The Incredible Creation Inch and Other ‘True” Stories

Posted by Chris Parker | April 20, 2009 1

by Chris Parker
CopyRight 2009

Actually, the incredible creation inch is an inch and a half. Still incredibly small he was, but given enough time and patience, he might have achieved a great deal. Clearly though, the incredible creation inch didn’t have as much time as some insisted that he did, so that in the end, his achievements are/were modest.

Before we complete the incredible inch’s tale though, let me tell you another.

Once upon a time a beautiful island was discovered in the middle of one of the great oceans. In the course of time, 9 very large, unique boulders were discovered to be distributed around the Island. The boulders were unique in part due to their great size, but also because they were of a type found no where else on the Island.

The indigenous people knew nothing of the great stones. The prevailing theory (the volcanic dispersion theory) became that the stones ended up where they were due to a titanic volcanic explosion in the distant past, which had been powerful enough to place the stones exactly where they rested.

Some scientists noted that the stones were not of a volcanic type, but the theory persisted.

Many years after the prevailing theory became set in stone, a scientist working alone discovered something startling about the great stones. He found that there was an underlying formula which predicted the placement of each of the stones exactly, most of them to four decimal places.

Given the distance of any one of the stones from a central point, the correct distance to any other stone could be derived by the formula and; given the distance between any two of the stones, the correct distance for the entire series of stones could be derived; exactly.

This of course meant that the placement of the stones was not random as one would expect if their final location on the island was really the result of an explosion. This meant that the volcanic explosion theory was invalid; incorrect. The scientist’s conclusions with respect to the placement of the great stones were eventually verified and found to be correct, although the actual intent of the various analyses had been to prove his findings to be wrong.

There was no theory explaining how rocks placed in an explosion could fall in such a way as to appear to have been placed.

It was a mystery; a genuine enigma, but the volcanic dispersion theory continued to hold. It continued to be taught in school and written about in textbooks. Research grants were applied for and received. The volcanic placement theory was the object of a number of doctoral theories which confirmed some aspect of or expanded the scope of the theory.

Accepting that the stones were placed in their positions would have invalidated work done with money from government grants. It would have impacted people in science who in one way or another had made their reputation on work done advancing the theory.

It would have meant reexamining the notion that the indigenous people were the first inhabitants of the Island-or it would have forced them to conclude that the indigenous people had higher technology in the distant past than they did currently. All of these potential outcomes were, for various reasons, unacceptable, so for years after “science” knew that the stones had to have been placed, the volcanic dispersion theory remained the accepted and “official” explanation. It still is today.

If you haven’t already guessed, the ocean is the universe; the island is our solar system and the “great stones“ are the planets orbiting our sun. The “volcanic dispersion theory” is the “big bang” theory. I don’t know who the indigenous people are in our story but the scientists are scientists.

Unlike the stones in our story, the planets move in an elliptical motion around the sun. When we speak of distance here we are speaking about their orbits. That the placement of the planets in out solar system is non-random has been known for more than 300 years.

The Titius-Bode Law:“Johann Titius, a German astronomer, discovered a numerical relationship describing the relative distances of the then-known planets from the sun. Another German astronomer, Johann Bode, popularized the relationship and, as is often the way of science, became associated with it. It is often called Bode’s law; occasionally, Titius-Bode law.

The semi major axes of the orbits of the planets follow the relationship: a = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2n where a is the semi major axis is astronomical units (AU) and the exponent, n, takes values minus infinity, 1,2,3, …

This was strictly a numerological relationship and, to this day, has resisted a compelling physical rationale. The value for n=3, 2.8 AU, corresponds to the location of the asteroid belt, and gives mild support for the hypothesis that the asteroids come from a failed or exploded planet.

The first test of the law occurred a few years later (1781) when William Herschel discovered Uranus — at the distance predicted by the relationship. Neptune, the next planet to be discovered, is much closer to the Sun than predicted by the law. Pluto occupies the n=8 position instead. Another oddity is that the first term in the relationship is minus infinity rather than, say, zero.

This suggests that the underlying physical law is somewhat different than the current form.
Recently, the first planets outside our Solar System have been discovered orbiting pulsars (the central stars of which are neutron stars). It appears that these planets also obey the Titius-Bode law. Some other solar systems don’t seem to follow this “law”, but only some of the planets in these systems have been discovered. It is interesting that this simple relationship has been known for over 300 years but still defies physical proof (or dis-proof).”

A number of people have refined this anomalous relationship between the planets of our solar system. G.E. Curtis is one who has been working on this enigma for some time. He concludes;

1) The major orbits of the Solar System are contained within, and interrelated by, the main equation.
2) The ratio b/a and of course B/A is equal to the orbit of Venus but is also determined by the orbit of Venus. This is not simply an approximation; it is accurate to five decimal places, and unique.
This ratio pervades the whole Solar System.
3) The equations are bi-directional, an inner orbit could be calculated from an outer orbit.
4) The orbits can be calculated from Pythagoras.
5) The orbits can be calculated with the use of trigonometry.
6) The implied triangles are all similar, and similar to a triangle constructed from Venus/Earth mean orbits.
7) Orbits can be calculated by adding and subtracting constants.
8) Equations allow orbital distances to be interchanged with orbital periods.
9) Any orbit can be calculated from any other, and all the orbits can be calculated from any two.

Table demonstrating how closely the real orbits conform to the mathematical pattern described in text.

10) The orbits can be calculated by a number of different routes from any datum orbits. Deviations from Norton’s data will vary very slightly depending on the route taken.

Taking all the above facts into consideration, it is difficult to maintain the notion that the Solar System originated solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles.
The percentage variation column indicates that the prediction of the planets orbits versus the actual orbits are virtually identical.

This should not be the case if the big bang theory is correct and there is no physical law or gravity related theory which would explain this non-random planetary alignment.

The Incredible Creation Inch.

According to Cornell University’s “Ask an Astronomer” and other sources, the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of approximately 1.5 inches per year. Among the various impacts of this occurrence, is that the earth’s rotation is imperceptibly slowing and days are becoming milliseconds longer.

The average distance between the earth and the moon is 238,855 miles. This means that the size of the incredible creation inch (1.5 inches 0)) is unimportant and too small to notice. In 6,000 years, an annual movement away from earth would only amount to 9,000 inches, or 750 feet. That kind of insignificant movement would no doubt have very little impact on the tides, for example.

But let’s see, there are those who say that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. In 1 million years, at the current rate of departure, the moon would move away approximately, 1.5 million inches, which is 125,000 feet or 23.67424 miles.

23.67 miles would seem to be, not trivial, but still nothing really to worry about moving the average distance from the earth to the moon out to 238,878.6742 miles.

In a billion years, those 1.5 inches a year would move the moon out 23,674.24 miles which is beginning to sound serious. The impact of a moon out 23,674 miles further from earth than where it had initially “settled” or been placed would be enormous.

But how old does science say that the earth is? Approximately 4.5 billion years old. That’s old!

The incredible creation inch says that in that time, the moon would have moved away from the earth 106,534.09 mile!. The incredible creation inch says that the moon earth system is way younger than 4.5 billion years. Perhaps something on the order of 10,000 years or less is called for, even if you think 1.5 inches a year is too high.

One Response