The Narrow Path Ministries

Here something I worked out concerning the relationship between the Fibonacci series of numbers and the distances of the planets from the sun:

As you know, each number in the Fibonacci Series is formed by adding the previous two numbers of the series. The first ten terms are:

1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89

My definition of FAS (Fibonacci astronomical unit) — “50 million km”

There appears to be a correlation between the first 6 Fibonacci numbers and the distance from the sun of the closest planets including the asteroids (Ceres being the best representative). Jupiter’s distance, however, seems a bit too much.

Planet---------Fibonacci No.--------Average Distance from Sun (in FAS)
Mercury------------1-------------------------1.158
Venus---------------2------------------------2.164
Earth---------------3------------------------2.992
Mars----------------5------------------------4.559
Ceres---------------8------------------------8.275
Jupiter-------------13----------------------15.567

Saturn’s distance from the sun (28.539 FAS) is far greater than the next Fibonacci number (21). However it is close to the median of the next two Fibonacci numbers. This leads me to the speculation that there were once two planets at distances of approximately 21FAS and 34 FAS from the sun, and that they collided to form Saturn, the second largest planet in the solar system and having 31 moons and 5 rings.

Planet--------------------Fibonacci No.--------Average Distance from Sun
(former planet?)--------------21----------------------???
Saturn-------------------------27.5(median)---------28.539
(former planet?)--------------34---------------------???

Finally we see that Uranus is close to the next Fibonacci number, and Neptune is right on the button:

Uranus-------------------------55-----------------57.430
Neptune------------------------89-----------------89.000

Now Pluto, at a distance of 118 FAS is nowhere near the expected 144 FAS. That shouldn’t surprise us, as Pluto has a very eccentric orbit, and is almost a twin planet with its moon Charon whose diameter is half that of Pluto itself. There is almost mutual revolution between Pluto and its large moon. It was once thought that Pluto revolved around Neptune, but now this is considered unlikely. Some astronomers speculate that Pluto is not actually a planet at all, but a comet or large asteroid.

This is very interesting.

To what do you attribute the relationship of the distances to the fibonacci sequence. I assume God. If so, what do you think the meaning is?

Thank you for your interest, Morbo. It would seem that most people don't take an interest in such things. Since you do, you might be interested in the many ways in which the fibbonaci series occurs in nature. If so, here is a website that gives some of them:

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-si ... ibnat.html

I don't know whether you have ever played the game of subtracting from 30 (or some other number). The first player subtracts a number (must be a positive integer) from 30. The second player may subtract any integer up to DOUBLE the number which the first player subtracts. In his next turn the first player may subtract up to DOUBLE the number which the second player subtracted and so on until the game ends.

The game ends when a player has reached 0. The first player to do so wins.

Sample game #1
Player A subracts 10, leaving 20. Since player B may subtract up to double 10, that is any integer up to 20, he subtracts 20. This leave 0 making the second player the winner.

Sample game #2
Play A subtracts 5, leaving 25.
Player B may subtract any integer up to 10. He choose to subtract 4 leaving 21.
Player A may subtract any integer up to 8. He chooses to subtract 4 leaving 17.
Player B may subtract any integer up to 8. He chooses to subtract 4 leaving 13.
Player A may subtract any integer up to 8. He chooses to subtract 3, leaving 10.
Player B may subtract any integer up to 6. He chooses to subtract 2 leaving 8.
Player A may subtract any integer up to 4. He chooses to subtract 1 leaving 7.
Player B may subtract any integer up to 2. He chooses to subtract 2 leaving 5.
Player A may subtract any integer up to 4. He chooses to subtract 1 leaving 4.
Player B may subtract any integer up to 2. He chooses to subtract 1 leaving 3.
Player A may subtract any integer up to 2. He chooses to subtract 1 leaving 2.
Player B may subtract any integer up to 2. He chooses to subtract 2 leaving 0.
Player B wins again!

My nephew and I played this game for hours, seeking to find a way to become a perfect player.
Suddenly the answer dawned on me. The Fibonacci series!

Morbo, I can't say whether or not God caused the planets to be in a distance from the sun corresponding to the Fibonacci series of numbers. The same with all those other natural correspondences.

However, I have often marvelled as to the fact that the sun and the moon appear to us to be EXACTLY the same size in the sky. This is evident during a total solar eclipse when the disk of the moon fits exactly on the disk of the sun (as viewed from earth). Yet the Sun is about 186,000 miles in diameter, while the moon is a mere 2,000. The sun is about 93,000,000 miles away, while the moon is a mere 290,000. Did God design the size and distances of the sun and moon from earth so that they would appear to be the same size, or is it a mere coincidence? It could be coincidence, but seems unlikely.

However, there is a particular honey bee behaviour which could not a coincidence. When a worker finds a source of nectar, she flies back to the hive and does a figure-8 bee dance on one of the frames to inform other workers the distance and direction of the nectar source.

People have observed that if the centre of the figure 8 is vertical, then the nectar source is directly toward the position of the sun at the time (whether it's sunny or cloudy). However, if the centre of the figure 8 is 37º to the left of the vertical, then the nectar source is 37º to the left of the sun! And so on with any other angle!

Now honey bees have not studied geometry. Indeed, the worker bees which follow the dancing bee around determine the direction and distance by the pheromones which the dancing bee is exuding.

So why the relationship between the angle of the figure-8 centre and the angle of the sun? That relationship does not help the bees in any way. It's not a matter of survival. Evolution cannot account for it. So I can see no other way to account for it except that the Creator did it that way to wow us and make us aware of His presence in nature.

That's interesting about the bees.

I honestly don't know how someone can be an atheist. My dad proclaimed himself one for most of my life.. he has since downgraded to agnostic.

There really is no alternative to an intelligent design first cause of the universe that is satisfactory. I can't comprehend eternity. Because this world demands a first cause, and thus eternity doesn't make sense. But I think that the "problem" we need to solve to make the universe we live in make sense is simply where did this one start. The problem of what caused the first cause is really outside our ability because we don't have the "physics" or whatever is comparable to understand what is outside of our realm.

I don't mind evolution... but we certainly come from an intelligent designer. There is a great Futurama episode where the professor leaves some nanobytes on a planet and within a period of time they develop into complex conscious beings. Even though he was arguing for evolution, h himseld wound up being an intelligent designer.

I honestly don't know how someone can be an atheist. My dad proclaimed himself one for most of my life.. he has since downgraded to agnostic.

"downgraded to agnostic"! I got a chuckle out of that one. Perhaps he will downgrade still further and become a deist. That's probably the position I would take if I were not a Christian. But I have no intention of "uprgrading" to deism just yet.

There really is no alternative to an intelligent design first cause of the universe that is satisfactory.

I agree.

I can't comprehend eternity.

Neither can the rest of humanity.

Because this world demands a first cause, and thus eternity doesn't make sense.

Again I agee. But some think there is no first cause, but that creation is an "eternal process."

But I think that the "problem" we need to solve to make the universe we live in make sense is simply where did this one start. The problem of what caused the first cause is really outside our ability because we don't have the "physics" or whatever is comparable to understand what is outside of our realm.

"The 'cause' of the first cause" is an oxymoron. If there were a cause of the first cause, then the first cause would not be the FIRST cause. So there must not be a "problem of what caused the first cause."
It's a bit like the perceived problem of God was doing before the beginning of time. If there really was a beginning of time (and I believe there was) then there were no events before that since there was no BEFORE!
Thinkers have understood this, and so attempted to resolve the "problem" by assigning God an existence outside of time. However, I can make no sense whatever of the concept "outside of time."

I don't mind evolution... but we certainly come from an intelligent designer.

There certainly was an intelligent designer. I wouldn't MIND evolution either, if there were any truth in it. I don't even see it as a theory. For any theory must be falsifiable in principle. For that reason I call it a "queery". But nothing that has been discovered or ever will be discovered can falsify evolution "theory". No matter what has been discovered, has not "disproved" evolution, since evolution concepts are simply adjusted to accomodate the new discoveries ... and so shall it be in the future no matter what is discovered.

There is a great Futurama episode where the professor leaves some nanobytes on a planet and within a period of time they develop into complex conscious beings. Even though he was arguing for evolution, he himself wound up being an intelligent designer.

Interesting! Was the proefessor "upgrading" or "downgrading"?

I just discovered that "Ceres, the largest asteroid, is nearly spherical, comprises over one-third the total mass of all the asteroids and is thus the best of these minor planets to represent the asteroid belt."
I received this information, based on NASA measurements of the mean distances from the sun from the following site:

http://www.goldennumber.net/solar-system/

To my amazement, I found that when I converted its mean distance from the sun (413.79 million km) to FAS (divide by 50), I got 8.2752. That's pretty close to the fibonacci number (8) which corresponds to it. I changed my earlier post accordingly.

Very interesting.

How did you decide on 50m km as the FAS instead of dividing AU (149,597,871km) by 3 as a starting point?

Also, the moon size has been a mystery to me as well. If you look at a diagram of Earth and Moon with PHI over the top, it's a match.

Been reading for an hour about the subject.

Cool indeed.

I no longer remember why I used 50 million to define an FAS unit. Probably an approximation. Dividing an AU by 3 would yield 49,865,957 as the value of an FAS unit. Using that as the value yields the exact corresponding fibonnaci number for earth, of course. But is farther from the corresponding fibonacci number for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Ceres, and Jupiter (if I calculated correctly).

Just wondered.

Great work. I studied astronomy as my science in college and loved it. I was already 50 by the time I started college, and most of the class was 19-20. I think they thought it was an easy grade. Ha, they discovered they had to actually study science.