| |
| REVIVING BODE'S LAW |
View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
 Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: REVIVING BODE'S LAW |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
In 2004, I published a new theory about our solar system in my book "The Warning in Stone", website : <http://www.planeteroid.com>. Following are extracts from Chapter 2:
REVIVING BODE’S LAW
BY SUHAIL JALBOUT
“How can one determine the number of planets that were formed at the time the solar system was born? The answer to this difficult question may be found by studying Bode’s Law. Johan Bode, a German astronomer, was very interested in the solar planetary system. In 1772 he claimed that there must be a planet between Mars and Jupiter basing his reasoning on the following mathematical analysis. He took two numbers 0 and 3, then he doubled 3 to get 6, and 6 to get 12, and so on. He then added 4 to each resultant number in the series and divided the results by 10, as such:
Step 1: 0 – 3
Step 2: 0 – 3 – 6 – 12 – 24 – 48 – 96 – 192, …
Step 3: 4 – 7 – 10 – 16 – 28 – 52 – 100 – 196, …
Step 4: 0.4 – 0.7 – 1.0 – 1.6 – 2.8 – 5.2 – 10.0 – 19.6, …
He claimed that the results of step 4 represent the distance of each planet from the Sun multiplied by the distance from Earth to the Sun. It should be noted that the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered in 1781, 1846, and 1930 respectively; in other words, after Bode formulated his Law. The results of Bode’s Law are in table 1.{11}
TABLE 1
The distance of the planets
from the Sun according to Bode’s Law*
(Planet), (Bode’s Series), (Bode’s Distance), (Actual Mean Distance),(Percentage Error**)
(Mercury), (4 + 0),(0.4),(0.39),(- 2.5)
(Venus),(4 + 3),(0.7),(0.72),(+ 2.8)
(Earth),(4 + 6),(1.0),(1.00), (0.0)
(Mars),(4 + 12),(1.6), (1.52),(- 5.0)
(Bode),(4 + 24),(2.8), (-----),(-----)
(Jupiter),(4 + 48),(5.2),(5.20),(0.0)
(Saturn),(4 + 96),(10.0),(9.54),(- 4.6)
(Uranus),(4 + 192),(19.6),(19.18),(- 2.1)
(Neptune),(4 + 384),(38.8),(30.06),(- 22.5)
(Pluto),(4 + 768),(77.2),(39.44),(- 48.9)
*Based on Bode’s Law in: <http://members.lycos.co.uk/JeremyBatterson/kuiper.html>
**A negative error indicates that the planet is nearer to the Sun than Bode predicted and a positive error is vice versa.
From these results, Bode concluded that there must be a planet between Mars and Jupiter at a distance of 2.8 times the Earth’s distance from the Sun. Such a planet could not be found until 1801 when the Sicilian astronomer, Giuseppi Piazzi, spotted a small object in orbit near where Bode had predicted its location. This object turned out to have a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers. Later, it was discovered that this is not the only object in orbit, but that there are hundreds of thousands of similar asteroids and millions of meteorites all revolving around the Sun in what has become known as the asteroid belt. The orbit of some of these asteroids comes very close to Earth from time to time as did Hermes Asteroid in 1937.{12} Most asteroids are made of either nickel and iron, or a combination of rock and metals, while others are mainly matter.{13 }Such a composition is what scientists would expect to find among the remains of a shattered planet. If the original Bode’s planet did exist, what caused it to explode and shatter to pieces, thus forming the asteroid belt? To answer this question, Bode’s Law must be analyzed.
It is evident that Bode’s Law works very well up to Uranus, but Neptune and Pluto are completely out of the range. This means that the Sun’s gravitation has different effects on planets nearer to it than those farther away from it. The following example supports this logic:
Scientists could not explain why Mercury’s orbit is highly eccentric. They attributed its behavior to a body in its vicinity, but no such planet could be found.{14 }However, when Einstein formulated his gravitational equation, scientists were able to understand why Mercury was behaving in that way. The Sun’s gravitational field is enormous near its neighbors, which represents a large quantity of energy. Since mass and energy are interrelated, then the large quantity of its energy could be considered as an additional small mass exerting additional gravitational pulls on Mercury, causing its unusual behavior.
If planets act differently when they are nearer the Sun, we can conclude that planets very far away from the Sun will also behave differently. In the latter case, the Sun’s gravitational pull is weak, causing the farthest planets to form at distances much nearer to the Sun than Bode’s predictions. This is so because gravitation is necessary for the formation of spheres. Consequently, Bode’s Law must be revised and a correction factor applied.
Since the correction factor must be applied from the farthest planet to the nearest, I reversed the logic that Bode used. Instead of using 3 as a base and multiplying by 2, I used 2 as a base and multiplied by 3. This gave the following figures for the correction factors:
2 – 6 – 18 – 54 – 162 – 486 – 1,458 – 4,374 – 13,122.
Applying these numbers to Bode’s Law gives us new results represented in table 2 (see my D formula in appendix two).
TABLE 2
The distance of the planets from the Sun
according to my revised version of Bode’s Law
(Planet), (Corrected Bode’s Series), (Corrected Distance), (Actual Mean Distance), (Percentage Error)
(Mercury),<4 + 0 x (1─0)>,(0.40*),(0.39),(- 2.5)
(Venus),<4 + 3 x (1─1/13122)>,(0.70),(0.72),(+ 2.8)
(Earth),<4 + 6 x (1─1/4374)>,(1.00),(1.00),( (0.0)
(Mars),<4 + 12 x (1─1/1458)>,(1.60),(1.52), (- 5.0)
(Bode),<4 + 24 x (1─1/486)>,(2.79),(-----), (-----)
(Jupiter),<4 + 48 x (1─1/162)>,(5.17),(5.20),(+ 0.6)
(Saturn),<4 + 96 x (1─1/54)>,(9.82),(9.54), (- 2.8)
(Uranus),<4 + 192 x (1─1/18)>,(18.53),(19.18),(+ 3.4)
(Neptune),<4 + 384 x (1─1/6)>,(32.40),(30.06),( - 7.2)
(Pluto/SEVTA),<4 + 768 x (1─1/2)>,(38.80),(39.44),(+ 1.6)
*This is the only value that did not coincide with my D formula (see the explanation in appendix two).
On comparing the percentage error columns in tables 1 and 2, we note that the latter has improved tremendously (see figure 8 in appendix two). The errors of all the planets are very reasonable except for Mars and Neptune, (- 5.0%) and (- 7.2%) respectively. Why do these two planets have such a large error, and why are they nearer to the Sun than the predicted corrected distance? The answer is quite simple. Both Mars and Neptune had planets beyond their orbits which were exerting outward gravitational pulls on them. Mars was experiencing two gravitational pulls in opposite directions. One from Earth pulling Mars towards the Sun and the other from Bode’s planet pulling Mars away from the Sun. When Bode’s planet was shattered, as we shall discuss later, Mars was displaced nearer to the Sun because the outward pull of Bode’s planet no longer existed. Similarly, Neptune was experiencing two gravitational pulls in opposite directions. One was exerted by Uranus pulling Neptune towards the Sun, and the other by an unknown planet-not Pluto because it did not exist at that time-pulling it away from the Sun. In the absence of the unknown planet, which I shall name Sevta, Neptune no longer had the gravitational force pulling it away from the Sun, causing it to be displaced to a distance nearer the Sun than was predicted.”
“Due to its unstable path, Sevta was split and pulled from its orbit creating a catastrophe in our solar system. The major spherical part became a periodic visitor with a new elliptical trajectory around the Sun, which I shall name Planeteroid (Planet X). One of its moons became Pluto and its other moon, Triton, was captured by Neptune. The formation of Planeteroid caused Bode’s planet to cross the Roche Limit near the huge planet Jupitor and explode creating the asteroid belt.”
APPENDIX TWO: THE D FORMULA
I HAVE DEVELOPED the following formula, based on my revised version of Bode’s Law, to calculate the mean distance from the sun of the original ‘ten’ planets in our solar system. These planets were: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Bode, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Sevta.
D = [3 x 2 {n-2 }x (1-1/2x3 {N-n)} +4] x d / 10
Where,
D = the mean distance of the planet from the sun
d = the mean distance of Earth, the 3rd planet, from the sun
n = the numerical number of the planet counting from the sun outwards
N = the number of the original planets in the solar system
Here are two applications for the formula:
1.The mean distance of Mercury, the 1st planet, from the sun.
D = [3 x 2 {1-2 }x (1-1/2x3 {10-1}) + 4] x d / 10 = 0.55 x d
The original mean distance of Mercury from the sun according to this formula is 0.55d.However,the actual mean distance of Mercury from the sun is 0.39 x d. This means that there is a theoretical mass, due to the huge energy of the sun, that pulls Mercury nearer to the sun. The theoretical mass is defined in Einstein’s equation as m = E/c2 (where E = energy, m = mass and c = speed of light). From this obvious displacement of Mercury (0.55 x d – 0.39 x d), it is possible to calculate the theoretical mass (m) and the sun’s energy (E) near Mercury.
2.The mean distance of Earth, the 3rd planet, from the sun.
D = [3 x 2 {3-2 }x (1-1/2x3 {10-3}) +4] x d / 10= 1.00 x d” |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
So why do they follow this pattern?
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| Because the universe is a giant clockwork mechanism that whirls about the sun, constructed according to the divine machinations of the gods, forged out of the ether, driven by the perpetual motion of their majestic order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
The following additional information may be of interest :
In 2006, two American scientists published a similar theory in the May edition of Nature Journal (May 11, 2006, V441, P192-194). Both Dr. Agnor of California University and Dr. Hamilton of Maryland University believe that a planet existed beyond Neptune. This planet, in their openion, disappeared and its moon Triton was captured by Neptune.
It seems the validity of my theory is approaching reality. I have no doubt that Planeteroid (Planet X) will be discovered in the near future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Canada
|
| Where does the dwarf planet Eris fit into this? And what of the kuiper belt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
Hi BumFluff,
These solar bodies are not planets. Their mass is too small to produce any effects in our solar system. The planet that existed beyond Neptune, at the time the solar system was formed, had a large mass. Its absence caused Neptune to be displaced nearer to the Sun. There are at least 4 important effects that the presence of Planeteroid has inflected upon our solar system due to its large mass:
1.The wobbly performance of Neptune.
2.The explosion of Bode’s planet between Mars and Jupiter.
3.The slow clockwise rotation of Venus.
4.The powerful magnetic field of Mercury.
1. Neptune is a wobbly planet and no one knows why. When Sevta was split into pieces and Planeteroid was pulled away from its orbit, a gravitational perturbation was introduced in the vicinity of Neptune. Such a perturbation would cause Neptune to wobble. Because of Neptune’s huge volume, the Sun’s weak gravitational pull on it at such a great distance and the absence of a dampening medium, Neptune will continue to wobb
2. As mentioned before, Bode predicted the existence of a planet between Mars and Jupiter. A belt of asteroids exists now in its place. Let us assume that Planeteroid passed near Bode’s planet and introduced a deviation in the its path. If the deviation was of a large magnitude, it would have caused Bode’s planet to have an acute orbital eccentricity and cross the Roche limit (near Jupiter). The Roche limit is the minimum distance to which a small solar body can approach another larger body without being torn apart into pieces by tidal forces. The possibility that Bode’s planet did cross Roche’s limit is high because Bode’s planet used to complete its orbit around the Sun in 4.7 years and passed by the huge planet Jupiter once during this period. Consequently, it is plausible to guess that the encounter between Planeteroid and Bode’s planet caused the latter to shatter when it crossed the Roche limit.
3. Venus is a planet in the solar system that spins on its axis in a clockwise direction; most of the other planets spin counter-clockwise. Logic dictates that Venus should follow the same axial rotation as the other planets unless subjected to an external force. In addition, the period of revolution of Venus around its axis is 243 days, whereas, its revolution around the Sun is completed in 225 days. All other planets complete their axial rotation in hours except for Pluto (6 days) and Mercury (59 days); even the Sun takes only 27 days to finish its axial revolution. The only logical explanation to Venus’ behavior is the effect of Planeteroid on it during their encounter. If Venus was rotating counterclockwise like all the other neighboring planets, the passage of Planeteroid in its neighborhood would cause a prolonged celestial shock. This shock would produce strong and long gravitational pulls, which could account for the strange behavior of Venus. When both Planeteroid and Venus rotate side by side around the Sun, the tremendous gravitational force between them would cause Venus to spin clockwise around its axis with a very slow period of axial rotations.
4. In 1973, planetary scientists were shocked to discover that Mercury has a powerful magnetic field. How could a small planet, like Mercury, possess such a strong magnetic field? Scientists explain this phenomenon by saying that ‘Mercury might have once been a bigger planet and somehow got its outer layers [shell] stripped off.’ Could Planeteroid be responsible for Mercury’s loss of its shell? Indeed, it seems likely that Planeteroid, while passing between Venus and Mercury, stripped the latter’s outer shell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Canada
|
| So you are saying there was a planet that crossed paths with Mercury, Venus and Neptune? I don't think with an orbit that eccentric it would be called a planet. Perhaps a comet? Dealing with Mercury what I think occured, if infact it was a larger planet at one time, the distance between it and the Suns has gotten smaller and smaller as our galaxy ages and perhaps it stripped away it's outter layers as I'm sure it will do with Jupiter, Saturn and the other outter planets when it gets much larger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
Hello BumFluff,
The orbit of the planet that existed beyond Neptune, at the time the solar system was formed, was similar to the orbits of all the other planets. Since this planet does not exist anymore, in its original orbit, it is obvious to ask what is its new trajectory? One possibility to answer this question is to find abnormal events in our solar system. My research led to the events I mentioned earlier. As a result, I believe its new trajectory is a narrow elliptical orbit similar to comets. As it approaches the sun from space, it crosses the paths of Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth and Venus. It rotates somewhere between Venus and Mercury, and moves on its outward journey, again, crossing the orbital paths of the planets.
I have dedicated 5 chapters in my book to explain the effects of Planeteroid’s regular visits on our planet earth. If you are interested to read my book, please forward your mailing address to send you a copy free of charge. My email is: info @planeteroid.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
It's also possible that the solar system isn't done forming. Every planet had to accrue from smaller pieces, and the asteroid/kuiper belts could just be a bunch of pieces that haven't accrued into a planet yet. Just give them a few billion years and wait for it.
I'm curious how Bode (The asteroid belt) would have been broken apart. Even if two planetary bodies collide, they typically seem to stick together. It would take a force pulling from the outside stronger than the force from the inside, or a very strong internal force pushing outward very suddenly.
Maybe Bode was never allowed to form in the first place because Jupiter keeps interfering and breaking up the formation before it can happen?
Maybe Sevta hasn't formed yet, because the distances out that far from the Sun are too great for the pieces to come together? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
Hi Kogax,
When a nebula completes its conversion into a stable solar system, I doubt whether new solar bodies can be formed. Forming new spheres require molten mater as well as gravitational centers. That is why the rings of Saturn are not converted into spheres. Consequently, I believe the planet Sevta did exist at the time the solar system was formed. The obvious effects of its disappearance are:
1.From the data in table 2 above, or from the D Formula, Neptune has an error of (-7.2%) while Uranus has an error of (+3.4%). This means Neptune is nearer to the sun while Uranus is farther away from the sun in comparison to the predicted corrected distances. When Sevta left its orbit, Neptune was displaced nearer to the sun thus approaching Uranus and pulling the latter away from the sun.
2.Neptune has 13 moons. All the moons are rotating in the same direction except for its 7th moon, Triton. In fact Triton is the only moon in our solar system to orbit a planet in an opposite direction. The cause may be explained either by assuming that it was a moon of sevta, which was captured by Neptune, or that it had an encounter with Planeteroid when the latter zoomed near Neptune, causing it to have a retrograde orbit.
3.The wobbling performance of Neptune.
Jupiter has many moons. Its huge gravitational forces did not interfere in their formation. This means Bode planet may have existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rhysboi1991 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 52
Location: Cumbria, North West England
|
i am still confused about how the arrangement of the planets follows that pattern of numbers. have you and bode just made a formula that represents. and i would say that it is just coincidence that a relation appeared when you investigated this.
i am sorry if i am talking jibberish but it is very late at night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
I regret that I am unable to answer your question. The world we live in is full of unexplainable phenomena.
When I studied Bode’s Law, I realized that it required a correction factor so that it will apply to all the planets in our solar system. So, I developed the “D Formula”. What is amazing is that the formula gives the distance of each planet from the sun irrespective of their size or mass. I wonder if all the other existing planetary systems in our universe were formed in accordance to this formula. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
| Suhail Jalbout wrote: |
| Forming new spheres require molten mater as well as gravitational centers. . |
Every particle of matter in the universe is a 'gravitational centre'. Accumulate enough of them and you will have - through conversion of kinetic energy to thermal and radioactivity - molten matter.
| Suhail Jalbout wrote: |
| That is why the rings of Saturn are not converted into spheres. |
No it isn't. The rings do not form into spheres because they lie within the Roche limit.
| Suhail Jalbout wrote: |
| 2.Neptune has 13 moons. All the moons are rotating in the same direction except for its 7th moon, Triton. In fact Triton is the only moon in our solar system to orbit a planet in an opposite direction. |
That is simply wrong. For Jupiter we have forty eight moons that are retrograde versus 7 that are 'normal'. The ratio is twenty nine to nine for Saturn, and eight to one for Uranus.
When I see such glaring errors in basic facts I have difficulty in accepting as plausible anything else you may offer up.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane.
Last edited by Ophiolite on Mon May 05, 2008 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
Hi Ophiolite,
I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on my points of view:
1.A small clump of molten matter needs other clumps of matter in its neighborhood to initiate the process for sphere formation. That is why gravitational centers are needed in its vicinity so that they in turn convert into clumps of molten matter in order to start the process of fusing together to become a spherical body.
2.After the conversion of our nebula, the rings of Saturn could be the only location in our solar system with dense matter. However, this matter cannot initiate the process mentioned above because of Saturn’s gravitation.
3.The retrograde moons that you mentioned are probably captured asteroids. I doubt whether they were orbiting the planets at the time the solar system was created. It is confusing to call every satellite that revolves around a planet a moon. Does this mean that all the man made satellites are moons? I hope a conference will be held in the near future to address the definition of moons versus satellites, similar to the conference that took place few years ago on planets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Suhail Jalbout |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
|
rhysboi 1991 wrote : " I am still confused about how the arrangement of the planets follow that pattern of numbers."
I hope the article "Nebular-Ripple Hypothesis" that I have just posted in The Science Forum may explain how the planets were formed in our solar system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
