Sun,moon, earth and mathematics .
On a philosophical note, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
The soft brush strokes (fuzzy math) in a work of art give depth and add, not detract, from its' worth as art.
Having said that, let me also say that Mathematics are not my strongest area of thought, but I do enjoy the occasional glimpses into that facet of the Universe. Phi and the Fibonacci sequence blow me away, as well as adding Order to the Universe.
V :--:you left out Neptune because including all of the planets shows yet another reason why your hypothesis is wrong
Now you are talking. My hypotheses is not that all planets are in orbits that increase in doubling increments, but that The planetary field shows wavelike properties, with the smallest wave length. .3 AU, the longest 9.6 AU, which manifests itself in the ~equal Uranus to Neptune to Pluto orbit spacings. so. be proud of yourself, your naysaying rantings have a strengthening effect
V: :-- you are rounding up and down at each step
It is called scattering, and all physics measurements show that around the predicted mean, The reason is that each region is subject to local forces unrelated to the overall pattern. 72% of the planetary mass is within 99.9% of the predicted position. The biggest asteroid cluster around 2.8 AU, but yes, there is even an asteroid kind of orbiting the Earth.
V: "oh, and the sun rotates at different rates depending on location. The poles take about 38days, the equator takes 24 to 25,
The Sun's near equator, low latitudes, that would supply torque to the planetary field the ecliptic, rotate at the mean 28.5 clip, synchronizing with our monthly way around the Moon-Earth barycenter. thanks for the help to clarify that. so, do not under-estimate the salutary effect that even pathological behaviour can have on the process of bringing out the meat meat of the matter.
*a deviation of 5%, ** a offset of .05% for 72% of all the planetary mass. ***a deviation of 1.75% between theory and nature.
Aha, I see the problem. You are forgetting to account for time, times, and half a time.
Multiply the standard deviation of the orbital widgetary mass by 2,520 pyramid inches and subtract one (there is no 0 year) and the numbers will work out better.
Ah, I get it. You're predicting that your claims don't match reality and will need to be manipulated to sound it makes sense.
It's called Bullshit. This is Prologos Greater Bullshit Hypothesis.
Makes sense now. The only problem is no except you is willing to swallow the bs you are.
Have you ever submitted your theories to a university or scientific journal for review?
Twitch: yes,,-- of course there is more too it, I have the rejection letters,( some institution will not accept any submissions dealing with variations of "Bode"). the most encouraging came from the royal astro society There are others, more accredited researchers, that have worked, not, on the 5 minute, but 160 light minute outer planet spacings. The last word has not been said about this. wait until the better, sharper exoplanet data come in, correlated with the vibration patterns of the host stars. This stability, probable indicated by the regularity of the spacings is either unique to us, or a common features of more exo system. Always keeping my eyes peeled for related science news, and stimulating objections from the likes of Vivianne.
PS:I am fascinated by all this because if there is a creator, the track record he has left behind is the only really evidence we can access , If in the outworkings of our journey through time, the energy and laws are primed to produce the little artistic perks like 10 in Bode, or natural shading disks, or synchronized rotations, --it's, icing on the cake.
Are you the "unnamed correspondent" in the following article?
"In conclusion, linear or non-linear Titius-Bode laws can now be firmly considered as at worst, numerology, at best, an outcome of some simple symetries, but even the value of the constant K does not set any relevant constraint on cosmogonic models of solar system formation"
T: Are you the "unnamed correspondent" in the following article?
no, My model suggests that the planetary arrangement is a standing wave pattern resulting for two frequencies, One 300 seconds equivalent to .3 AU likely from the Sun, perhaps in the past, and a 32 times longer, 160 minutes or 9.6 AU coming from a longer distance. That accounts for the equal spacings at the inner , and outer regions, and the doubling in the center.
I know there are more sophisticated researcher out there, one work was written at the Los Alamos facilities, did it bomb?
Perhaps they're rejecting your nonsense because you clearly don't know what a theory is. Or math. Or science. Or astronomy.