Originally Posted by Lunatik

PLANETARY SPIN RATIOS PER AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF OF VARIABLE E & G:

Taking planetary black-body heat in Kelvin and planet's orbit Energy, per Axiomatic, we can arrive at a spin ratio, SR, which will yield each planet's spin as measured in earth days. The resulting equation is:

(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

where:
SR = Spin Ratio for planets
PK = Planet Kelvin, black-body heat
PE = Planet orbit solar Energy, per Axiomatic
VK = Venus Kelvin, base planet spin (245 days retro spin, per 244 days orbit), here as base spin "zero" (where Kelvin and Energy nearly equal)
VE = Venus Energy, per Axiomatic
planetary orbit = in Earth days
planet spin = in Earth days (or fraction of Earth day)
AU = G'/G, ratio of planet's G' and Earth's G, linear deltaG = ~7.2E-11 per AU
(AU)^1/2 = same as square root of (G'/G)
Spin Ratio = SR, a Kelvin and Energy dependent number, which when Earth's SR (2.32) is divided by planet's SR yields daily planet spin.
x = times
:/: = divided by
VK/VE = (2.317K/17.33E+16 J) = 13.36E-16 , which is a ratio, used in SR equation above, as a base for Venus (near zero) parity.

The above equation for Earth yields:

(254.3K/9E+16J) :/: (13.36E-16) x (254.3K/231.7K) :/: (365/365) :/: (1) x (1) = 2.32

Tables of above values, where orbit and spin are in Earth days, and SR is as calculated per equation above:

AU; PLANET; P-KELVIN; P-ENERGY; ORBIT; SPIN; (AU)^1/2; SPIN RATIO

0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; 88 days; 58.8 ; 0.624 ; 0.0456
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; 245 ; -244 ; 0.850 ; 0.005 (this is is way off - retro) ?
1.0 ; EArth ; 254,3K ; 9E16 J ; 365 days; -1- ; 1 ; 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; 687 ; 1.03 ; 1.225 ; 2.246
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; 4329 ; 0.415 ; 2.28 ; 5.41
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; 10753 ; 0.455 ; 3.08 ; 4.97
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; 30660 ; 0.718 ; 4.38 ; 3.21
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; 60225 ; 0.673 ; 5.48 ; 3.69
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; 90520 ; 6.3 ; 6.28 ; 0.304

Divide Earth's SR = 2.32 (which is our1 day spin) by any of the above planetary SR's, and you will find a close match to actual spin in Earth days. Here's the lineup:

Merc: 2.32/0.0456 = ~51 (vs. actual 58.8 )
Ven: 2.32/ 0.005 = ~464 (way off by ~x2! vs. actual -245)?
Ear: 2.32/2.32 = 1 day (our home planet's spin)
Mar: 2.32/ 2.246 = ~1.033 (vs. 1.03 actual)
Jup: 2.32/ 5.41 = ~0.428 (vs. 0.415 actual)
Sat: 2.32/ 4.97 = ~0.467 (vs. 0.455 actual)
Uran: 2.32/3.21 = ~0.723 (vs. 0.718 actual)
Nept: 2.32/ 3.69 = ~0.629 (vs. 0.673 actual)
Plut: 2.32/ 0.304 = ~7.63 (vs. 6.3 actual) ?

You can see from the above that Venus is way out of line (it has retro spin) and Pluto are off by more than 20%, Mercury is off by 12%, but the other planets are a fairly close fit. Consering I am working with rough estimates, taken from Nasa Planet tables, and used mean distances for the planets, the spin ratios as a function of planetary heat and orbit Energy come in fairly close to actual spin.

Coincidence? Numerology? Handwaving? Woowoo? Against the Mainstream? Some will think it odd, others will dislike intensely, or not believe it, and call it gibberish. Fine error? Gross error? But these are the numbers as they work out. They clearly show that there seems to be a relationship between planetary interior heat and the Energy levels in which their orbits reside, factoring in a variable G, as per the equation above. I think it interesting enough to think about some more, maybe get better K numbers, especially Mercury and Pluto, and work it out with better orbital numbers. New physics? Maybe... I am sure "careful eyes will be narrowly watching"...

Does this prove the Axiomatic Equation? Not to my mind. But it offers one more reason to go out there and look for a variable Newton's G 'proportional'. What say you now? Hogwash? I'll be curious to see your reactions. I suggest we start a different thread, since this one's run pretty deep already. This above is not a formal paper, which I will write at another time with full explanations.


Sorry guys, you won't find any of this in any textbook, it's a BABB first!

[Edited to fix Venus orbit & spin days.]

Originally Posted by Fram

I have given my comments so far in the erratically named 'Potential threat' thread.
Basically, from a mathematical point of view the equation is way too complicated (you don't need PK, for example, and the need for all the constants isn't clear either), and from a logical point of view, you use spin in the equation and you use the result of the equation to calculate spin again.

Originally Posted by Fram

A third criticism, that I haven't posted there: how can your result (spin ratio) for Venus be positive, if one of the elements you are multiplying with is negative? Perhaps you better check the equation and all the calculations, and come back again then...

Originally Posted by Lunatik

This is all based on an assumption that interior heat energy somehow drives planetary spin, though we do not understand why it should. So planetary spin is not merely conserved angular momentum, ad infinitum, but actually a function of energy. Can it be so? Maybe...

Originally Posted by pghnative

What is a "planet" in your theory. The nine named planets? Large moons too? Large asteroids? All masses?

Originally Posted by Lunatik

the nine planets. Haven't done the work on moons, which may be complicated by home planet energy outputs. So don't know moons for now, only nine planets.

Originally Posted by Lunatik

When I reworked it the way you suggested, rather than PK dropping out, it came out (PK)^2, and got same results, so the original equation:

(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR became:

(PK)^2/PE :/: (13.36E-16/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

I'm doing this from memory (notes not with me) but got same results (but not 100% sure I got it right). But this way may be easier to deal with, though results should be the same.

Originally Posted by Lunatik

Venus is off the charts, because of its retro spin, so used it only as a best guess basis for near zero spin, though I confess that is only a rough estimate. The results for Venus puts it off the charts, but other planets are okay, more or less.

Originally Posted by Fram

Wait. You have (A/B) / (C * (A/D))
Now, C * (A/D) = (C*A) / D
So you get (A/B) * (D / (C*A))
This is the same as (A*D)/ (B*C*A),
and this is again the same as D / (B*C).
Hey, no longer is there an A!

Can please someone else confirm that I have this basic basic math rules still correct, and if I do, please tell it to Lunatik, because if you get even this wrong, why bother with anything else, and if I get even this wrong, please ignore my criticisms. But this is quite crucial!

Originally Posted by pghnative

Fram
The problem here is that Lunatik's equation is tough to decipher based on what he/she typed. More parenthesis (parenthesi??) should have been used to clarify.

This:
(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

is better represented as:
(PK/PE) * (1/C1) * (PK/C2) * (C3/orbit) * (1/spin) * (AU^0.5)
where c1 = 13.36E-16; C2 = 231.7; C3 = 365

As you've pointed out, the use of 3 separate constants is confusing.

Also confusing is the lack of units analysis. By my best guess, the units of this "ratio" are (length^0.5 / time).

Originally Posted by pghnative

This:
(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

is better represented as:
(PK/PE) * (1/C1) * (PK/C2) * (C3/orbit) * (1/spin) * (AU^0.5)
where c1 = 13.36E-16; C2 = 231.7; C3 = 365

Originally Posted by Fram

Wait. You have (A/B) / (C * (A/D))
Now, C * (A/D) = (C*A) / D
So you get (A/B) * (D / (C*A))
This is the same as (A*D)/ (B*C*A),
and this is again the same as D / (B*C).
Hey, no longer is there an A!

Originally Posted by pghnative

Taking this further,

SR = (PK * PK * C3 * AU^0.5) / (PE * C1 * C2 * orbit * spin)

Lumping some terms together gives:

SR = P * C */ spin
Where P = planetary terms (excluding spin)
Where C = constants

Originally Posted by pghnative

That is
P = PK*PK*AU^0.5 / PE
C = C3 / (C1*C2)

Originally Posted by pghnative

So let's look at lunatik's conclusions. Supposedly it is compelling that if you take earth's spin ratio, divide it by another planet's spin ratio, you obtain the planet's rotational period (within ~15% for 75% of planets)

So, let's let:
SRp = SR for the planet of interest
SRe = SR for earth
Pe = P (my P, above) for Earth
Pp = P for planet of interest
spin-e = Earth's spin (ie, rotation rate)
spin - p = Planet of interest's spin

Then,
SRe = Pe * C * / spin-e
SRp = Pp * C * / spin-p

Again, it is said to be compelling that SRe / SRp is nearly equal to the rotation rate of the planet of interest. Because of this, a link between internal heat and rotation rate is hypothesized. Let's calculate this:

SRe / SRp =? spin -p
(This means "Does SRp / SRp equal spin-p"


substituting for SRe and SRm gives:
(Pe * C * / spin-e) / (Pp * C * / spin-p) =? spin-p

Originally Posted by pghnative

Since spin-E = 1 (by definition --- we're calculating the spin of the relevent planet in earth days), and since you can cancelling the C's and rearrange the left side, you get:
(Pe * spin-p) / (Pp) = spin-p

Originally Posted by pghnative

But spin-p is on both sides of the equation!!!! This means that spin has nothing to do with it.

So, while I cannot (yet) explain why Pe / Pp would be ~1 for any planet, I can at least state conclusively that the hypothesis that spin is related to internal heat is baseless.

(By the way, since all of the terms in Pe and Pp are variations on planet distance, internal temperature, and orbital period, I suspect that there is nothing earth-shattering with regard to why Pe / Pp is ~1 for most planets)

Originally Posted by Lunatik

I think I can see where the problem is. You think PK is the same everywhere, but it is not. PK, which is Kelvin temp for each planet, is a different value for each planet, so these would have to be PK1, PK2, PK3..., each one a separate value. Taking the equation:

(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

As pghnative says, these are ratios, so each parenthesis is a separate value, not necessarily algebraic, so that (PK1/231K) is not same as (PK2/231.7K), if that helps. This was why I had those values in parenthesis, because each one represented a value unique to the planet being calculated for spin, as a ratio of Kelvin to Energy, then 'normalized' for Venus near zero spin and Earth's one day spin. That's why it does not lend itself easily to algebraic equivalents, so using actual numbers makes for easier to understand results: Kelvin, E, spin, orbit in days, are in my original post; see Nasa Planetary link for more data. Then put in on a spread sheet and see what you get.

Addendum: in rereading pghnative's I can see what he's getting at. Like I said before elsewhere, there are some very smart people here! I'l check it over later and get back. Thanks for simplifying it! I'll run some numbers on it to see how it goes.