Astronomical Enigma

[astroequation]

Mathematical order discovered in orbits of our Solar System.
All known major planetary orbits are shown to be neatly interrelated by a single equation and to accurately follow a mathematical pattern.
This is known to about one thousand academic establishments world-wide, but has yet to hit the headlines.
The main web site is for members of the general public with an education in math, the associated PDF file was written by a professional mathematician.
As an observed and verified mathematical fact, it is not explained by modern astronomical theory. This suggests that modern theory is not complete.
See Astronomical Enigma
URL http://members.aol.com/astroequation

[robquark]

The only complete picture of the universe is given in Savov's theory of interaction.
This model does not allow planets to appear at arbitrary distances from the sun.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by astroequation@Jan 8 2005, 08:09 PM
Mathematical order discovered in orbits of our Solar System.
All known major planetary orbits are shown to be neatly interrelated by a single equation and to accurately follow a mathematical pattern.
This is known to about one thousand academic establishments world-wide, but has yet to hit the headlines.
The main web site is for members of the general public with an education in math, the associated PDF file was written by a professional mathematician.
As an observed and verified mathematical fact, it is not explained by modern astronomical theory. This suggests that modern theory is not complete.
See Astronomical Enigma
URL http://members.aol.com/astroequation
Why is Pluto a planet? Why not Sedna, or Ceres?

What predictions does this set of equations make? For example, when the orbit of Pluto/Charon is more accurately determined, what will it be found to be?

What accounts for the deviations of the actual orbits from the predictions from the equations?

How well do these equations account for the orbits of the satellite systems of the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune?

Ditto, ring systems?

Ditto, all asteroids and minor planets (Atens, Apollos, Amors, main belt, Trojans, Centaurs, KBOs, SDOs, ...)?

Ditto, all comets?

What about extra-solar planetary systems (there are now >100)?

Planetary systems around pulsars?

[StarLab]

I myself, am in no position to evaluate this astroequation, but Rob neither are you.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by robquark@Jan 8 2005, 09:52 PM
The only complete picture of the universe is given in Savov's theory of interaction.
This model does not allow planets to appear at arbitrary distances from the sun.
Is this the 'fireworks universe' guy? IIRC, he hasn't published anything in peer-reviewed journals, and even on his website he has only vague, sweeping statements ... no concrete, specific, testable predictions, nothing quantitative. In this sense, to call it a 'theory' is to abuse the meaning of this term (as scientists use the word). Ditto 'model'.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by astroequation@Jan 8 2005, 08:09 PM
As an observed and verified mathematical fact, it is not explained by modern astronomical theory. This suggests that modern theory is not complete.
First, who said that modern theory was complete?
Second, this paper gives apporximations to the semi-major axis only of the planets, and even then it is off by several percent. It is no better or more meaningful than the Titus-Bode relation, which is a lot easier to compute.

Ultimately some statistical mechanics property will define the places where a proto-planetary disk will most likely clump up and turn into planets. This relation may be an emperical formula that approximates this relationship.

[rahuldandekar]

Question: Can anyone explain the Titus-Bode relation. Is it just a coincidence?

[Svemir]

This guy think he can.
http://www.lermus.ru/users/trunaev/personal.htm

[GOURDHEAD]

It would be difficult to avoid the consequences of the many and varied initial conditions of the proto-stellar clouds, their internal eddies, their mutual interactions with their neighbors, assorted compression waves, plasma generated electric and magnetic fields and their interplay with dispersion of angular momentum, and who knows what else. Similarity amongst proto-stellar clouds is probably as rare as it is amongst human finerprints. Consequently, planetary formation within stellar systems should be as varied in location, orbital eccentricity, and mass as physics will permit, although some will not be as durable as others due to the gravitational interactions peculiar to their configuration.

A single equation attempting to accommodate each effect and variable over the entire set of probable proto-stellar clouds would be inordinately messy as would one attempting to describe the composition of a galaxy.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Svemir@Jan 10 2005, 10:52 AM
This guy think he can.
http://www.lermus.ru/users/trunaev/personal.htm
All I saw when I clicked on the link was a huge collection of more links, and nothing to tell me which guy ... do you have a name perhaps?

[Svemir]

There are links on the top of the site . You start with "introduction"

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Svemir@Jan 11 2005, 01:24 PM
There are links on the top of the site . You start with "introduction"
Would you care to give a summary of the concrete, specific, testable predictions which result from this idea?

[Svemir]

1. Other star/planets/moons systems should obey the same principles. It could be tested with HST and better telescops resolution.
2. I imagine that Hydrogen arising from "southern nozzle" making i.e. water molecules is testable

[ferg.c.]

Check out this (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Titius-BodeLaw.html)healthily skeptical entry and see if you still think Titius-Bode is more than just number juggling and window dressing!
cheers,
Ferg :)