Amazing Formula
I have discovered a fundamentally new type of relationship of planetary orbits, which can be expressed by the following formula:
Ratio = SQRT(((R1+R2)/(2*R1))^3)
Substituting in this formula values of orbital radius of the Earth R1=1a.u. (by definition) and R2=0,723 – orbital radius of the Venus, we get 4 / 5 - relations tiny integers. If we substitute values R1=5,203 and R2=0,723 (the Jupiter and the Venus), we get 3 / 7. Substituting values R1=9,539 (the Saturn) and R2=30,06 (the Neptune), we obtain 2.99 , which close to integer - 3. This golden formula works not only for the planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
That is fundamentally amazing!
I can't wait to see how it comes out!
I can't wait to see how it comes out!
Probably many noticed a curious coincidence. Let's start a rocket to an orbit of Venus on an elliptic orbit with perihelion in an orbit of Venus and aphelion in an orbit of the Earth. Having made only 5 turns around of the Sun, the rocket again will meet the Earth in 4 years. However, this fact was ignored as a coincidence. I found a whole series of analogous "accidents".
Similarly, if any asteroid fly between the Jupiter and the Venus, then every 7 turns he meets with the Jupiter, which makes the convergence between the 3 turns.
If Saturnian people start a rocket to an orbit of the Neptune, then it returns, immediately through single revolution (through 3 Saturnian years).
The only accident is randomness. Bat the serial of accidents is regularity. And such accidents are not just for planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
Similarly, if any asteroid fly between the Jupiter and the Venus, then every 7 turns he meets with the Jupiter, which makes the convergence between the 3 turns.
If Saturnian people start a rocket to an orbit of the Neptune, then it returns, immediately through single revolution (through 3 Saturnian years).
The only accident is randomness. Bat the serial of accidents is regularity. And such accidents are not just for planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
Recall Kepler's third law "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."
In my formula it is nothing mysterious. (R1 + R2) \ 2 - is a semi-major axis of the rocket or the asteroid (intermediate particles, flying between the orbits of the planets), R1 - is orbital radius of the planet. Value ‘Ratio’ - is the ratio of the periods accoeding of the Kepler's third law.
In my formula it is nothing mysterious. (R1 + R2) \ 2 - is a semi-major axis of the rocket or the asteroid (intermediate particles, flying between the orbits of the planets), R1 - is orbital radius of the planet. Value ‘Ratio’ - is the ratio of the periods accoeding of the Kepler's third law.
Is there a physical reason to explain such regularities, or is it just coincidence? Does it have something to do with the planets and their orbits having evolved into some kind of balance or equilibrium? If they did not follow these regularities, would the sun wobble or something, due to the changing gravitational alignments and subsequent imbalances in the mass/density distribution of the solar system?
Quick, someone build a model of the solar system with proportionate masses, velocities, and distances between the bodies and see if it balances and/or wobbles!
Quick, someone build a model of the solar system with proportionate masses, velocities, and distances between the bodies and see if it balances and/or wobbles!
Consider all possible pairs of planets and apply to them the formula. Theoretically, values of the periods to be arbitrary (both rational and irrational, whose number is many times greater). However, in practice the formula gives too many rational ‘Ratio’ with small numerator and denominator.
In my opinion it is namely the law. But where did it come from? I think that I am able to answer for this question.
In my opinion it is namely the law. But where did it come from? I think that I am able to answer for this question.
This isn't "coincidence".
It is harmonics.
Each major object in the solar system appears at an exact harmonic distance, that aligns with a specific number of wavelengths from the sun.
I can't seem to find the site that did the study on this that I'm thinking about, but I've seen these numbers before in a chart and how they all relate.
For every orbiting object of significant mass, there was a formula that predicts where, in terms of astronomical units from the sun, the next one will be, and it works for all known planets and apparantly all known dwarf planets.
An object of sufficient mass to be called a planet, or in most cases even a dwarf planet, can ONLY appear in orbits that average out to these harmonic wave lengths.
I'm trying to find the link to the site, because it's been like 2 years since I saw it, but it's around here somewhere....
It is harmonics.
Each major object in the solar system appears at an exact harmonic distance, that aligns with a specific number of wavelengths from the sun.
I can't seem to find the site that did the study on this that I'm thinking about, but I've seen these numbers before in a chart and how they all relate.
For every orbiting object of significant mass, there was a formula that predicts where, in terms of astronomical units from the sun, the next one will be, and it works for all known planets and apparantly all known dwarf planets.
An object of sufficient mass to be called a planet, or in most cases even a dwarf planet, can ONLY appear in orbits that average out to these harmonic wave lengths.
I'm trying to find the link to the site, because it's been like 2 years since I saw it, but it's around here somewhere....
The asteroid belt falls exactly on one of these harmonic nodes.
The reason it doesn't form a true planet is because of the gravity of Jupiter being so great relative to its distance.
The reason it doesn't form a true planet is because of the gravity of Jupiter being so great relative to its distance.
QUOTE (KrupS+Sep 21 2009, 06:25 PM)
Probably many noticed a curious coincidence. Let's start a rocket to an orbit of Venus on an elliptic orbit with perihelion in an orbit of Venus and aphelion in an orbit of the Earth. Having made only 5 turns around of the Sun, the rocket again will meet the Earth in 4 years. However, this fact was ignored as a coincidence. I found a whole series of analogous "accidents".
Similarly, if any asteroid fly between the Jupiter and the Venus, then every 7 turns he meets with the Jupiter, which makes the convergence between the 3 turns.
If Saturnian people start a rocket to an orbit of the Neptune, then it returns, immediately through single revolution (through 3 Saturnian years).
The only accident is randomness. Bat the serial of accidents is regularity. And such accidents are not just for planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
I was attempting sarcasm, but since you seem to be that thick, I will go ahead and be blatantly rude:
Have you any of the benefits of a primary education? Have you read anything besides the crap you've found on the internet? Most importantly, have you the least glimmer of a clue that you appear to be illiterate and ignorant?
I didn't think so...
Similarly, if any asteroid fly between the Jupiter and the Venus, then every 7 turns he meets with the Jupiter, which makes the convergence between the 3 turns.
If Saturnian people start a rocket to an orbit of the Neptune, then it returns, immediately through single revolution (through 3 Saturnian years).
The only accident is randomness. Bat the serial of accidents is regularity. And such accidents are not just for planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
I was attempting sarcasm, but since you seem to be that thick, I will go ahead and be blatantly rude:
Have you any of the benefits of a primary education? Have you read anything besides the crap you've found on the internet? Most importantly, have you the least glimmer of a clue that you appear to be illiterate and ignorant?
I didn't think so...
My statistical regularity has an analog. This is the orbital resonances - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance . The difference is that in my case, there is not orbital resonances between two planets (or satellites), but they exist between planet and asteroid that fly between the orbits of the planets.
QUOTE (KrupS+Sep 21 2009, 10:22 PM)
Amazing Formula
I have discovered a fundamentally new type of relationship of planetary orbits, which can be expressed by the following formula:
Ratio = SQRT(((R1+R2)/(2*R1))^3)
Substituting in this formula values of orbital radius of the Earth R1=1a.u. (by definition) and R2=0,723 – orbital radius of the Venus, we get 4 / 5 - relations tiny integers. If we substitute values R1=5,203 and R2=0,723 (the Jupiter and the Venus), we get 3 / 7. Substituting values R1=9,539 (the Saturn) and R2=30,06 (the Neptune), we obtain 2.99 , which close to integer - 3. This golden formula works not only for the planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
Are you asserting that sqrt(R2/R1) is constant?
Let k = R2/R1, then Ratio = ((1+k)/2)^(3/2) which is constant if k is.
Or are you asserting the much-much weaker claim that sqrt(((R2/R1)^3 + 3(R2/R1)^2 + 3 R2/R1 + 1)/8) is "close" to a nice ratio of "small" numbers ? I notice that you give no restrictions on which planets you compare.
First of all, this is not a useful discovery, since it is not predictive of where the planets are.
Second, it is not true, since for Earth/Mercury, I compute 5/2 which is not very close to the true number 2.40. And Uranus/Jupiter gives 7/2 which is not close to 3.59. Finally, Neptune/Mercury gives 740/3 which is hardly a ratio of small numbers.
Comparing the distribution of ratios and their errors when expressed as "small" numbers, I see no statistical improvement over a uniform distribution of numbers in the range 0-1. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you have extracted meaning, when there is nothing there.
I have discovered a fundamentally new type of relationship of planetary orbits, which can be expressed by the following formula:
Ratio = SQRT(((R1+R2)/(2*R1))^3)
Substituting in this formula values of orbital radius of the Earth R1=1a.u. (by definition) and R2=0,723 – orbital radius of the Venus, we get 4 / 5 - relations tiny integers. If we substitute values R1=5,203 and R2=0,723 (the Jupiter and the Venus), we get 3 / 7. Substituting values R1=9,539 (the Saturn) and R2=30,06 (the Neptune), we obtain 2.99 , which close to integer - 3. This golden formula works not only for the planets, but also for satellites of giant planets.
Are you asserting that sqrt(R2/R1) is constant?
Let k = R2/R1, then Ratio = ((1+k)/2)^(3/2) which is constant if k is.
Or are you asserting the much-much weaker claim that sqrt(((R2/R1)^3 + 3(R2/R1)^2 + 3 R2/R1 + 1)/8) is "close" to a nice ratio of "small" numbers ? I notice that you give no restrictions on which planets you compare.
First of all, this is not a useful discovery, since it is not predictive of where the planets are.
Second, it is not true, since for Earth/Mercury, I compute 5/2 which is not very close to the true number 2.40. And Uranus/Jupiter gives 7/2 which is not close to 3.59. Finally, Neptune/Mercury gives 740/3 which is hardly a ratio of small numbers.
Comparing the distribution of ratios and their errors when expressed as "small" numbers, I see no statistical improvement over a uniform distribution of numbers in the range 0-1. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you have extracted meaning, when there is nothing there.
I would like to point out something.
I do not know what formula the site I was refering to used. All I know is they did in fact prove that their formula works, because it works for even predicting where SEDNA and other objects "should be", though obviously after the fact.
The point is, the site I am referrring to shows how you can predict that "if there is a planet, then it should be at this average distance". Then, since you know the distance, you can calculate the speed of a stable orbit.
It doesn't claim that there definitely will be a planet at each node. It only claims that the planet must be on a node.
I do not know what formula the site I was refering to used. All I know is they did in fact prove that their formula works, because it works for even predicting where SEDNA and other objects "should be", though obviously after the fact.
The point is, the site I am referrring to shows how you can predict that "if there is a planet, then it should be at this average distance". Then, since you know the distance, you can calculate the speed of a stable orbit.
It doesn't claim that there definitely will be a planet at each node. It only claims that the planet must be on a node.
Theoretically my orbital resonances (I shell call they the orbital resonance 2-nd type) could appear when the Solar system was born or in time the following evolution. But the second variant is clear doubtful.
We assume that the resonances - a consequence of the formation of the solar system. Only in times when the planets have not yet been, asteroids could fly between Jupiter and the orbit is not born of Venus, in some odd way contributing to its formation.
I shall illustrate the idea on a following example. Behind a planet the Neptune is a belt of asteroids (Kuiper Belt) in which there is family Plutino which cycle time makes 3/2 periods of the Neptune. The greatest member of this family is Pluto, which is recently degraded of planet to an dwarf planet.
Pluto (and many other members of its family) moves so, that in the perihelion it concern orbit of the Neptune. If in the aphelion of Pluto’s orbit there was another planet, the situation described by my formula would just be realized.
No, I do not trust in existence of planet X. I assume, that to its creation have prevented any circumstances. Possibly it is the limited sizes protoplanetary disk (shortage of a building material behind an orbit of the Neptune) and shortage of time (to the beginning of construction of planet X the газо-dust disk has dissipated).
We assume that the resonances - a consequence of the formation of the solar system. Only in times when the planets have not yet been, asteroids could fly between Jupiter and the orbit is not born of Venus, in some odd way contributing to its formation.
I shall illustrate the idea on a following example. Behind a planet the Neptune is a belt of asteroids (Kuiper Belt) in which there is family Plutino which cycle time makes 3/2 periods of the Neptune. The greatest member of this family is Pluto, which is recently degraded of planet to an dwarf planet.
Pluto (and many other members of its family) moves so, that in the perihelion it concern orbit of the Neptune. If in the aphelion of Pluto’s orbit there was another planet, the situation described by my formula would just be realized.
No, I do not trust in existence of planet X. I assume, that to its creation have prevented any circumstances. Possibly it is the limited sizes protoplanetary disk (shortage of a building material behind an orbit of the Neptune) and shortage of time (to the beginning of construction of planet X the газо-dust disk has dissipated).
If you would accelerate the speed of Earth or the moon, wouldn't the orbital distance from its fulcrum increase? E.g. if you would accelerate the moon, it's average distance from Earth would increase? If that is the case, then how would these nodes be relevant? Are they just coincidental, a remnant of energy patterns present during the planets' formation, or do they have something to do with the mass-density balancing of everything orbiting the sun? Maybe accelerating the moon or a planet into a more distant orbit would have an effect on the solar system like removing, moving, or changing one of the weights used to balance a car-wheel. It gets wobbly when the weight is redistributed.
Is this all completely irrelevant?
Is this all completely irrelevant?
But what is a role, which could play a "bridging" asteroids? They were not too many, then to form a planet. And the impact velocity of the asteroid, which has an elongated orbit to the celestial body with a circular orbit is too high. The asteroid likely would split the growing planet, than join to it.
On this question there is a paradoxical response. High impacts of those asteroids were useful for the formation of planets just because crushing them, preventing premature to shrink into a single monolithic body.
With a relatively small asteroid hit the planet falling apart gravitationally bound in a swarm of small bodies. As the swarm has held many times more, it absorbs the dust and gas much faster than the monolithic planet.
On this question there is a paradoxical response. High impacts of those asteroids were useful for the formation of planets just because crushing them, preventing premature to shrink into a single monolithic body.
With a relatively small asteroid hit the planet falling apart gravitationally bound in a swarm of small bodies. As the swarm has held many times more, it absorbs the dust and gas much faster than the monolithic planet.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 09:14 PM)
If you would accelerate the speed of Earth or the moon, wouldn't the orbital distance from its fulcrum increase? E.g. if you would accelerate the moon, it's average distance from Earth would increase? If that is the case, then how would these nodes be relevant? Are they just coincidental, a remnant of energy patterns present during the planets' formation, or do they have something to do with the mass-density balancing of everything orbiting the sun? Maybe accelerating the moon or a planet into a more distant orbit would have an effect on the solar system like removing, moving, or changing one of the weights used to balance a car-wheel. It gets wobbly when the weight is redistributed.
Is this all completely irrelevant?
In a high school physics class, you generally ignored everything except Object A and Object B.
In the real world, every object in the universe is continually interacting with every other object in the universe.
Thus, if you move one object in the Solar system, every other object will eventually be affected in some way, and these effects, however small, will add up over time to a much larger net effect.
For example, if you moved mercury beyond Venus' orbit, then the net gravity attracting venus to the sun would decrease, since Mercury is now outside Venus' shell. Venus would then in turn begin to escape the sun's gravity very gradually until it came back into an equilibrium or until it became a rogue planet. In response to this, everything else would fall apart too.
After all, if a planet's orbit is stable, then if you change the mass between that planet and it's barycenter with the sun and all other objects in the solar system, then the orbit will no longer be stable.
If you actually think about it, by Kepler's law and by Newtons formula for gravity, every planet's orbit should eventually decay either inward or outward.
If a planet has a stable orbit, then the sun burns fuel for eons, converting it to energy in the form of light, then the net mass of the sun goes down, therefore the planet begins to escape the gravity of the system.
The sun cannot be billions of years old, because if it were, then even a microscopic loss of mass over time (caused by production of light, radiation, and ejecta,) would have resulted in the planets escaping it's gravity by now.
Is this all completely irrelevant?
In a high school physics class, you generally ignored everything except Object A and Object B.
In the real world, every object in the universe is continually interacting with every other object in the universe.
Thus, if you move one object in the Solar system, every other object will eventually be affected in some way, and these effects, however small, will add up over time to a much larger net effect.
For example, if you moved mercury beyond Venus' orbit, then the net gravity attracting venus to the sun would decrease, since Mercury is now outside Venus' shell. Venus would then in turn begin to escape the sun's gravity very gradually until it came back into an equilibrium or until it became a rogue planet. In response to this, everything else would fall apart too.
After all, if a planet's orbit is stable, then if you change the mass between that planet and it's barycenter with the sun and all other objects in the solar system, then the orbit will no longer be stable.
If you actually think about it, by Kepler's law and by Newtons formula for gravity, every planet's orbit should eventually decay either inward or outward.
If a planet has a stable orbit, then the sun burns fuel for eons, converting it to energy in the form of light, then the net mass of the sun goes down, therefore the planet begins to escape the gravity of the system.
The sun cannot be billions of years old, because if it were, then even a microscopic loss of mass over time (caused by production of light, radiation, and ejecta,) would have resulted in the planets escaping it's gravity by now.
There is unresolved the important question. Asteroids flying between the orbits of the planets divide the celestial bodies throughout the inter-orbit space. Why does planets form precisely at perihelion and aphelion of asteroids’ orbits?
The answer to this question: In circular orbits of aphelion and perihelion of the asteroid’s orbit asteroid holds much more time than in the any other intermediate orbit. Just a stone thrown up lives at the upper point longer than in the interim. So resonant asteroids have a greater activating effect to bodies, moving in circular orbits at the aphelion and perihelion.
The answer to this question: In circular orbits of aphelion and perihelion of the asteroid’s orbit asteroid holds much more time than in the any other intermediate orbit. Just a stone thrown up lives at the upper point longer than in the interim. So resonant asteroids have a greater activating effect to bodies, moving in circular orbits at the aphelion and perihelion.
But if high-speed impacts (of small bodies) contributes to the growth of celestial bodies, it radically changes the role of the Jupiter. Traditionally it is regarded as negative. It is believed that due to Jupiter's ) the Phaethon was died (not yet formed). According to my hypothesis, our planetary system was build namely due to the Jupiter. And it was not just a big planet. It was formed before all others due to special mechanism.
This mechanism I describe in http://www.thescienceforum.com/Why-the-Jup...99f0d0fe50d822d
This mechanism I describe in http://www.thescienceforum.com/Why-the-Jup...99f0d0fe50d822d
Traditionally it is believed that the planets (the Jupiter, among them) began to take shape in a uniform flat protoplanetary disk. In my conception planets began to form in the protoplanetary disk, in which the Jupiter already existed. Due to the gravitational perturbations of Jupiter in the dust disk it began to form celestial bodies at resonant orbits (which are in orbital resonance with the Jupiter). Thus the Saturn, which orbital period is nearly 5 / 2 period of the Jupiter, was formed.
However, if resonant perturbations on some orbit were stronger, instead of a planet it was formed a family of asteroids. Circular orbits of these asteroids were transformed into highly elliptical. Periods remained resonant. Triggering of the asteroid strikes gave rise to planets that are not in orbital resonance with the Jupiter.
However, if resonant perturbations on some orbit were stronger, instead of a planet it was formed a family of asteroids. Circular orbits of these asteroids were transformed into highly elliptical. Periods remained resonant. Triggering of the asteroid strikes gave rise to planets that are not in orbital resonance with the Jupiter.
In this way, the Venus (which is not in any orbital resonance with Jupiter) was formed. There are an interesting property, mention above many times. Period of the asteroid Jupiter-Venus makes 3 / 7 of the orbital period of Jupiter. And in the main asteroid belt it is a Kirkwood’s gap 3 / 7, in which almost no asteroids.
In my opinion this coincidence suggests that the first in a circular orbit resonance 3 / 7 of the Jupiter a large asteroid family was formed. Then the members of this family moved into elliptical orbits (of the same period, 3 / 7 of the Jupiter) with aphelion at the orbit of Jupiter. The perihelion of this asteroid orbits were located on the site of the orbit of the Venus (which is only just beginning to emerge). Through activating shocks Venus was able to grow into a large planet.
In my opinion this coincidence suggests that the first in a circular orbit resonance 3 / 7 of the Jupiter a large asteroid family was formed. Then the members of this family moved into elliptical orbits (of the same period, 3 / 7 of the Jupiter) with aphelion at the orbit of Jupiter. The perihelion of this asteroid orbits were located on the site of the orbit of the Venus (which is only just beginning to emerge). Through activating shocks Venus was able to grow into a large planet.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 22 2009, 02:30 AM)
The sun cannot be billions of years old, because if it were, then even a microscopic loss of mass over time (caused by production of light, radiation, and ejecta,) would have resulted in the planets escaping it's gravity by now.
You assume that the orbits of planets today is the same position they've always had. Once some measure of stability occurred the minor changes in mass from the sun would over time would be responded to gently resulting in the positions the planets occupy today.
You assume that the orbits of planets today is the same position they've always had. Once some measure of stability occurred the minor changes in mass from the sun would over time would be responded to gently resulting in the positions the planets occupy today.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 22 2009, 12:50 AM)
You assume that the orbits of planets today is the same position they've always had. Once some measure of stability occurred the minor changes in mass from the sun would over time would be responded to gently resulting in the positions the planets occupy today.
Nice paraphrase of the standard model crap that comes from your favorite astronomer.
However, if you actually extrapolate this stuff for yourself (it's not hard,) you will find that simply isn't the case.
If the Sun were >= 4.6 billion years old we can calculate the minimum amount of mass lost in the form of electromagnetic radiation(again, neglecting particle radiation and mass ejecta,).
How? By using the Solar constant, to calculate the average power output of the sun via the formula for the area of a sphere with radius = 1au.
Once we have the power, we can convert to total joules of energy produced by the sun over the alleged 4.6 billion years, and then once we have this number, using Einstein's E = MC^2, we can find how much mass the Sun must have LOST in order to produce that much energy.
Now I have done the hard work, and have come up with the number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Current estimate of mass of the entire sun: 1.9891×10^30 kg
Take one electron volt, multiply that times 17million for the energy released in hydrogen fusion, multiply by avogadro's number then divide by two to get energy per gram. Multiply by 1000 to get energy per kilogram of fused hydrogen.
This is: ~8.2x10^14joules per kilogram.
Now Solar constant is 1366 watts per square meter at earth distance from the sun. As stated, I can use this to find the sun's total power output, and consequently it's energy per second, and therefore it's mass loss per second.
distance to sun is ~1.5x10^11 meters
Area of sphere is 4pi X r^2.
area of the sun's sphere of influence at earth distance is 2.827x10^23 meters
Giving total power ouput at: 3.8622x10^26 watts.
multiply this number by seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, for supposedly 4.6 billion years.
5.6x10^43 joules
divide by joules per kilogram shown above for hydrogen that would be lost by the sun over 4.6 billion years at its presentpower levels. (in the past, power levels would have been higher, as there was more mass and more hydrogen, thefore more gravity and more collisions.)...
Anyway:
5.6x10^43 joules / 8.2x10^14joules per kilogram = 6.83x10^28 kg!!!!
using E = MC^2 we can also see how much mass would be lost by the sun. Which is:
6.22x10^26kg in the form of mass converted to EM radiation alone.
In other words about 100 earth masses, or 0.3% of the Sun's mass, would have escaped the Sun as light!! Once again, this does not even consider particle radiation or mass ejecta.
This would also mean thta the sun's average power output would have been at least 1/3 of one percent greater when it first formed than it is now.
Now one third of one percent doesn't look like a big number, but if you removed one third of one percent of the mass of any planet or the sun in the solar system, all of that object's satellite's would immediately begin spiraling outward and escape in relatively short order...
If the sun was this much more massive in the past, then the planets should not have formed at their present orbits and velocities. They should have spiraled into the sun and been incorporated into it's own mass. That is, if the sun was more massive in the past, then the planets would have needed a higher velocity to avoid being sucked in.
On the other hand, if the sun formed with it's present mass and the orbits of the existing planets, then it should have lost 0.3% of it's mass by now, and the planets should have spiraled away.
This gives us a problem much like the whole Dark Matter issue with the formation of galaxies. If the sun really were that old, "Something" would have to offset the loss of mass, otherwise the planets would have all escaped by now, as the average mass lost during that time would have been 0.15% (between 1/6th and 1/7th of one percent.) This is a small number, but it is more than big enough to destroy the entire solar system.
Nice paraphrase of the standard model crap that comes from your favorite astronomer.
However, if you actually extrapolate this stuff for yourself (it's not hard,) you will find that simply isn't the case.
If the Sun were >= 4.6 billion years old we can calculate the minimum amount of mass lost in the form of electromagnetic radiation(again, neglecting particle radiation and mass ejecta,).
How? By using the Solar constant, to calculate the average power output of the sun via the formula for the area of a sphere with radius = 1au.
Once we have the power, we can convert to total joules of energy produced by the sun over the alleged 4.6 billion years, and then once we have this number, using Einstein's E = MC^2, we can find how much mass the Sun must have LOST in order to produce that much energy.
Now I have done the hard work, and have come up with the number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Current estimate of mass of the entire sun: 1.9891×10^30 kg
Take one electron volt, multiply that times 17million for the energy released in hydrogen fusion, multiply by avogadro's number then divide by two to get energy per gram. Multiply by 1000 to get energy per kilogram of fused hydrogen.
This is: ~8.2x10^14joules per kilogram.
Now Solar constant is 1366 watts per square meter at earth distance from the sun. As stated, I can use this to find the sun's total power output, and consequently it's energy per second, and therefore it's mass loss per second.
distance to sun is ~1.5x10^11 meters
Area of sphere is 4pi X r^2.
area of the sun's sphere of influence at earth distance is 2.827x10^23 meters
Giving total power ouput at: 3.8622x10^26 watts.
multiply this number by seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, for supposedly 4.6 billion years.
5.6x10^43 joules
divide by joules per kilogram shown above for hydrogen that would be lost by the sun over 4.6 billion years at its presentpower levels. (in the past, power levels would have been higher, as there was more mass and more hydrogen, thefore more gravity and more collisions.)...
Anyway:
5.6x10^43 joules / 8.2x10^14joules per kilogram = 6.83x10^28 kg!!!!
using E = MC^2 we can also see how much mass would be lost by the sun. Which is:
6.22x10^26kg in the form of mass converted to EM radiation alone.
In other words about 100 earth masses, or 0.3% of the Sun's mass, would have escaped the Sun as light!! Once again, this does not even consider particle radiation or mass ejecta.
This would also mean thta the sun's average power output would have been at least 1/3 of one percent greater when it first formed than it is now.
Now one third of one percent doesn't look like a big number, but if you removed one third of one percent of the mass of any planet or the sun in the solar system, all of that object's satellite's would immediately begin spiraling outward and escape in relatively short order...
If the sun was this much more massive in the past, then the planets should not have formed at their present orbits and velocities. They should have spiraled into the sun and been incorporated into it's own mass. That is, if the sun was more massive in the past, then the planets would have needed a higher velocity to avoid being sucked in.
On the other hand, if the sun formed with it's present mass and the orbits of the existing planets, then it should have lost 0.3% of it's mass by now, and the planets should have spiraled away.
This gives us a problem much like the whole Dark Matter issue with the formation of galaxies. If the sun really were that old, "Something" would have to offset the loss of mass, otherwise the planets would have all escaped by now, as the average mass lost during that time would have been 0.15% (between 1/6th and 1/7th of one percent.) This is a small number, but it is more than big enough to destroy the entire solar system.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 22 2009, 03:42 PM)
However, if you actually extrapolate this stuff for yourself (it's not hard,) you will find that simply isn't the case.
Shame you failed to extrapolate correctly.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 22 2009, 03:42 PM)
Now one third of one percent doesn't look like a big number, but if you removed one third of one percent of the mass of any planet or the sun in the solar system, all of that object's satellite's would immediately begin spiraling outward and escape in relatively short order...
No, they wouldn't. Their orbits would change and if they were initially extremely unstable then perhaps one object, most likely a moon of Jupiter or Saturn, would end up falling inwards or flying outwards, but the claim that if you removed 1% from each object in the solar system the system would fall apart is utter crap.
Try it with a simple case, a circular orbit and you have 2 conserved quantities, the angular momentum of the orbiting object and its energy. Given the mass of the central object (say its a planet) then assuming the moon is much much smaller (ie less than 1%) than the planet you can just assume the moon orbits the centre of the planet and finding the orbital path is so easy high school students can do it. Now you can write the position and velocity of the moon at any given time. Knock off 1% from the planet's mass and use the position and velocity values you just obtained as your initial conditions and compute the resultant motion, either numerically using a computer program or by using Lagrangian methods. You'll find that the moon raises to a high, slightly elliptical, orbit. If you repeated all of this for an initially elliptical orbit it depends where in the orbit you do the mass reduction but unless you have extremely elliptic orbits or ones where objects pass very very close to one another, nothing major is going to change.
And given your entire argument rests on that result, your entire argument falls apart.
Try it with a simple case, a circular orbit and you have 2 conserved quantities, the angular momentum of the orbiting object and its energy. Given the mass of the central object (say its a planet) then assuming the moon is much much smaller (ie less than 1%) than the planet you can just assume the moon orbits the centre of the planet and finding the orbital path is so easy high school students can do it. Now you can write the position and velocity of the moon at any given time. Knock off 1% from the planet's mass and use the position and velocity values you just obtained as your initial conditions and compute the resultant motion, either numerically using a computer program or by using Lagrangian methods. You'll find that the moon raises to a high, slightly elliptical, orbit. If you repeated all of this for an initially elliptical orbit it depends where in the orbit you do the mass reduction but unless you have extremely elliptic orbits or ones where objects pass very very close to one another, nothing major is going to change.
And given your entire argument rests on that result, your entire argument falls apart.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 22 2009, 02:42 PM)
Once we have the power, we can convert to total joules of energy produced by the sun over the alleged 4.6 billion years, and then once we have this number, using Einstein's E = MC^2, we can find how much mass the Sun must have LOST in order to produce that much energy.
What do you mean by "alleged 4.6 billion years"?
Mass of the Earth x 100 = 6 x 10^26 kg / 2 x 10^30 kg(mass of Sun) = 0.0003 or .03% of the Sun's mass.
Here's an article on solar mass loss and orbital separation.
QUOTE
In other words about 100 earth masses, or 0.3% of the Sun's mass, would have escaped the Sun as light!! Once again, this does not even consider particle radiation or mass ejecta.
I think you're estimate is off by a factor of ten.Mass of the Earth x 100 = 6 x 10^26 kg / 2 x 10^30 kg(mass of Sun) = 0.0003 or .03% of the Sun's mass.
Here's an article on solar mass loss and orbital separation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In other words about 100 earth masses, or 0.3% of the Sun's mass, would have escaped the Sun as light!! Once again, this does not even consider particle radiation or mass ejecta. |
I think you're estimate is off by a factor of ten.
Mass of the Earth x 100 = 6 x 10^26 kg / 2 x 10^30 kg(mass of Sun) = 0.0003 or .03% of the Sun's mass.
Here's an article on solar mass loss and orbital separation.
The formula that governs this situation turns out to be that the orbital separation is proportional to 1 divided by the Sun's mass -- this can be derived from the fact that the Sun-planet system must conserve its angular momentum as the Sun loses mass. The orbital period of the planet, meanwhile, is proportional to 1 divided by the Sun's mass squared.
For small percentage changes in the Sun's mass (as we are considering here), all the above formulas reduce to a nice simple approximation: For every percentage decrease in the Sun's mass, the orbital separation of the planet will increase by the same percentage, and the orbital period of the planet will increase by twice the percentage.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=563
Mass of the Earth x 100 = 6 x 10^26 kg / 2 x 10^30 kg(mass of Sun) = 0.0003 or .03% of the Sun's mass.
Here's an article on solar mass loss and orbital separation.
The formula that governs this situation turns out to be that the orbital separation is proportional to 1 divided by the Sun's mass -- this can be derived from the fact that the Sun-planet system must conserve its angular momentum as the Sun loses mass. The orbital period of the planet, meanwhile, is proportional to 1 divided by the Sun's mass squared.
For small percentage changes in the Sun's mass (as we are considering here), all the above formulas reduce to a nice simple approximation: For every percentage decrease in the Sun's mass, the orbital separation of the planet will increase by the same percentage, and the orbital period of the planet will increase by twice the percentage.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=563
At the other forum http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstrea...ng-formula.html . I had been opened the same name theme. To my bitter regret, the theme has been closed (because of my silly joke) on the most important for me place - transition of discussion to physics of the phenomenon (and I tragically was lost).
[Moderator: Closing your thread seems too kind. Deleting it here seems like a better option. It is not an Amazing Formula, because it does not work for all pairs of planets better than chance.]
[Moderator: Closing your thread seems too kind. Deleting it here seems like a better option. It is not an Amazing Formula, because it does not work for all pairs of planets better than chance.]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.