Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
RE: RE: Here Is Something To Chew On...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Rich on October 31, 2000 20:53:59 UTC

I think you have simplified the question too much. Why is 10 such a perfect number? We see it that way because we set things in groups of 10. But why wouldn't a numeric system based on 8 work well? What about a numeric system based on 12 number sets. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c. Or even 16? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f,g. Why is 10 the simpliest? Why not 5? 1,2,3,4,5 11,12,13,14,15 21,22,23,24,25. But even when trying to make these parallels I am invoking our number 10 numeric system. And how about the logarithmic scale and exponential scales. The number 10 is not a given as you seem to think.

Sure, revolving is how objects keep from getting pulled into stars. I knew that. I wanted to know about why and how it started that way! Obviously it must be this way, but when the first atoms were born, why did the electrons not get sucked up within the first born nuclei? Why did they start rotating around the nucleus?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins