Whether I have made opening?

[Krupin]

I had noticed a strange feature in an arrangement of the planetary orbits, externally reminding the orbital resonances, known already of some centuries Orbital resonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . To notice existence of orbital resonances is simply. It is the commensurability of the periods of two bodies at which their orbital periods is close to rational numbers with small numerators and denominators. My commensurability not lays on a surface.

 

Probably, many noticed an amusing thing. If to send a rocket to an orbit of the Venus, it, having made 5 turns, will come back to the Earth on which will pass 4 years. It is the orbital resonance 4/5, but not between direct two planets directly. This resonance is between one of the planet and the "intermediate" particle flying between planetary orbits.

 

But this cleanly casual concurrence can? I have checked up other variants and have found similar cases. If between orbits of the Jupiter and the Venus an asteroid is flying then through everyone 7 turns it come nearer to the Jupiter again (through 3 turns of the Jupiter). It is a resonance 3/7. If Saturnine inhabitants will send a space probe to an orbit of the Neptune, it will return to them, having made a single turn for the period to three Neptunian year. These three resonances (4/5 3/7 3/1) are carried out though not absolutely exact, but with very big accuracy, not the worst, than accuracy of usual orbital resonances.

 

Orbital resonances are available not only for planets, but also for regular satellites of planets-giants. I have checked up these systems not presence of "my" resonance type (I call it the orbital resonance of second type, or interorbital resonsnce), and have found out them in all these satellite systems.

 

Here is a place where I ask my question. Whether are all these numbers simple accidents or it is any hitherto unknown law.

 

If in Solar system was available tens planets with the satellite systems, it would be possible to answer unequivocally this question by means of only probability theory (though, and not having opened the physical reason of the phenomenon). But it is not a lot of planets and satellites to make the confident conclusion.

 

The situation is rather similar to Bode "law", which remain without results argue more than two centuries. I consider Bode law as accident. The arrangement of planets has coincided with a prediction of this rule only twice. And that first prediction - Uranus was as though "entrance fee". Before opening of Uranus the law was practically unknown. The second come true prediction – the Ceres, also raises the doubts (it not a planet, but the largest body of main belt). For two centuries it was not found out even a hint on existence of the reasonable physical reason of existence of strict sequence of planetary orbits in space from the Venus up to the Uranus. In fact planets very much differ on weights and a chemical compound. In various parts of protoplanetary disk it were various processes and the formation of planets could proceed differently. Whence then to undertake the global law uniting all of a planet. And at last, Bode law is inapplicable to satellite systems.

 

The situation with my resonances is more optimistical (as seems to me). The number of resonant cases is enough considerably. Resonances are also into satellite systems. And at last, my attempt to find a physical substantiation (as it seems to me) has crowned success.

 

At the other forum An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum . I had been opened a theme, which provocative name is mismatches true. Actually the formula is simply a special case of the third law of Kepler ( for my new type of resonances). 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).

 

At this forum I would like to begin whenever possible at once discussion of physics of the phenomenon, having avoided routine questions on, whether the formula is correct and whether calculations are exact. I recommend before to ask such questions to read the mention above theme where they are considered in detail.

[Tormod]

I wonder - which translation service did you use to translate your text? Much of it is incomprehensible.

 

As for the topic, this would belong in our "alternative theories" forum.

[Krupin]

What is the alternative theory in your opinion? This all new that else was not? Live you in days of Kopernik, would name its hypothesis the alternative theory. And

Einstein should be carried to the same category - its sights contradicted all existed opinions.

 

I do not contradict theories any firmly established and checked up in practice - I do not try to deny Einstein, Kepler or Newton. But the planetary science still is not present. Any of existing hypotheses does not apply yet for a role of the theory. And it is possible, any of them is not true. Therefore any new hypothesis if it is not notorious nonsense, should take, at least, into consideration.

 

From written by me it is clear, that I am not a numerology. Why Bode "law" which obviously has no physical sense, is not considered obviously alternative. Why my resonances, which I find physical sense and which are much more exact, you initially declare as alternative?

[lemit]

Alternative is not bad. It means different from what is taught now.

 

Do not think that just because we call your theory alternative we will not consider it. We will.

 

I am not smart enough to understand what you are suggesting, but other people here are. I am sure they will tell you whether your theory has merit. That is what you want, isn't it? If you only want to hear you are right, you might have trouble anywhere.

 

Good luck. I hope you can understand and accept what we do as we are trying to understand and accept what you do.

 

--lemit

[Krupin]

I am sure they will tell you whether your theory has merit. That is what you want, isn't it? If you only want to hear you are right, you might have trouble anywhere.

 

Good luck. I hope you can understand and accept what we do as we are trying to understand and accept what you do.

 

--lemit

 

 

I do not want to be praised. I look forward to a serious and reasoned debate.

[freeztar]

I'm having trouble understanding what your theory is about. Can you rephrase it?

[coldcreation]

I'm having trouble understanding what your theory is about. Can you rephrase it?

 

I think he/she is trying to say that Bode's Law is insufficient (or incorrect) as a means of predicting where the planets of the solar system should reside, since:

 

The Titius–Bode law (sometimes termed just Bode's law) is a hypothesis that the bodies in some orbital systems, including the Sun's, orbit at semi-major axes in an exponential function of planetary sequence. The hypothesis correctly predicted the orbits of Ceres and Uranus, but failed as a predictor of Neptune's orbit.

 

So he/she is proposing an alternative idea (it is not a theory, but rather conjecture) regarding planetary formation and current positions, based on an ad hoc orbital resonance pattern (e.g., 4/5 3/7 3/1) that differs to some extent from the standard orbital resonance.

 

Though there appears to be a 2:3 resonance between Pluto and Neptune (and of course 1:2:4 resonance of Jupiter's moons Ganymede, Europa, and Io) there does not appear to be the 4/5, 3/7 or 3/1 resonance pattern between Venus and the Earth, Jupiter and Venus or Saturn and neptune, stipulated in the idea above.

 

So unless Krupin can provide the data...

this would belong in our "alternative theories" forum.

 

 

 

CC

[Krupin]

Excuse me please, because I can not answer now full. While I have some time constraints. I answer as best as I can, but briefly.

 

I am «He» (but not “She”) - Krupin Sergey. I'm not going to seek a new planet X. I believe that in the solar system there are no undiscovered planets.

 

My commensurabilities are not a numerology. Specific types of resonances (4 / 5, 3 / 7, 3 / 1) - they were an accident - a consequence of many factors. For example, it is difficult to answer the question why Pluto and Plutino are in resonance with Neptune is 3 / 2, and not some other resonance type. This is a consequence of many factors.

 

My hypothesis is very simple and in theory can be understood by a schoolboy, who knows the laws of Kepler and Newton (well, a little more chemistry). However, it is long and does not fit in one post. I would consistently explain it step by step.

 

Some basic ideas I have represented briefly at the end of the topic An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum , before it was closed.

[lemit]

Sorry for the praise. I have a feeling I won't make that mistake again.

 

I've looked at the possibly appropriately named "Bad Astronomy . . . Forum" and seen that we aren't the first to move your thread. You didn't seem surprised when the other guys did it. Did you think our standards were lower?

 

I also saw the other thread was closed, citing your failure to defend your theory. It might be a good idea to be prepared to be shocked and surprised again.

 

But on the other hand, I think I may have found a solution to our misunderstandings. Bring in that schoolboy. Have him write your theory so the rest of us will be able to read and understand it.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

--lemit

[Krupin]

I also saw the other thread was closed, citing your failure to defend your theory.

The topic (my An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum) was closed not because of my refusal to defend his hypothesis. It was closed due to the fact that I am too much a joke in another topic Generalization for Krupin ATM - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum .

[lemit]

I was just paraphrasing "antoniseb," an administrator at the "Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum." Here's exactly what "antoniseb" said:

 

I've closed this thread, since Krupin can no longer defend his position.

 

I'm not an administrator, nor a moderator. I'm just an editor. But I kind of suspect the real administrators around here might be interested.

 

The spoof thread you cited is a different thread. It has nothing to do with the fact that you could "no longer defend [your] position." That's a different matter. It's important that you know the difference.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I see you were banned for life from that other site. Why was that?

[Krupin]

In the theme Generalization for Krupin ATM - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum I said that I was terrorized by unreasonable demands of macaw (that he actually did). And what I demand compensation for moral damage from him. This post was removed by the moderator.

 

Administration forum regarded my words as a threat of prosecution. I was banned “never”. Because of this, my topic was closed and it was written

I've closed this thread, since Krupin can no longer defend his position.

[lemit]

I see now that you couldn't defend your position if you'd been banned for life. Do you know about pyrrhic victories?

 

I originally asked about the offense that was done to you. Then I reviewed the spoof thread. I don't know the subject matter well enough to know a spoof when I see one. But I did see that macaw was banned too.

 

I have an impression that both of you were childish. Since one of you had to be banned, both of you had to be banned for equally childish behavior. My advice to you would be to accept sometimes cruel behavior toward you and show yourself to be more mature than your attacker. You are not responsible for policing the behavior of those immature people. Let the people who are responsible take care of those who would make fun of you. There are people like that here too.

 

--lemit

[Krupin]

But it is time to go at last to an explanation of the reason of my orbital resonances. In passing I give also an explanation to "classical" orbital resonances. The reason both is the same.

 

For a priming I shall repeat posts from the termination of the interrupted theme An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

[Krupin]

Note that all three distinct resonance (my type) : the Earth-Venus, Jupiter- Venus, Saturn- Neptune asteroids does not intersect the orbit of Jupiter. And in all these cases, the asteroids are in resonance with the planet, which is closer to Jupiter. As I found out (I think that correctly), it is no accident. Since the sequence of planet formation in protoplanetary disks in the following sequence:

 

First the Jupiter have been formed.

Under the influence of its gravity was formed Saturn, at a resonant orbit 5 / 2 (classical resonance) with Jupiter.

Below Jupiter under the influence of its gravity was formed asteroid family of asteroids 3 / 7. However, this family was not united in the planet, but was passed on elongated orbits with the same period (retaining the resonance 3 / 7 on Jupiter).

When aphelion asteroid orbits arranged in the orbit of Jupiter, the perihelion descended into the orbit of Venus. The Venus was formed due this. Following this process is the Kirkwood gap 3 / 7 (regard to Jupiter) in the asteroid belt.

 

Above the orbit of Jupiter process occurred in a similar manner. The Saturn formed asteroid family of 3 / 1, which ensured the formation of Neptune at its aphelion. Then the Neptune formed asteroid family Plutino, located in the resonance 3 / 2 on Neptune.

The process is stopped due to lack of building material and the new planet at aphelion family Plutino (and the chief representative of Pluto) was not born.

[Krupin]

This story is very simple, but becomes an insurmountable contradiction with the prevailing today model of planet formation (model of planetesimals). According to this standard model each planet should be formed in quiet areas of the protoplanetary disk, where pebbles and dust particles are moving along a perfect concentric circles. Then, according to planetary science, the particles stick to each other and the planets are formed such as a snowman.

 

In this concept the Jupiter exerted on the formation of planets negative impact. In particular, it has prevented the formation of Phaeton between Mars and Jupiter.

 

According to these ideas planets in binary (two-stars) systems can not be formed.

 

However, the planets in the systems of two stars were found that significantly undermined the generally accepted theoretical position (and in general it has in decades, had accumulated a lot of other problems).

 

I will counsel of the Jupiter and I will prove that our Solar System was formed because of it.

[lemit]

I want to thank you for moving beyond the controversy of that earlier experience.

 

I'm kind of dumb about these things, but could you explain what you mean when you say you will "counsel of the Jupiter" and that by doing so you will prove the Solar System was formed because of it? Because of Jupiter? By counsel do you mean advice?

 

I'm sorry. I'm really trying to understand what you're writing, and I can see that you are trying to write something I can understand. But we seem to still be about as far apart as Mars and Jupiter.

 

Sorry. Language, that thing that's supposed to unite us, so much of the time just divides us.

 

--lemit