chose to be heterosexual, hence the speculations that his wife is a "beard."
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 6, 2009 3:21 PM
Damn, I have to remember that "blockquote" is spelled with a k all the time.
Posted by: bking | December 6, 2009 3:21 PM
Really? I mean, if you want to look at an actually insightful equation, just look at the one for the speed of light derived from Maxwell's equations.
You take the maxwells equations for electric and magnetic fields, do some basic manipulation, and you have an electromagnetic wave equation, with a wave propagating at speed
1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0)
with epsilon0 and mu0 being constants previously determined in electromagnetism experiments- the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively. These were found without doing experiments on light itself.
Quite beautifully, this number turns out to be 3*10^8 m/s. The reason it's beautiful is not that some random constants equal c, as per the "God Equation," but that it tells us that light may be an electromagnetic wave (it is, but historically it was unknown) that propagates at this speed.
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 6, 2009 3:24 PM
ooo ooo can I play?
speed of light times .0123456789 divided by the speed of sound times pi....this gives you the wt of approximately 101 moles of Rhodium and I don't need to explain the implications of this to some physicist/engineer.
damn this maths-numerology stuff is fun
((c)BS)/(1123/pi)=10353.94/102(atomic wt of Rhodium)=101
wow just wow
as for that bogus equation shouldn't that be measuring speed of light using neolithic yards? or since stonehenge is on the right side of the Atlantic, neolithic meters? Ha that will throw off yet numers.
Posted by: ally | December 6, 2009 3:28 PM
I don't think it would help this guy to go back to school. I have recently started a Biology degree and so bad are my mathematical skills that I have had to take a remedial course (I'm not stupid just out of practice) and even I can see that this is a pile of crap.
Posted by: Zeno | December 6, 2009 3:33 PM
Nope. Early 1970s, during the tail-end of the Apollo moon missions.
I'm not the only one using "Zeno" as a handle, but I do have evidence that I've been using it longer than most.
Posted by: tuckerch
|
December 6, 2009 3:33 PM
I would imagine that yes, the builders of Stonehenge had measuring devices.
Likely sets of sticks cut to varying lengths to indicate length, breadth, width and depth. With, I would guess, sticks of similar length at the bluestone quarries in Wales, simply as guides for quarrying the megaliths.
I further posit that these measuring sticks have no relationship whatsoever to feet/meters & inches/centimeters. Or indeed, any other system of measurement used for the last thousand years.
Any perceived correlation to the system of measurement used at Stonehenge is strictly in the imagination of Mr. Cumming.
Posted by: Geeky Atheist | December 6, 2009 3:44 PM
OMG, did you know that you can multiply 12345679 * any_digit * 9 and get that digit repeated? THERE MUST BE A GOD!!!!
Also, strange coincidences in base 10 always make me laugh and remember this comic:
http://cowbirdsinlove.com/43
Posted by: Dustin | December 6, 2009 3:56 PM
Some of them even use his bathroom.Posted by: wasd | December 6, 2009 4:09 PM
God loves humans unlike any other animal, but he also loves hydrogen better than any other element and he has a special place in his hearth for the base ten system, take that you heathen binary loving nerds!
Posted by: amphiox | December 6, 2009 4:15 PM
"So, 0.0123456789 is justified because it comprises all numbers of the decimal system (plus an extra zero for good measure)... Meaning, if you use a hexadecimal system, you'll never see The Truth (TM)."
And thus we are saved from the Robot Apocalypse. Terminator and the Matrix are fiction, after all.
Posted by: amphiox | December 6, 2009 4:19 PM
"Nine noodly appendages. But every noodle has two ends."
Thus we have 18 ends. And 18 read backwards and inverted (because gods are perverted that way) is 1/81 = 0.0123456790123456....
Now 8 is the most important number in Chinese numerology. So insert the 8 back into the sequence and voila!
Posted by: Aquaria | December 6, 2009 4:37 PM
The only reason he seems to give is "it represents all of our numbers." So does 1234567890.0, but he's not using that.
And so does 4382759160, but he doesn't use that, either, or any other combination of the base 10 digits. Why does it have to be in order? Oh...right...it has to be a number that will have the voices in his head make sense.
The guy's a looney, pure and simple.
Posted by: Cyg | December 6, 2009 4:37 PM
A contemporary of Galileo, astronomer Francesco Sizi, once explained why there could only be seven planets. He said:
"There are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two ears, two eyes and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent.
"From this and many similar phenomena of nature such as the seven metals, etc., ..., we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.
"Besides, we have the division of the week into seven days, named for the seven planets. Now if we increase the number of planets, this whole system falls to the ground.
"Moreover, [any other planets] are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist."
Quoted from Lecture 18 of the Teaching Company's excellent Philosophy of Science course by Jeffrey Kasser.
Posted by: flea | December 6, 2009 4:38 PM
Hold on guys! David Cummings has a wikipedia page and his credentials are impressive. PZ is just full of envy.
Ckeck it for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cummings
Posted by: BlueRaja | December 6, 2009 4:40 PM
Yours is the only place, anywhere, that reported this. Someone is messing with you.
Posted by: Nemo | December 6, 2009 4:42 PM
The inclusion of megalithic yards demonstrates the Wisdom of the Ancients™, while the Ω constant is there to show that base-ten numbering is divine, and that therefore, we're created in God's image. Or something.
Posted by: Demitri Morgan | December 6, 2009 4:47 PM
...And why must it be 1.23456789e-2 and not 1.23456789e9, which would also be a representation of all 10 digits? The numbers aren't exact anyway. They never are; no arrangement of energy or matter in the universe (i.e. the length of 1 day) stays exactly the same, so no perfect units can be made from such. Associating precise, immutable numbers with messy, dynamic quantities in the universe and claiming there's some perfect link between them is futile.
Wasn't the second a bronze age Egyptian/Babylonian invention? What then is it doing together in the same equation with a unit of length from Neolithic England?
I've seen more mystifying math tricks than that passed around in elementary school.
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 6, 2009 4:50 PM
Speaking of funny numbers...
I'm studying for my Biology final. Can someone explain why I'm being told the cell is haploid at the end of meiosis I when it has a normal number of chromosomes? Seems like it should be haploid at the end of meiosis II?
Posted by: jpf | December 6, 2009 4:50 PM
The fool! He should be using base-20 like the Mayans used. God gave us fingers AND toes for a reason.
Here are my base-20 calculations:
pi (3.2GCEG9GBHJ9CC1508A2E) / 0.01234567890ABCDEFGHIJ (all the base-20 digits) ~= 2GE
In base-10, 2GE = 1134.
If we take the number "1134" and look at it upside-down we get...
"HELL"!
Mathematics proves it: REPENT NOW!
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 5:07 PM
From the link by flea@119:
"Cummings claims that he only uses vi***a when doing back-to-back sex scenes"
After 18 months at Pharyngula, I thought I was fairly sophisticated, but at the thought of back-to-back sex, the mind truly boggles!
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
December 6, 2009 5:09 PM
What I find most mind-boggling is that we've gone through two threads with numerous comments in this Cumming-Myers debate and no one has related it to this Fry & Laurie sketch (see ~0:58).
Posted by: Dania
|
December 6, 2009 5:10 PM
Because you don't have 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes at the end of meiosis I. You have 46 chromatids, half of which are an exact copy of the rest, that is, you have 23 pairs of sister chromatids. A diploid cell has always pairs of homologous chromosomes, and those were already separated by the end of meiosis I.
Posted by: Brian | December 6, 2009 5:24 PM
So pi divided by 0.0123456789 is 21cm. Just one question where did the cm come from?????? if I decided to randomly assign units I might have at least made them fun units, like 21 pairs of socks, or maybe edible units 21 strawberries would be quite nice.
Posted by: Jaycubed | December 6, 2009 5:28 PM
My favorite number is 181,440.
It is just so well rooted.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
December 6, 2009 5:30 PM
U r doin' it rong, guys!
As Max @94 said:
The numbers of the decimal system including the zero belong to a positional decimal numeral system developed in the 9th century BC by Indian mathematicians, later adopted by Chinese, Persian and Arabic mathematicians (and spread to the western world by the High Middle Ages). Therefore, by virtue of the God equation, God is Indian/Hindu, and since Hindu pantheon has 33 million Gods and Goddesses (many of them with multiple arms), together they can totally kick the arse of the God of Abrahamic religions.
Yay for physicsy-sounding gobbledygook!
Posted by: CTC | December 6, 2009 5:37 PM
You know, I have no doubt this guy is an expert in artificial intelligence. It seems his own intelligence is quite artificial, so all he has to do is learn to apply it to silicon-based systems.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 6, 2009 5:40 PM
The man and the woman must both be very flexible.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
December 6, 2009 5:50 PM
He forgot to tell us how big his tin foil hat is.
Posted by: Murphy | December 6, 2009 5:51 PM
strange, I plugged those numbers into my calculator and ended up with 254.4690072562212
But its really besides the point. How does he get from a completely abstract numerical answer, to a real world scalar quantity of 21cm without neither pi or 0.0123456789 being a metric measurement?
Why not 21mm? Or 21 yards? Or 21 Greek stadia? What is the justification for saying that this number is a measurement in centimetres? Could it be that he's arbitrarily called his answer a measurement in cm because it a priori fits an answer he wanted to get?
If that the case, perhaps he should have stuck to something a little more abstract and made a big song and dance about the fact that 21 is the 8th number in the Fibonacci sequence. LOOK AT THE TREES. Or at least the spiral of pine cones. HURRAH PROOF OF GOD!
Counting the hits and forgetting the misses much?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 6, 2009 5:52 PM
Brian #128
That's where the megalithic yard (MY) comes in. As we all know, the MY is 2.72 ft or .829 m, so 21 cm just naturally falls out of the equation, along with everything else.
Posted by: Carlie | December 6, 2009 5:52 PM
Haploid doesn't refer to the total number of chromosomes; it refers to how many "versions" of each chromosome there are. If there is only one version, it's haploid. If there are two versions (as in one from each parent), it's diploid. For haploid and diploid, it doesn't matter how many identical duplicates of that individual chromosome are present.
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 6, 2009 5:52 PM
@127 Dania or 1.5679 if multiplied by .0123...
Thanks.
Seems like it should have its own name for twice as many sister chromatids...it is haploid but haploid+ or haploid2 would be more descriptive. But your explanation is clearer than the book!
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 6, 2009 5:58 PM
Thanks to Carlie too @ 1.69...
Posted by: hjb | December 6, 2009 6:02 PM
Wow, this is the first time I've felt moved to actually comment on here...
Well PZ, consider me as a "reader" rather than a "friend" since I don't actually know you, but I'm a theoretical physics PhD student. And I've checked this. And it is indeed
dimensionally incorrectcomplete and utter bollocks, even ignoring dimensionality.Posted by: Dania
|
December 6, 2009 6:16 PM
You're welcome, kantalope.
LOL, but wouldn't that be "if divided by..."? ;) Anyway, I may be stealing that in the future...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 6, 2009 6:17 PM
So basically he's arguing that pi is rational? Or am I getting this wrong?
Posted by: Dania
|
December 6, 2009 6:24 PM
Forget that. You had it right. I was reading it differently and only got it now. Never mind.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 6, 2009 6:37 PM
James Gates' favorite number: 137.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/video/167-james_gates.html
(at the end)
Very geeky and cute.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
December 6, 2009 6:45 PM
Also, 3735928559 converted to hexadecimal is DEADBEEF.
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 6, 2009 6:45 PM
No, no - I think it is right either way...can't be wronger anyway.
Posted by: scooter | December 6, 2009 6:46 PM
knockgoats @ 125
Are dogs illegal where you live?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
December 6, 2009 6:47 PM
speed of light times .0123456789 divided by the speed of sound times pi....
That's the standard speed of sound, measured in a vacuum, right?
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 6:49 PM
scooter,
You must have some weird dogs where you live! Back-to-back??? Give me a link to an image of it!
Posted by: scooter | December 6, 2009 7:00 PM
Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX9H9DYVvM0
Posted by: Sastra | December 6, 2009 7:01 PM
Years ago, in the magazine which came with the Sunday paper, there used to be regular full-page ads which looked vaguely like news stories, and which invariably started out with the words "I admit it. I'm a skeptic. So when someone told me ____, I found it pretty hard to believe." I don't recall the all the details and permutations, but the blank part was usually some silly piece of pseudoscientific woo. "You can tell personalities by handwriting" or "you can diagnose any illness by looking at the iris of the eye" or (and this one I am pretty sure about) "you can know things about yourself by adding up the letters in your name."
And, of course, in the story the "skeptic" is brought abruptly up to speed, and at the bottom of the page you could fill out a form to take the course in Numerology, or whatever the heck it was. I would wistfully fill them out, because it was my dream to some day afford to take such a course, because the story seemed pretty plausible to me, and those were skills I'd love to have (okay, I was about eight years old at the time.)
How could a woo-ster who thinks he's discovered that God exists also claim to be a fan of atheists Dawkins and Harris? That's easy. He doesn't like either fundamentalists, or organized religion, and he loves the way these guys take them down. He's on their side, there.
It's just that his God, unlike the others, is very sophisticated, and is discovered through science -- and math! -- so there's no conflict.
Another candidate for the Courtier's Reply.
Posted by: intepid | December 6, 2009 7:21 PM
He got it wrong, it should be
pi/0.123456789 = 25.446900725644122
which shows there is a glorious cosmic relationship between an inch and a millimeter
Posted by: JDFraine | December 6, 2009 7:30 PM
Hello,
I'm an astrophysicist. As requested, allow me to explain to you how he's full of crap. :) ( "Stand back, I'm going to try science" -- xkcd)
He means "hyperfine" wavelength, And, he literally just proved one = one:
speed of light = (wavelength)*(frequency)
is well established. So he found the coincidence that the 21 cm hyperfine hydrogen line gives you:
(speed of light)/(wavelength) = frequency
then threw a pi in there and found it makes a number that is the sequence of a base 10 numbering system; when you use "who cares" units.
Personally, I think god works in binary.
Posted by: Kral
|
December 6, 2009 7:46 PM
I dunno, I think he's onto something. I wonder what other universal truths we can uncover?
So if you take every letter in his name, and the space in between, convert them to their ordinal representation in ascii and sum them together, you wind up with the EXACT SAME NUMBER as if you take the price of a Fleet's Enema two-pack kit sold by planetrx for $2.17[1] (in pennies), multiply by the state sales tax in Wisconsin, then multiply by 6.
This is shocking. It clearly shows that David Cumming requires 12 enemas (one for each of the twelve days of Christmas!), and should move to Wisconsin.
As UNDENIABLE PROOF for the skeptics, in Python (will sum to zero):
(sum([ord(i) for i in list("David Cumming")]) * 1.05) - 6 * (2.17 * 100)
[1] http://www.planetrx.com/shop/detail.cfm?sku=a1132&rfr=FRG&zmam=1000941&zmas=26&zmac=106&zmap=a1132
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 6, 2009 7:54 PM
OMFG!
eφ/(1+α)≈ 5, which is the number of fingers we have on our hands! Truly we are made in God's image!!!!!11!!
e= Euler's constant
φ= Golden Mean
α= Fine structure constant
Also,
Ronald Wilson Reagan (6 6 6). Zombie Reagan is the anti-Christ!
Posted by: JDFraine | December 6, 2009 8:00 PM
Actually, eφ/(1+α)≈ 5.07996741 ≈ 5.1
so god made a really bad rounding error that my 2nd grade niece would have spotted :)
Posted by: CRS | December 6, 2009 8:12 PM
Cumming and his megalithic yards. Reminds of me of what we (we = teh gayz) euphemistically called "AOL inches" when referring to someone's supposed endowment. I'd bet a megalithic yard has all the real-world relevance of an AOL inch.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 6, 2009 8:26 PM
Hmmm, I keep getting ≈ 5.00663. In any case, God clearly likes to round to the nearest integer (see π=3).
Posted by: Budbear | December 6, 2009 9:20 PM
It appears to me that David has experienced more mind-buggering than mind-boggling. So sad.
Posted by: Epikt | December 6, 2009 10:44 PM
DaveH_of_Lundun
But doesn't the smoot get slightly smaller as it ages?
Posted by: Epikt | December 6, 2009 10:50 PM
"Email this equation to ten scientists you know, and good luck and great wealth will come your way!!! Do not break the chain, or terrible things will happen to you or your family!!! One organic chemist broke the chain, and now he lives in Lima, Ohio!!!"
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave | December 6, 2009 10:59 PM
@95
π/(9.87654321)] + [(300 cubits)/(2 of each animal)] ≠ 3 persons in 1 God
Obviously, but God just put that in there to test our faith. Stupid atheists: if there were no God, how come 1+1 EXACTLY EQUALS 2!!?!! Not 2.3, not 1.7, and not that godless Planck's constant, but 2 precisely to INFINITE PRECISION.
Also, nobody has an explanation for the beautiful expression cos x + i(sin x), which the heathens blaspheme by calling it Euler's formula. Not only is the i(sin x) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX (it cannot be factored and is obviously complex do to the i term), it clearly spells out "I sin" which is a clear reference to the fall. Note also that "cos" is an acronym for "Christ on a Stick", so the formula beautifully explains how Christ is the redeemer that exactly cancels out our sins and makes the equation real.
Posted by: SteveM | December 6, 2009 11:03 PM
I remember reading a long time ago someone suggesting that if you really must base your measurement system on a geographical feature then the onlt one that is completely unambiguous is the diameter of the earth from north pole to south pole.
Posted by: J | December 6, 2009 11:12 PM
Has Cumming used the equation to make a series of successful experimental predictions?
No?
The circumference of my ass is 42 inches, the diagonal measurement of my TV is 42 inches, ergo there is (and in my case the units work out without a fudge-factor) compelling evidence to chose looking at my ass for entertainment as opposed to looking at TV.
Now, everyone reading this must send me $69.95 per month just like they do the cable company.
Actually, only you Cumming, must send me the $69.95, unless you can publish your results in Science before mine, good luck.
Posted by: Slater | December 7, 2009 4:33 AM
What I don't get is, even if we - for argument's sake - assume this equation is perfectly valid and correct, how does that in any way indicate god?
Why wouldn't nature function by equations? There are many other interesting constants, such as the golden ratio, phi. Does that indicate a god, or just that... hey, everything is math.
Posted by: F
|
December 7, 2009 5:11 AM
I still don't see where two dimensionless numbers and some inverse multiplication get you anything in cm.
Posted by: Michael | December 7, 2009 5:34 AM
Numbers are pretty. This is about all I can take from the equation.
Posted by: jennyxyzzy | December 7, 2009 6:29 AM
Occam's Aftershave:
Aaargh! OK, excuse me, but I have a divine mission (as in 'Oh, your mission is absolutely divine daaaahling') to correct mis-use of the word 'do' by my American cousins.
The correct spelling is 'due' not 'do'. You can not imagine just how jarring this error is when you come from a culture where the two words are pronounced differently (such as in England, Australia etc).
Posted by: F
|
December 7, 2009 6:55 AM
Oh, yay! "pzfool" is back?
And he's posted "everywhere on the internet"!
Strange how it can still post here, what with the plug pulled and all...
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 7, 2009 7:01 AM
jennyxyzzy,
Interesting. That is something I did not know and wouldn't have expected. In US-English, we also have the shortening of "do you" that comes out like "dyoo", which probably sounds similar to the non-US English "due"; and in US-English, there is the triplicated homophone "dew" (it looks like that one sounds like the non-US English "due" outside the US).I wonder if the effect of writing a homophone in place of the word you want is a symptom of spellcheckers that don't check grammar and/or mark too many words not in the database (causing spell-check fatigue), or if there is something more too it like the cost of spelling errors being extremely low on computers (not having to erase anything) or the casualness with which we communicate on blogs that facilitates mistakes.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 7, 2009 7:06 AM
For instance:
*sigh*Posted by: sailor1031 | December 7, 2009 7:52 AM
Damn - I understood it perfectly until he clarified it. Now I'm totally confused so no belief in god this year....
Posted by: Parsimonious McPedant | December 7, 2009 8:22 AM
The correct spelling is 'due' not 'do'. You can not imagine just how jarring this error is when you come from a culture where the two words are pronounced differently (such as in England, Australia etc).
Not nearly as jarring as when I hear Aussie sports announcer Michael "The Voice" Schiavello pronounce the word debut as day-boo, I assure you. Or any time he opens his ample maw, really.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 7, 2009 9:35 AM
I found a very nice BBC2 documentary taking down the Tomb of God stuff after the last thread. I'd still like to see someone destroy the argument for the churches of Bornholm having been placed according to mystical patterns.
I'm still pretty gullible when it comes to finding pretty patterns.
Posted by: akhen3sir | December 7, 2009 9:47 AM
I wish people would actually go and read Alexander Thom's 1955 paper to the Royal Statistical Society.
Posted by: Svlad Cjelli | December 7, 2009 10:41 AM
C minus (C/2) minus (C/4)2 = 0
C is a value in this universe.
Ergo, I do not exist.
Posted by: KeithB | December 7, 2009 11:25 AM
If these guys just disappear, I think we can assume that they are on to something that The Laundry needs to suppress.
Posted by: rob | December 7, 2009 11:34 AM
this is the classical version of the god equation. if you write out the relativistic version, the speed of light comes out equal to 1.
Posted by: Foggg | December 7, 2009 11:36 AM
He's in Oklahoma. The next annual Gathering for Gardner is March 24-28, 2010 in Atlanta. http://www.g4g4.com/Posted by: gr8hands | December 7, 2009 12:59 PM
Disclaimer: I have been programming computers since the 1970s, including some rather cutting edge stuff at the time (back when the phrase 'cutting edge' was brand new and not some trite ex-cliché).
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being a programmer or database person doesn't automatically make one a 'scientist' any more than learning to play Chopsticks makes one a concert pianist.
So why does David think that anyone should believe a word he writes, as he's already inaccurate concerning his own credentials?
I mean, I worked as a data person at a research lab, but I didn't claim to be a scientist on that basis. I worked as a computer person at several hospitals, but I don't claim to be a physician on that basis.
Yes, a stopped clock is correct twice a day, but there is no reason to believe that at any particular time the clock happens to be correct. When David is inaccurate concerning himself, he loses credibility about anything he does -- logically he may be correct, but there is no reason to believe that he is, as he's proven himself to be unreliable. Everything he puts out merits extra scrutiny due to his errors.
Posted by: The Man Who Reamortized the World
|
December 7, 2009 1:20 PM
Has anyone contacted Professor Howard Birack in Los Angeles about this?
There's an abandoned church basement under the care of one Father Loomis that would surely benefit from this fine work.
Posted by: speckospock | December 7, 2009 1:31 PM
What is so special about this? It's just two constants, that when divided by another (arbitrary) constant, make a fourth constant. There's no point to it. My god, math works! Alert the media!
Posted by: kopd | December 7, 2009 3:09 PM
As a programmer myself, I think this analogy would work work better of you had said "learning to play the tuba" instead of Chopsticks. Being a decent programmer is a bit harder than playing Chopsticks, but it still has nearly nothing to do with science.
Posted by: John Norris | December 7, 2009 3:22 PM
"In the equation, pi divided by 0.0123456789 equals the 21 cm wavelength for the hydrogen fine transition."
21 is also the legal drinking age in the USA, god I need a drink. 21 is the atomic number for Scandium, god, what is Scandium ?
And the best evidence that this is the God Equation: 21 is exactly half of 42!!!
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
December 7, 2009 4:04 PM
I suspect the tides change that too, for a number of reasons: 1- The north pole floats on an ocean. That makes the distance from pole to pole dependant on changes in the global seawater distribution. When more of the global seawater is distributed to the arctic than normal, the north pole rises, and when less water is distributed to the arctic than normal, the north pole lowers. 2 - The tide effect that elongates the elipsoid of the Earth doesn't just pull the equator out, it also "squishes" the poles in. 3 - The amount by which it "squishes" the poles in would normally be rather constant at all times if not for the fact that the surface of the earth is not made of a uniformly elastic material. The oceans stretch more than the land does, so depending on where the tide is, the amount of deformation of the surface water varies. As it varies, the level of the arctic sea should vary too. (And don't forget the the points of highest tide drift north and south through the month since the moon's orbit is tilted relative to the earth's equator.)Therefore the north pole, being a floating pole affected by all of that, still isn't a constant measure to use.
It might work better if you called the "north pole" the surface of the land that sits under the bottom of the arctic sea, which isn't technically the north pole, but it would make a more consistent measure.
Although, the fact that there's lots of liquid earth down in the mantle might still make the land, floating on top of the mantle as it does, suceptable to slight tidal changes through the month as the moon sine-waves it's way back and forth across the equator.
Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 4:26 PM
My understanding of spellcheckers is that they only check spelling, not grammar. Grammar checkers are something else entirely. My own theory is that the prevalence of homophone errors is due entirely to spellcheckers being substituted for good old fashioned proofreading. People now seem to believe that the purpose of proofreading was to catch spelling errors, so if you have a spellchecker you don't need to proofread. And this applies not just to casual blog commentators but to professional journalists. I seem to see more and more of these kinds of errors even in printed magazines and newspapers.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
December 7, 2009 4:29 PM
The comment that it's not science doesn't say anything about how hard it is or how much intelligence it takes. It's just saying it's not the same type of activity. As a programmer myself, I agree that it's not science, and that therefore the degree most universities call "computer science" is incorrectly named. It's a lot closer to being like engineering than science. Although that's not exactly the right fit either, it's closer than calling it science. It's hard to categorize because it's a relatively new TYPE of thing, taking the long view of the history of academia. "It's sort of a form of math or formal language except that unlike other forms of math or language its purpose is to cause things to happen rather than describe things that happen" That's a rather new kind of thing that wasn't possible before - hence the English language hasn't caught up with it yet and invented a good word for that kind of thing.It's a bit like the ancient idea that you can do magic where writing out linguistic and mathematical constructs in the right sort of primal language would actually alter reality to cause what you wrote to happen. It's just that now, we've invented machines that act as the engines to make incantations actually work and it's not just make believe.
Although, if they renamed computer science as "magical incantations that make your computer go", it might attract the wrong sort of students.
Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 4:36 PM
I agree. I've recently begun to wonder why we don't adjust the length of the meter so that c is exactly 300,000m/s. (or 1 light second = 300,000 meters) And while we're at let's make the foot exactly 1 nanolightsecond.
Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 4:41 PM
So let's just run with it and call it "Computer Magic" instead of Computer science. "Spells" instead of "programs", etc. No, I'm not being snarky, I think it would be great.
Posted by: Haley | December 8, 2009 3:48 AM
Um, I'm a humanities student(ducks for cover)who hasn't taken anything higher than high school math, and even I can see the bullshit in this equation. Besides, why would an equation that relates two laws of the universe prove the existence of a god? Some form of the Goldilocks universe argument?
I feel bad for this guy. He probably really believes this.
Posted by: Vuvuzealot | December 8, 2009 1:20 PM
aratina,
Among most Australians, especially the younger ones, "due" and "dew" are indistinguishable from "jew". Similarly, "deuce" sounds the same as "juice". For some reason, people who pronouce it more like "dyoo" tend to be older.