The Equation of Creation. Really?

creation_equationDavid Cumming, CEO of Intelligent Earth and self-proclaimed “scientist” does not know what numerology is. Or perhaps he does, but is unable to identify it. To the lay person, it’s the occult-driven obsession with trying to find significance in numbers. To the sceptic, it’s a rash that comes and goes, at its peak when watching Deal or No Deal and best treated with a topical dose of statistics. To David Cumming, it’s a trap. A big hole in the ground with very steep walls, which he willingly threw himself into with the publication of his summary of the ‘God Equation’. This rather poorly written and overly drawn-out exegesis of unrelated numbers gets off to a bad start after the above equation is presented, followed by two paragraphs of Mr. Cumming referencing himself in the third person. TK knows this is silly, and despite being a brilliant, charming and terrifically sexy individual (whom in many ways is the central protagonist of the greatest story never told), will not succumb to employing such a conceited writing device. Beyond this, Cumming begins his derivation.

Firstly, it’s clear that whatever kind of scientist he claims to be, David Cumming cannot present a mathematical derivation in an unambiguous manner. I had to read the paper several times to piece it together, and here is the brief: the speed of light (in the archaic and highly questionable unit of the megalithic yard) is equal to the product of the hydrogen line and the ratio of pi and an arbitrary constant labeled omega:

“…why is the value of Omega significant, apart from the fact that it represents all the characters  of a number system, the number system we actually use? Well, the Moon is 1/81 of the weight of  the Earth. 1/81 equates to the very unusual decimal fraction 0.0123456789. So the equation message also encodes this very unlikely ratio between the weight of the Moon and the weight of the  Earth.”

Well, it only represents all the characters in our numbering system because you’ve expressed it in our numbering system, silly! But hang on, 0.0123456789 is no more unusual than 0.302938491 or 2589.99999, because like all individual numbers, it’s unique. Also, the Moon is not 1/81 the mass of the Earth, but is rather close to 1/81.3, or 0.012302464 Earth masses. But who cares, it’s not like the creator of the Solar System/Universe is capable of 100% accuracy, right?

This is the only way in which the so-called equation can be related to the Earth-Moon system, and doesn’t quite work out. I say so-called equation, because it doesn’t equate. In other words, it’s not balanced. The ratio of pi and omega is a dimensionless constant, linearly equating the hydrogen line (the frequency of a photon emitted when neutral hydrogen drops down an energy state by one) to the speed of light in megalithic yards, or Thoms (Ths).

So, s-1 equates to Ths s-1 ? Here’s the clincher. If you fudge the figures, our dimensionless constant is so close to the corresponding wavelength of a hydrogen line photon in Thoms that we can just assume it to be so (we’ll get to assumptions at the end). Thus we magically grant it the unit of Thoms and the equation balances. It should be obvious that this is still mathematically illegal, since we cannot backstep this new derivation. That is, I cannot multiply any number in Thoms by the dimensionless omega and produce pi, itself a dimensionless ratio. We must make a second assumption, that omega has the units of Ths-1, and just happens to be not quite the ratio of the masses of the Moon and Earth (except it now isn’t, because we’ve just given it units!)

Omega is the prime fudge-factor in all of this, and it’s precisely why Cumming is a victim of numerology. There is no significance to the number 0.0123456789 except that which we assume to be there, but those of a religious bent have no trouble doing just that if it can be used to demonstrate their own imagined self-importance. However just like with astrology, palm reading or dowsing, a sceptic has no trouble emulating the irrational invention of significance. Just watch me.

The first Dwarf Planet discovered by humans was Ceres, which has a mean radius of 471 km. This is a 98.3% match to its synodic period in days: 463. Not impressed? Maybe you didn’t realise that 463 is not only a prime number, but also the sum of seven consecutive primes (53+59+61+67+71+73+79), and when I enter 463 in a text message, my phone’s predictive text engine recommends the word ‘God’. Evidence or coincidence?

The real question is how unlikely must a coincidence seem before you snap? Apparently, David Cumming is beyond his limit:

“The Equation of Creation and  the Thom came first. Therefore, either there is the most freakishly unlikely coincidence happening,  and the huge amount of supporting data not mentioned in this short review makes the odds of this  event being due to a chance event really disappear beyond the possible, or with the application of  the razor of Occam, we are left with the simple conclusion that the Earth, Sun, and Moon must have  been Created to accord with the Equation of Creation.”

But… Occam’s razor suggests one should minimise their assumptions! I assume that incredible coincidences occur (not really an assumption, more of an observation) whereas Cumming assumes the significance of the Thom, and his own made up constant, as well as its units. He equates highly improbable with impossible (a belief all too often espoused by creationists) and in doing so makes a further assumption that there is more than one outcome – that the Universe could have had different fundamental constants (a belief for which there is no confirming evidence).

His paper is worth reading for any sceptic, but do not be swayed by his emotive language or incredible ability to convince himself. A straight-forward, clear proof of creation it ain’t.

5 thoughts on “The Equation of Creation. Really?”

  1. Pingback: Kurt
  2. Pingback: Armando
  3. Pingback: Reginald
  4. Pingback: Tyrone

Leave a Reply