by prologos 224 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Further debunking, it seems the orbits of extra solar planets vary wildly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Distance_from_star.2C_semi-major_axis_and_orbital_period
If that is insufficient the orbits of the moon/planetary systems within our own solar system also do not stick to Bode's law either.
Prologos, I'm afraid the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim, so it is up to you to prove your claim. You have failed to do so.
Caedes, good point because A) our data about these other total systems are incomplete to say the least. b) what we see there might be work in progress. c) The bode sequence is not an universal law, but what we see out there might indicate what mechanism* would [or not] lead to our BALL arrangement where
two parameters define orbital differences:
1) not bigger than 19.2 AU ; not smaller than .3 AU and in all ratios of these two.
2) and planetary spacings double as you go out. exept for
3) the innermost: twice .3, the outermost twice 19.2 [doublibg at the end, like a shoelace, a chromosome.]
the 3 rules identifying the bode ball game, the way it plays out in our planetary disk, starting with Mercury~.4 AU
A BALL game played with only 3 rules executed with 5 % accuracy, on the scale we see speaks for itself.
This regularity of 8 spacings is an indication of the stability displayd that
allowed enough time for a lifetime of evolution. now:
show me where is there more than 5% deviation of any of the orbits. for
my claim is based on the list above that I typed. proof read it please.
*which could give rise to an universal law, perhaps for life-bearing star & planetary disks.
A BALL game played with only 3 rules executed with 5 % accuracy, on the scale we see speaks for itself.
5% is not accurate. You cannot call something accurate that 1) isn't and 2) doesn't work
This regularity of 8 spacings is an indication of the stability displayd that allowed enough time for a lifetime of evolution
It's not 8, you need to recount. Also, you need to explain. The stability of what? Evolution of what? How does this not-law that you keep referring to explain when orbits change or decay?
show me where is there more than 5% deviation of any of the orbits.
That has been posted many time. Stop being lazy and re-read your own thread.
for my claim is based on the list above that I typed. proof read it please.
Your claim has been de-bunked from every angle. There is nothing to proof-read. You haven't written anything proof-readable.
which could give rise to an universal law, perhaps for life-bearing star & planetary disks.
Highly unlikely, since the not-law you refer to doesn't work.
Tiger, here is another way to see this extraordinay JOGGLING act:
7 doublings of spacings of panetary orbit radii: or diameters spacings:
1) Venus to EARTH.... .0.3 AU [actually not a doubling, but the first spacing in the series that is DOUBLED.]
2) Earth to Mars ........0.6 AU
3) Mars to Ceres*.......1.2 AU * 28 on Bode, 2.77 measured, 1% accurate, not 5%! perceived to be the center of the asteroid belt.
4) Ceres to JUpiter .... 2.4 AU
5) Jupiter to Saturn .. 4.8 AU
6) Saturn to Uranus.. 9.6 AU
7) Uranus to Pluto... 19.2 AU plus at the beginning, near the Sun:
Mercury to Venus ......0.3 AU and out there:
Venus to EARTH ........0.3 AU
Uranus to Neptune ..19.2 AU
Neptune to Pluto ..... !9.2 AU
Note : these are all precise ratios the largest observed orbital difference is 32 times the smallest or an integre fraction.
Hint: .3 AU is ~150 light seconds or 5 light minutes for diameter difference, no law is valid unless it contains c.
7 doublings of spacings of panetary orbit radii
Mars to Ceres*
Ceres is not a planet.
7 doublings of spacings of panetary orbit radii: or diameters spacings:
1) Venus to EARTH.... .0.3 AU [actually not a doubling, but the first spacing in the series that is DOUBLED.]
You forgot Mercury to Venus. And you cannot claim it they all double when your first example fails.
Note : these are all precise ratios the largest observed orbital difference is 32 times the smallest or an integre fraction.
They are to 1 digit only. They are in no way precise.
Hint: .3 AU is ~150 light seconds or 5 light minutes for diameter difference, no law is valid unless it contains c.
Untrue on both counts! Precision matters. Please post a chart showing this. No one is going to take your word for it.
Here is an actual chart since you refuse to post one.
| Planet | k | T-B rule distance (AU) | Real distance (AU) | % error (using real distance as the accepted value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercury | 0 | 0.4 | 0.39 | 2.56% |
| Venus | 1 | 0.7 | 0.72 | 2.78% |
| Earth | 2 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.00% |
| Mars | 4 | 1.6 | 1.52 | 5.26% |
| Ceres 1 | 8 | 2.8 | 2.77 | 1.08% |
| Jupiter | 16 | 5.2 | 5.20 | 0.00% |
| Saturn | 32 | 10.0 | 9.54 | 4.82% |
| Uranus | 64 | 19.6 | 19.2 | 2.08% |
| Neptune | 128 | 38.8 | 30.06 | 29.08% |
| Pluto 2 | 256 | 77.2 2 | 39.44 | 95.75% |
boom.....
I actually posted 3 "charts" or sequences. posts 2688, 2955, 2981.
It might occur to you, that the bode law is only a hundrets year old sequence that has been AMENDED to take in modifying factors. so
thank you for the chart, which showed as did mine, that 8 of the 10 orbits fall within 5% of the predicted position (twice as far out than in) . and
if you look at Pluto, it is within 95.75 % of it's predicted position, IF you had ACCEPTED the fact that this is a modified model of that old bode sequence and Uranus is followed by Pluto in THAT more comprehensive scheme. then
You Have 90% of all planets, including the two dwarf-, minor-, ones, Ceres & Pluto within 5% of the predicted position: twice as far out as in from it's neighbours.
So why does NEPTUNE circle at EXACTLY the mid-point between Uranus and Pluto.? because
rule of the BALL game here, -as seen by the reality out there-: no orbit difference can be MORE than 19.2 AU, or LESS than .3 AU
The idea was to look at the fun part of the bigger world around us, and to restate rules in the solar planetary disc:
starting with mercury there is no orbit difference that is not a multiple of .3 AU or a fraction, or greater than 9.6/19.2 AU, the average is governed by the Bode principle, the inner spacing is half the outer spacing, all within 5% for ALL orbits.
doubling the length, the area smacks of the octave scale.
I actually posted 3 "charts" or sequences. posts 2688, 2955, 2981.
No, you posted text with incorrect information.
It might occur to you, that the bode law is only a hundrets year old sequence that has been AMENDED to take in modifying factors.
That's not at all what it is, so trying to make it something it isn't wouldn't occur to me.
thank you for the chart, which showed as did mine, that 8 of the 10 orbits fall within 5% of the predicted position (twice as far out than in)
That's not at all what it showed. Again, you need help counting, it seems.
if you look at Pluto, it is within 95.75 % of it's predicted position
No, Pluto is 95% OFF the predicted orbit, not within 95.75% of the predicted orbit. If one were to reach the chart that way, then Earth's position would be within 0% of the predicted orbit.
IF you had ACCEPTED the fact that this is a modified model of that old bode sequence and Uranus is followed by Pluto in THAT more comprehensive scheme.
Why would I accept something that isn't true? If you think it is, please show me the original and the amended hypothesis and how the math works. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath....
You Have 90% of all planets, including the two dwarf-, minor-, on2es, Ceres & Pluto within 5% of the predicted position: twice as far out as in from it's neighbours.
Again, you are neither counting properly nor reading the chart properly.
So why does NEPTUNE circle at EXACTLY the mid-point between Uranus and Pluto.? because rule of the BALL game here, -as seen by the reality out there-: no orbit difference can be MORE than 19.2 AU, or LESS than .3 AU
Or, in reality, it doesn't. Uranus to Netpune orbit = 10.86 AU. From Neptune to Pluto = 9.38 AU, a 13.62% variation from the midpoint based on the chart above.
And, the difference between Mercury and Pluto is far more than 19.2 AU, so clearly the orital difference between planets CAN be greater than 19.2. I know that's not what you meant, but it's what you wrote and it's wrong. I am trying to tell you it's important to know what you are talking about and be accurate, two things you fail to practice and seem to eschew.
