Instigator / Pro

janesix

1395

rating

debates

4.17%

won

Topic

#2863

The three cubed canon, and how the solar system is designed. There are no accidents.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 03.08.2021 01:45PM
Last updated date: 04.01.2021 11:44AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,080
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Benjamin

1774

rating

debates

77.55%

won

Description

How it is designed to be.

Round 1

janesix

03.09.2021 04:15PM

Pro

(Before I forget, the main source is all the work of John Michell, especially "How the World is Made")

The main number canon is three cubed. It is the first level of surface understanding of the entire canon, which gets much more complicated. It is the first baby step.

3^3, or 3x3x3, or three cubed equals 27

Now increase by doubling to get the basic canon

27x2=54

54x2=108

216

432

864

etc.

In this canon, zeros and decimals can be ignored, it is the numerals that count. The numerals can also be transposed, such as 864 and 648

In canon numbers

Moon Radius = 1080

Moon Diameter=2160

Sun Radius=432000

Sun Diameter=864000

Earth Radius=3690

Earth Diameter=7920

Earth Radius plus Moon Radius=5040

1x2x3x4x5x6x7=5040

8x9x10x11=7920

In this canon, 22/7 is used for pi

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

Squaring the Circle

Since I have no way to make a graphic, you will have to draw it yourself or google it (John Michell squared circle will bring up the graphic)

Draw a square. Draw a circle inside the square which touches the sides of the square. this inner circle represents the Earth, with a diameter of 7920, Radius of 3960.

Draw a circle with circumference of 31680 over the square (who's sides equal 31680, or 7920x4)

Draw a smaller circle directly on top of the square, so it's center lies on the outer circle. This small circle represents the Moon, with a diameter of 2160, Radius 1080.

1080 + 3960 (the Earth and Moon Radii combined)=5040

31680 x pi (22/7 or 3.142857)=10080

5040x2=10080

Now My "canon" numbers are off by 1.0009099 percent from the "real" measurements in miles. Is one percent really enough to conclude that the canon numbers weren't meant to be the design? It is just a coincidence that these numbers are so close? I say this is no coincidence. It is just common sense. The final product rarely conforms exactly to it's specs. And these objects are huge, they are planetary bodies. Measuring devices themselves are rarely(if ever) exact.

Benjamin

03.10.2021 07:46PM

Con

By manipulating numbers in strange ways, abusing mathematical rounding and cherry-picking certain numbers, PRO has managed to prove null, zero, zilch.

Even if we were to accept his complicated mathematical shenanigans, it would mean nothing:

Some coincidences feel like fate. When you meet a stranger who inexplicably shares your birthday or somehow run into an acquaintance while you’re both far away from home, you’re often left asking, “What are the odds?” Well, according to math, the odds are generally pretty good. The science behind coincidences shows that these seemingly impossible occurrences are often more mathematical than magical. [bustle.com/p/the-science-of-coincidences]

You can always find some cool mathematical correlations, but to back extraordinary claims on such underwhelming evidence is the peak of pseudoscience.

PRO has not made any attempt at fulfilling his BoP. Regardless, his argument is faulty on so many levels.

PROBLEMS:

Mathematical cherry-picking, ignoring the overwhelming number of numbers that don't fit into this argument
No sources, no facts, not even an explanation of the argument
Conclusion is a non sequitor
Lacklustre evid.......

Heck, everything is wrong.

Or maybe my brain is simply not intelligent enough. I certainly understood no part of PRO's argument.

Round 2

janesix

03.12.2021 12:33PM

Pro

My argument is very simple. The numbers 27, 54, 216, 432etc are the base for designing the solar system, and possibly the universe (and I have reason to believe it also extends into the rest of the universe) These numbers, with other sets of canonical numbers, also are basics of geometry(2160 total degrees in a cube, 108 interior angle of a pentagon) and other things. Pretty much they are the matrix that reality is built on. They are like the ABC's or the primary colors. Once you have the basics figured out, there are other deeper levels.

These numbers are also found in time measurements, such as 86,400 seconds per day, 2160 years per age of the Precession. I say these numbers are not a coincidence or arbitrary. They are a reflection of the knowledge of the three cubed system. Either someone figured it out, or more likely they were guided to it, or even shown directly.

The number 216 is very important, as it shows how more than one system tie together. 216=6x6x6 . This is part of the base six system, which is reflected in the "base sixty" system of the ancient sumerians, and of which we still use today. It is really a base six mixed with a base ten, which is a reflection of a very basic growth factor, which is one and six. You can see this in the seed of life. One surrounded by six, then six surround ing the first six, and so on to infinity. (this is where you get 12 around one, as is reflected by Jesus and his apostles and the twelve houses of the zodiac with the sun in the middle.)

Benjamin

03.12.2021 12:58PM

Con

PRO has not proved that the solar system is designed. PRO has not proved anything. Science knows how the universe got its current structure, so PRO is mistaken.

Round 3

janesix

03.14.2021 11:16AM

Pro

I have decided I will no longer share any information with you humans , as you are still too much like monkeys. Good luck with growing up.

Benjamin

03.16.2021 10:31AM

Con

My opponent conceded. VOTE CON.

Round 4

janesix

03.18.2021 10:31AM

Pro

Forfeited

Benjamin

03.18.2021 11:44AM

Con

Vote CON.

Benjamin

03.18.2021 01:23PM

-->

@Undefeatable

thank you for the vote

fauxlaw

03.12.2021 03:23PM

If a three-cubed canon is supposed to define the solar system design, why is it that the theory works only with the Sun, Earth, and Moon? There are other elements to the solar system [other planets, and their moons, plus an asteroid belt, comets, etc]. Why don't these other elements fit the paradigm?

The same interrupt of logic applies t the squared circle, for which other planets and their moons do not have the same ratio of size as Earth/Moon.

A far better design theory is the prevailing use of the golden ratio: 1:1.618, as demonstrated by Fra Luca de Pacioli, friend of Leo Da Vinci.

Intelligence_06

03.12.2021 12:34PM

What

janesix

03.10.2021 04:42PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

"Sure sounds like numerology"

No, numerology is assigning meanings to numbers, and I am not doing that in this case(although I do do it in other circumstances) There is also the gematria aspect, which I do not do, which is assigning numbers to letters and creating meanings for the results. I have dabbled in gematria for a small extent, but I have never gotten into it much, it doesn't really interest me.

Sum1hugme

03.10.2021 04:07PM

-->

@janesix

Sure sounds like numerology

janesix

03.10.2021 03:27PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

"Numerology is a long, complicated road to nowhere."

It's not numerology.

Sum1hugme

03.10.2021 03:17PM

-->

@janesix

Numerology is a long, complicated road to nowhere.

janesix

03.10.2021 01:25PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

My argument is that the solar system is designed according to specific numbers, basically, multiples of three cubed, and others that tie in with those

Sum1hugme

03.09.2021 06:22PM

-->

@janesix

What is this argument about? I read your opening but I'm just more confused about what you're arguing for

Undefeatable

03.18.2021 12:51PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

concession