Look near the end of this document for topic 'Meta's Equations' which are a set of new terms cooked up by Nathan Ddumba of Uganda making it easier to understand how the planets can orbit irrespective of mass. Planet mass chooses the orbit distance from the Sun. After that, fluid dynamics controls the orbiting effects. COUPLING.TXT WHY THERE IS NO MASS IN KEPLER'S 3RD LAW There is no mass in the resulting fluid field dynamics of period-orbital coupling in angular vector field currents, in gravity, around the Sun, running in the undercurrent independant of mass. Empty the solar space of everything, from the Sun's shell out to Pluto and occupied belts beyond, so the solar system is bare naked empty. Nothing there. Exept empty space. And the constant running field of fluid dynamics. The coupling dynamics undercurrent is still there ready to engage action when something with mass moves into the empty space. Move a comet into the void and it will orbit correctly according to velocity and period in location determined by the amount of comet mass gravity held at a location self determined by the gravity mass of the comet and much more gravity massive Sun. More mass in the comet pulls the comet closer to the Sun to then resume fluid dynamic motions of velocity and period in the new faster location. Drop a pebble anywhere in the void of an empty solar system and the pebble will discretely adjust place to find the gravity balance to assume a correct orbit. Any object placed into a solar void moves by the fluid dynamic undercurrent after mass determines the place to motion. A large mass such as a Jupiter sized planet can be placed anywhere in the solar gravity field around a star and orbit where placed after local adjustment for mass. A Jupiter can orbit out by pluto. A jupiter can orbit inside an orbit of Mercury. It makes no difference where, the fluid dynamic undercurrent engages the Jupiter where it is, the Jupiter velocity and period slower or faster in exact accordance to the location out from the central gravity mass from the Sun, the fluid dynamic field strength diminishing in a sliding shifting ratio out near, further out, from the Sun. The professor shuts eyes to mentally indwelt a next sentence. The empty solar system spins on in constant sustaining unconcerned. FLUID DYNAMICS COUPLING DISCUSSION Planetary spin orbital coupling is the first unifying gravitational constant ever discovered by humankind. It functions without mass, and serves only distance and velocity. The amount of mass in any planet is completely outside of its necessities. The only qualifyer to power is the gravity of the Sun, even then, questionable to extremes. For instance, do spaces and velocities doppler shift in and out when the gravity power of the Sun is increased or decreased by fiddling with its mass. If doppler indeed, is the doppler affect lineal throughout a whole slide zone, or, is it quantum, that is, shifting takes place at only certain mass increment levels, and velocity-radius componenents likewise shift in hops skips and jumps. ================================================= topic A KEPLERIAN 4TH LAW A KEPLERIAN 5TH LAW SIMPLIFIED ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLINGS FOR PLANETS ================================================= Keplerian 4th Law demonstration begins below in Appendix X-2. Qualifier Please take no notice that there is some redundancy in what follows. Several drafts were curried off in rapid succession, the best parts patched together to comprise a finished final draft however the patched parts each seemed to have their own communicative charm in passing on their messages in different ways regards the same concepts leading to an outcome of a more full and complete picture of the inner works. So the patches are what you now have in hand as finished. ============================================================ Abstract SINGLE PLANET ORBITS AND VELOCITIES ARE SHOWN IN ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLINGS, WHEN THE ORBITS AND VELOCITIES ARE IN 'ASTRONOMICAL UNITS'. THIS IS NOT A REVELATION, AND IS NOT SUPRISING. Begin ALL THAT THIS COUPLING CONSISTS OF IS THE UNIQUE CASE OF EARTH'S DYNAMICS BEING COUPLED TO ALL OF THE OTHER PLANET DYNAMICS IN ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING, BETWEEN PAIRS OF ANY TWO PLANETS (IN THIS CASE EARTH, AND ANY OTHER PLANET). IN EQUATION X-1 BELOW, THE '1' STANDS FOR EARTH IF GIVEN IN FULL SYSTEMS OF UNITS. FOR ASTRONOMICAL UNITS AND SINGLE SEEMING PLANET ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING ALL THAT IS HAPPENED IS THAT THE RATIO (OF EARTH DIVIDED BY ANY PLANET'S ORBIT) IS DONE FIRST BEFOREHAND FOR ALL PLANETS, TO COMPRISE A TABLE OF ASTRONOMICAL UNIT VALUES. THE FACT OF AN ORBIT/VELOCITY RATIO FOR EACH PLANET MEANS THAT ORBITING VELOCITY CAN BE QUICKLY CALCULATED FOR ANY POSITION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM BY A QUICK MEANS, THE CALCULATED VELOCITY CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE ACTUAL VELOCITY TO BE USABLE. THE EQUATION TO USE IS GIVEN FURTHER BELOW, AS EQUATION X-1. THE ONE SUPRISE IS THAT IN PLANET PAIR ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING, THE LONGER PLANET ORBIT IS DIVIDED BY THE SHORTER PLANET ORBIT, IN ORDER FOR THE RATIO TO BE THE SAME FOR THE RATIO OF THE FASTEST VELOCITY DIVIDED BY THE SLOWER VELOCITY FOR THE SAME TWO PLANETS. THIS IS TRUE FOR COUPLING THE ORBITS AND VELOCITIES OF ANY TWO PLANETS (OR MOONS) IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, IN WHICH THE ORBITAL RATIO AND VELOCITY RATIO ARE THE SAME VALUE. THE EQUATION TO USE IS GIVEN FURTHER BELOW, AS EQUATION X-2. HOWEVER, WHEN EQUATION X-1 IS FACTORED USING ASTRONOMICAL UNITS, ALL PLANET ORBITS ARE DIVIDED BY ONE, YIELDING CORRECT TERMS FOR THE VELOCITY OF EVERY PLANET. IT IS NOT MYSTERIOUS. ALL THAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT RATIOS FOR A SHORTER PLANET ORBIT DIVIDED BY A LONGER ORBIT, YIELD VELOCITY RATIOS IN WHICH THE FASTEST VELOCITY IS DIVIDED INTO THE SLOWER VELOCITY, WHEN DOING A 4TH LAW FACTOR FOR A PAIR OF PLANET ORBITS AND THEIR VELOCITIES. 4TH LAW (KEPLERIAN) CONCEPTS ARE CITED BELOW UNDER 'APPENDIX X-2'. IN THIS REGARD, SINGLE PLANET ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING CAN BE CONCIDERED A KEPLERIAN STYLED 5TH LAW. Insights INSIGHTS CAN BE IMEDIATELY DERIVED FROM A SO-CALLED 5TH LAW. FOR INSTANCE, AN ENIGMA IS REVEALED. ------------------ THE ENIGMA ------------------ A 5th KEPLERIAN LAW, REVEALS AN ENIGMA IN THE ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ORBITAL DISTANCE AND VELOCITY OF A PLANET'S ECCENTRICITY. THE ORBITAL ECCENTRICIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAXIMUM AND MININUM (APHELION AND PERIHELION) OF AN ORBIT, IS GIVEN IN SOLAR DATA TABLES AS (+ x) AND (- x) LINEAL SUMMED VARIANCE UPON THE MEAN OF A PLANET'S ORBIT. WHEREAS THE VELOCITY DIFFERENCE FOR THE SAME TWO ECCENTRICIC EXTREMES OF A PLANET ORBIT ARE GIVEN AS A 'MULTIPLE' VARIANCE: THE SEMIMAJOR VELOCITY DIVIDED BY (x) FOR THE APHELION VELOCITY, AND THE SEMIMAJOR VELOCITY MULTIPLIED BY (x) FOR THE PERIHELION VELOCITY. HOW COME ONE DYNAMIC (ORBIT) VARIES BY A LINEAL SUM INCREMENT OF TWO UNITS, WHILE THE OTHER DYNAMIC (VELOCITY) VARIES BY DISSIMILAR PLUS AND MINUS FACTORS VIA A SINGLE RATIO PROPORTION? THIS IS THE ENIGMA. -ENIGMA- The enigma was uncovered in exploring a demonstration of another Keplerian Law, a 5th Law, in which the orbit and velocity of a planet are coupled by a formula. However, it was assumed that such orbital/velocity coupling for a planet should also be true for a planet's eccentricity. But such is not so. How come. It turns out the reason why not, is that (as stated above) the eccentricity for an ORBIT is not statistically tabled in the same manner as the VELOCITY variances of the same ECCENTRICITY. It is of course an enigma. Is there some fundamentally good reason as to why astronomers table the two different dynamics in two different ways? Intuition assumes that velocity should change in the same manner as orbital distance, but obviously it does not, according to data tables published as solar facts by astronomers. For this reason the SEMIMAJOR terms of a planet, couple together in obvious fashion through an orbital/velocity coupling for each planet, when the planetary data is tabled in Astronomical Unit terms. However, when using the same formula for a planet's eccentricity, it is seen at once that the planet's major (perihelion) eccentricity velocity, when calculated by coupling formula, lands UNDER the actual perihelion velocity for the planet. And the planet's minor velocity (aphelion) when calculated by the coupling formula comes in GREATER than the planet's actual aphelion velocity, as show in TABLE X-3 further below. --------------------------------------------------- EQUATION X-1 --------------------- THE SINGLE PLANET ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING LAW FOR ASTRONOMICAL UNITS, USING SEMIMAJOR VALUES FOR ORBIT AND VELOCITY. --------------------------------------------------- ---------- __ | 1 \/ | ---------- = VELOCITY X in AU's square root of | orbit X in AU's ---------- ----- ---- | 1 | square of | ---------- | = ORBIT X in AU's | velocity X | ----- ---- The square root of the reciprocal of a planetary ORBIT is the planet's VELOCITY. The square of the reciprocal of a planet's VELOCITY. is the planet's ORBIT. The same is true for any Moons and satellites around a given planet. --------------------------------------------------- The following Tables use datas taken from Pages F-179,182 of the CRC Handbook, 61st Edition, 1980/81. --------------------------------------------------- ----------------- TABLE X-1 SINGLE PLANET's ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING ----------------- Semimajor ORBITS (in kms/sec) Based on CRC Handbook ------|--------|------- 61st edition 1980/81 Astronomical Units Ratios ---------- PLANET ORBITS __ | 1 -------------- \/ | ---------- = velocity X in AU's square root of | orbit X in AU's ---------- 10 x 10 to 13 cms AU orbits RATIOS AU velocities ----------------------|--------------| |----------------|--------------- Mercury | .5795 | .387444006 | | 1.6065 54735 | 1.6065 29844 Venus | 1.0811 | .722805375 | | 1.1762 22040 | 1.1762 11749 Earth | 1.4957 | 1.000000 | | 1.0000000000 | 1.0000000000 Mars | 2.2784 | 1.523300127 | | .8102 28024 | .8102 17997 Jupiter | 7.7814 | 5.202513873 | | .4384 23047 | .4384 13220 Saturn | 14.270 | 9.540683292 | | .3237 50360 | .3237 47942 Uranus | 28.703 | 19.190345657 | | .2282 75131 | .2282 45608 Neptune | 44.999 | 30.085578658 | | .18231 4334 | .18231 1645 Pluto | 59.09 | 39.506585545 | | .15909 8194 | .15909 4420 ----------------------|--------------| |----------------|--------------- Note: these ratios are VERY EVEN when coupling orbits to resulting velocities. ----------------- TABLE X-2 SINGLE PLANET's VELOCITY/ORBITAL COUPLING ----------------- Semimajor VELOCITIES (in kms/sec) Based on CRC Handbook ------|--------|------- 61st edition 1980/81 Astronomical Units Ratios ----- ---- | 1 | square of | ---------- | = orbit X in AU's PLANET VELOCITY | velocity X | ---------------- ----- ---- kms/sec AU velocities RATIOS AU orbits --------------------|---------------| |----------------|--------------- Mercury | 47.828 | 1.606529844 | | .3874 56419 | .3874 44006 Venus | 35.017 | 1.176211749 | | .7228 1802 | .7228 05375 Earth | 29.771 | 1.000000000 | | 1.0000000000 | 1.000000 Mars | 24.121 | .810217997 | | 1.5233 37834 | 1.5233 00127 Jupiter | 13.052 | .438413220 | | 5.202 747114 | 5.202 513873 Saturn | 9.6383 | .323747942 | | 9.540 825818 | 9.540 683292 Uranus | 6.7951 | .228245608 | | 19.19 5310482 | 19.19 0345657 Neptune | 5.4276 | .182311645 | | 30.08 6466184 | 30.08 5578658 Pluto | 4.7364 | .159094420 | | 39.50 8456298 | 39.50 6585545 --------------------|---------------| |----------------|--------------- Note: these ratios are RATHER UNEVEN when coupling velocities to resulting orbits. ----------------- TABLE X-3 ----------------- ---------- PLANET ORBITS __ | 1 -------------- \/ | ---------- = velocity X in AU's ECCENTRICITY square root of | orbit X in AU's ---------- 10 x 10 to 13 cms AU orbits RATIOS AU velocities ----------------------|--------------| |----------------|--------------- | | | | MERCURY | | | | perihelion .4604 | .307815738 | | 1. 802414154 | 1. 979140774 mean .5795 | .387444006 | | 1.6065 54735 | 1.6065 29844 aphelion .6896 | .461055024 | | 1. 472731650 | 1. 304087870 | | | | | | | | VENUS | | | | perihelion 1.0737 | .717857859 | | 1.18 0268374 | 1.18 4239696 mean 1.0811 | .722805375 | | 1.1762 22040 | 1.1762 11749 aphelion 1.0885 | .727752891 | | 1.1 72217039 | 1.1 68250982 | | | | | | | | | | | | JUPITER | | | | perihelion 7.4048 | 4.950725412 | | .449433644 | .460179369 mean 7.7814 | 5.202513873 | | .4384 23047 | .4384 13220 aphelion 8.1580 | 5.454302333 | | .428183961 | .417688354 | | | | | | | | | | | | SATURN | | | | perihelion 13.495 | 10.058835327 | | .332916869 | .341842732 mean 14.270 | 9.540683292 | | .3237 50360 | .3237 47942 aphelion 15.045 | 9.022531256 | | .315301582 | .306620536 | | | | ----------------------|--------------| |----------------|--------------- Oddly, as given in the CRC Handbook 1980/81, the semimajor and eccentricic orbits relate by a direct lineal sum format, as in PERIHELION ORBIT -- smaller subtract | - (x) Page F-179 MEAN --- ORBIT----- add | + (x) APHELION ORBIT -- larger whereas the velocities vary by a ratio, as in PERIHELION VELOCITY -- larger multiply | x (y) Page F-182 MEAN --- VELOCITY----- divide | 1/ (y) APHELION VELOCITY -- smaller ------------------------------- APPENDIX X-1 ------------------------------- Kepler's 2nd Law (an orbit sweeps an equal Area in equal Time) is a consequence of the 1st Law: (A planetary orbit is an ellipse). The 3rd Law is not a consequence of the first two, in that the consequence of: (The orbit cubed over the period squared is a constant), is independent of an elliptical orbit in fact the best seen constancy in the resulting constant is in using Astronomical Units of SEMIMAJOR values, for determing the 3rd Law's constant. The 4th Law: (Inter-planetary Orbital/Velocity coupling) is also seen in SEMIMAJOR values in which the ellipse of any two orbits is not a factor. The 5th Law: (Single planetary Orbital/Velocity coupling), is a continued feature of the 1st and 2nd Keplerian Laws in that an ellipse of orbit is consistent with resulting coupling ratios for that planet. SINGLE PLANET's ORBITAL/VELOCITY COUPLING FOR ECCENTRICY, SHOWING THAT THE 5TH LAW IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FIRST TWO KEPLERIAN LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. The three constants of ellipticity are used for the sake of simplicity to prove the 5th Law is consistent with planet eccentricity. But wait, there is something wrong! Why does the 5th Law fall completely out of phase when factored for eccentricity? The orbital ratio factor is well BELOW the Velocity for Perihelion and well ABOVE velocity for Aphelion locations, in a planet's eccentricity of orbit, as demonstrated in the following four examples. How come the coupling grows so out-of-phase on either side of the semimajor axis of a planet's orbit? BIG MYSTERY ! Understructural law that leads to 3rd, 4th, and 5th thermodynamic Laws is only balanced at the mid point, the average mean (known as the semimajor axis of orbit). Here, the orbital distance and the velocity of a planet are coupled in an in-phase way. On either side of the semimajor axis, where orbit shortens and velocity increases (perihelion), and orbit lengthens while velocity decreases (aphelion), the in-phase interharmonics of the balance stretch in opposed directions, yeilding out-of-phase conflicts. The coupling out-of-phase conflict throws more light on a similar out-of-phase situation for Kepler's 3rd Law. It is clear at this point that the Gravitational Constant is not working perfectly to produce a 'pure gravity' state for all coupling ratios possible through a planet's eccentricity. The fact that out-of-phasing tension occurs for any position on either side of the Semimajor position of orbit is an act of chaos, perhaps in the way the datas themselves have been compiled in the CRC Handbook for 1980/81. To wit, the semimajor axis of an orbit varies in eccentricity by equal sum differences perihelion to aphelion, whereas the velocities are shown varied from semimajor velocities by an equal ratio from perihelion to aphelion. If the velocity variances were also given as lineal equal sum factors the 5th Law should also be true, thus, for eccentricic variances of a planetary orbit. ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX X-2 KELPLERIAN LAW 4 ---------------------------------------- EQUATION X-2 Root (R2 / R1) = (V1 / V2) SQUARE ROOT OF, ORBIT 2 OVER ORBIT 1, EQUALS = VELOCITY 1 OVER VELOCITY 2, WHEN, ORBIT 2 IS LARGER THAN ORBIT 1. EXAMPLE X-2 __ Let \/ mean a square root. ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | PLUTO orbit | VENUS velocity | \/ | ----------- | = --------------- | | VENUS orbit | PLUTO velocity. | ---- | ----------- --------- The equation works for both Astronomical Unit values and real datas (with systems of units) since both produce pure digit ratios. Any pair of planets, or moons, is valid. The gist is that in each case, for instance PLUTO and VENUS, the lower term in the 'orbit' ratio effectively stands as a conversion for an astronomical unit. In the case of the above example, the orbit of VENUS and the velocity of PLUTO become an Astronomical Unit, (two different sources), instead of the orbit and velocity of Earth, in a kind of yin yang arrangement that just stretches the mentals a bit in holding it all together as one FLUIDLY MOVING dynamic insight. --------------- EARLIER VERSION --------------- MULTI-PLANET ORBITAL-VELOCITY COUPLINGS --------------------------------------- ORBITS AND VELOCITIES OF PLANETS ARE EQUIVALENTS, IN A PURE RATIO FORM. --------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX X-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- EQUATION X-2A ---------------------------- EXAMPLE X-2A ---------------------------- ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | PLUTO orbit | | \/ | ----------- | x PLUTO velocity, equals | | VENUS orbit | | ---- | VENUS velocity. ----------- --------- In EXAMPLE X-2A the real velocity of VENUS results, in whatever systems of units are used for the PLUTO velocity. ------------------------------- APPENDIX X-4 ------------------------------- It was first thought by this writer that more accurate tables for solar physical datas would produce more exacting results, hence proofs. But the idea went poof in realizing that current uncertainty in the exact value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has resulted in editors backing off from producing solar data tables of exacting details beyond 5 significant digits for orbits and velocities, particularly in recent times circ. 1995/1996. ------------------------------- APPENDIX X-5 ------------------------------- I am willing to risk loosing credibility to a point, in suggesting that EQUATION X-1 and EQUATION X-2 may be usuable in producing more exact results for planetary orbits and velocities. This would be true ONLY if the products resulting from the use of the two equations are in fact more inherently ACCURATE. This is the question where credibility is a bit on the line, in the following suggestion: SUGGESTION EQUATION X-1 for any planet (except Earth) produces a velocity of greater digital span than the known planet velocity, if the known velocity is given in an officially published Table only to, say, 5 significant digits, and similarly for orbits. It also turns out that working backwards from velocity to orbit, (the form of EQUATION X-1A), produces orbit results that are not quite as tight compared to known orbits, as are velocity results coming from EQUATION X-1. The slight decrepency is easily seen in TABLE X-1 and TABLE X-2 further above. It may be possible to tighten the results towards becoming constants. The procedure is to simply add together a result velocity from EQUATION X-1, to the known velocity for that planet, and divide by two. Then use the resulting velocity as the input term for EQUATION X-1A to arrive at a new orbit calculated for that planet. By doing this back and forth 2 or 3 times, new values (for an orbit and also velocity) will quickly stablize toward becoming constants. Are these 'constants' in fact accurate calculations of the real orbit and velocity for a planet. The orbit and velocity for EARTH can be done in a single separate way, by creating a temporary second set of Astronomical Units for Earth, for instance by dividing Earth orbit and velocity by the orbit and velocity of Venus, then doing the repeated factoring of EQUATIONS X-1 and X-1A for the Earth to bring the results toward constants, then converting back to real datas by multiplying the orbit and velocity of the resulting Earth datas, by the resulting orbit and velocity datas previously obtained for Venus when Earth created the Astronomical Unit terms for Venus. Working this producure back and forth a few times will cause values for the Earth to close in on constants, which can further be used to produce higher digit results using Earth orbit and velocity products as Astronomical Units. A quick check done in a couple of moments using two different published sets of Astronomical Data Tables, one of which had planet orbits to 7 and 8 significant digits but no velocities, resulted in an immediate closer agreement by two significant digits to the Astronomical Units datas of the more accurate published Table for orbits, by working to a velocity by use of EQUATION X-1, then adding this calculated velocity to the velocities published in the less accurate Tables, then dividing by 2, and using the new velocity as input for EQUATION X-2 working back to an orbit. The resulting orbit was more correct by two significant digits then just using the velocity of the less accurate Table to work back to an orbit. The difficulty of this test was that the datas of both published tables varied at the 4th significant digit and clearly the difference was due to slight differences in the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant each astronomy authority used to produce the two different published tables. The second difficulty is in assuming that closure beyond the 5th significant digit in using all datas input from the lesser accurate officially published Table, may just be imps at work playing with digits per se, the extra digits being produced toward constants being nothing but whimsical noise. SATELLITE TEST One possible test is to use a satellite around Earth as a test case to compute resulting orbit and velocity factors to greater accuracy, starting with lesser accuracy as initial input terms, to see if the procedure leads to more accurate results favorably comparing with more accurate highly known orbit and velocity terms of the satellite. The difficulty with this expermiment is that EQUATION X-1 and X-1A only work for SEMIMAJOR orbits and velocities, as I currently understand them, however it should be possible perhaps to also find out if eccentricty can be also be brought into line, as accurately balanced by EQUATIION X-1 and EQUATION X-2, or is eccentricity in fact not in the main picture, as indicated by the discussions of THE ENIGMA further above, and as shown in the datas of TABLE X-3 in which velocities calculated by EQUATION X-1 for Perihelion and Aphelion positions in eccentricty are clearly NOT the same as the real velocities for those eccentricity positions for a planet. - finis - ------------------------------- APPENDIX X-6 ------------------------------- mystery: How come, when you multiply the orbit AU value of a planet (in Earth Au's) by the planet's velocity (in Earth Au's), you get the reciprocal of the planet's velocity (in Earth Au's) ? This, at first sight, seems V E R Y mysterious ! For example, let's check out Mercury: MERCURY MYSTERIOUS VELOCITY Mercury AU orbit = .387444006 Mercury AU velocity = 1.6065 29844 when MERCURY real orbit and velocity are: Mercury orbit = .5795 x 10 to 13 cms Mercury velocity = 47.828 kms/sec and EARTH real orbit and velocity are: Earth orbit = 1.4957 x 10 to 13 cms Earth velocity = 29.771 kms/sec. We find then, the mysterious seeming circumstance that: (Mercury AU orbit) x (Mercury AU velocity) = 1/ (Mercury AU velocity) as in: Mercury AU orbit result .387444006 x 1.6065 29844 = 1/ 1.6065 79628 Mercury AU velocity where, we find the 'result' is as 'above' the factored velocity as is the factored velocity gained for Mercury by EQUATION X-1 'above' Mercury's actual velocity, as shown as follows: MERCURY FACTORED VELOCITY ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | 1 | | \/ | ------------- | = MERCURY velocity. | | MERCURY orbit | | ---- | ----------- --------- ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | 1 | | \/ | ------------ | = 1.6065 54735 | | .387444006 | | ---- | ----------- --------- | where: Mercury MYSTERIOUS velocity is 1.6065 79628 | Mercury FACTORED velocity is 1.6065 54735 | Mercury REAL velocity is 1.6065 29844 | whereas: using the MERCURY factored velocity, instead of actual AU velocity, to calculate the mysterious velocity, results in the factored velocity once again, as in: Mercury AU orbit Mercury MYSTERIOUS velocity .387444006 x 1.6065 54735 = 1/ 1.6065 79628 Mercury FACTORED velocity where: Mercury MYSTERIOUS velocity is 1.6065 5473 71 | Mercury FACTORED velocity is 1.6065 5473 5 | Mercury REAL velocity is 1.6065 29844 hidden: Obviously, a hidden factor is lurking in the relationship. Abstractly: (AU orbit X) x (AU velocity X) = 1/(AU velocity X) when: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | 1 | | \/ | ------------ | = (AU velocity X) | | AU orbit X | | ---- | ----------- --------- which has the simple mathematical sense of: root of 1/X = Y square of Y = 1/X X x Y = 1/Y In solar astronomy, it happens that X is the orbit of a planet, and Y is the velocity of that planet, when both X and Y are expressed in Astronomical Units. If doing similar equations for real datas (not AU's) then a slightly different result seems to occur, as follows: root of 1/X = Y X x Y = root of Y for instance: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | 1 | | \/ | ------------ | = .662498675 = Y | | 2.2784 * | a number | | Mars orbit | | ---- | ----------- --------- * is (2.2784 x 10 to 13 cms) = X and so: X x Y = root of Y thus: X Y ? 2.2784 * x .662498675 = 1.509436981 = root of 2.2784 * (Mars orbit). It continues mysteriously. For example: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | 1 | | \/ | ------------ | = .936914611 = Y | | 2.2784 * /2 | a number | | Mars orbit | | | divide by 2 | | | = 1.1392 | | ---- | ----------- --------- 1.1392 * x .936914611 = 1.067333125 squared = 1.1392 I should get the same (root of X) result for planet orbits in AU units and indeed it is true, in which the velocity is seemingly hidden but not actually, as follows: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | 1 | | \/ | ------------ | = .810228024 = Y | | 1.523300127 | Mars velocity in AU's | | Mars orbit | | | in AU's | | ---- | ----------- --------- so then: X Y 1/Y 1.523300127 x .810228024 = 1.234220453 = 1/.810228024 Mars velocity in AU's and: square of 1.234220453 = 1.523300127 Mars orbit in AU's which means: 1/(velocity squared) = orbit or also: 1/(Y squared) = X . ------------------------------- APPENDIX X-7 ------------------------------- Here following, is a premature E-Mail which was sent out globally to all E-MAIL addresses that had the word ASTRONO in them. One very gruff response came back from a professional astronomer within a few hours, then the whole E-MAIL situation fell silent, not a single other response, and the address from which the global blanket had been sent went to glitch heaven. Here which follows is that which was sent on that, fateless day: -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- MULTI-PLANET ORBITAL-VELOCITY COUPLINGS --------------------------------------- ORBITS AND VELOCITIES OF PLANETS ARE EQUIVALENTS, IN A PURE RATIO FORM. A new law of thermodynamics in the solar system is shown, in that ORBITS and VELOCITIES between planets, or also any Moons that orbit a given planet, are COUPLED by exact proportions and ratios of an extraordinarly precise kind. This might be called a Keplerian 4th Thermodynamic Law, since it is that kind of embodiment, rather than one to behold or claim as a new kind of theory for gravitational Law. Knowledge of the Universal Gravitational Constant is not needed to read and understand the following disclosure. Why, of course, such multiple-bodied inter-body relationships occur, may in itself reveal more about fundamental understructures in solar law. Such understucture (if any will be found) cannot be shown today, in this disclosure. What will be shown is the simple demonstration of multiple orbital/velocity couplings that can interlink any and all of the planets together, through a simple form of ratios and proportions. HISTORY This is not at all like the 'Orbit Cubed over the Period Squared' Keplerian 3rd Law, which results in an almost identical number for each planet which is not easily calculated except when astronomical units are used for the planet values. In fact the 3rd law produces different digital results depending on what systems of units are used for the measure for planet orbits, and periods. Forget not that Kepler deduced the 3 Laws without any knowledge of the Universal Gravitational Laws. The Keplerian 3rd Law has its simplest expression in the equation: R cubed / T squared = K Orbit cubed over Period squared, equals K It generates a similar value 'K' for each planet, approximately 3.35... x (10 to the 18 power) in units when R is in meters and T is in seconds. However the Keplerian 3rd Law deals with planet timing (number of days or seconds per revolution) and has nothing to do with planet orbital velocity as a direct value. Duo orbital/velocity coupling between any 2 planets is NOT evident in the 3rd Law. Another Keplerian Law, the law of Equal Areas, defines that a planet sweeps out an equal AREA in equal TIME, in revolution through its orbit. Again, this operates as a law unique to each given planet and features 'eccentricic' variance in orbit and velocity as demonstrator of this particular Law. It has nothing to do with velocity or orbital laws operating in any combinational way, interfacing as a joint coupled 'yes' between different planets. NEW STUFF A new law, does operate in an interfacing way amongst different planets. There is no name being given for this law, since I don't know what to call it, not understanding why it occurs. (Author's comment). In our new stuff, the simplest expression is the proportion: Root (R2 / R1) = (V1 / V2) SQUARE ROOT OF, ORBIT 2 OVER ORBIT 1, EQUALS = VELOCITY 1 OVER VELOCITY 2, WHEN, ORBIT 2 IS LARGER THAN ORBIT 1. In our new stuff, being shown for the first time in this E-Mail, actual datas of orbits and velocity expressed in systems of units are usable. Every planetary combination produces a different ratio, except that two identical RATIOS come from two SIMILAR dynamic quantities - any 2 ORBITS, and the VELOCITIES of the same 2 orbits. In other words: A ratio for ORBITS for every possible pair of planets is the same as the ratio for VELOCITIES for the same pairs of planets. Both of the ratios have the same DIGITS, to extraordinary high accuracy. And similarly for any pair of Moons around a given planet, such as around Jupiter, or Uranus, both ratios are the same for any pair of moons, for any given host planet. These ratios are more than 100 times more accurate in their real terms, than are Keplerian 3rd Law calculations. But enough of the showing off of words and terms. Here following are a few simple examples of the 'Math Pattern', the whole being self evident in a simple demonstration of a few of its parts. ILLUSTRATION 1. Master 'Math Pattern' Chart. DATAS Non Dimensional Orbits Non Dimensional Velocities ________ _________________________ _________________________ Rn / R1 Vn / V1 Rn / R2 Vn / V2 Rn / R3 Vn / V3 orbit | velocity Rn / .... Vn / .... ____|____ _________________________ _________________________ | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ..|.. | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | 1/(root of Rn/R1) = Vn/V1 1/((Vn/V1) squared)) = Rn/R1 |-------------------------------| etc. for R2 and V2 |-------------------------------| etc. for R3 and V3 |-------------------------------| etc. |-------------------------------| etc. |-------------------------------| ----------------- FORMULAS 1 ----------------- IN WHICH 1/(root of Rn/Rx) = Vn/Vx Velocity ratio AND 1/((Vn/Vx) squared)) = Rn/Rx Orbits ratio REPRESENTS TWO FORMS 1 over the ROOT of (Orbit n divided by Orbit x) EQUALS (Velocity n divided by Velocity x). 1 over the SQUARE of (Velocity n divided by Velocity x) EQUALS (Orbit n divided by Orbit x) representing inter-planetary resonances, in which planet 'n' is closer to the Sun, and Moon 'n' is closer to the host planet. This mathematical form is somewhat more unweildy then merely choosing 'n' as the FARTHER out planet or moon, since ORBIT n will then be larger, as follows in FORMULAS 2. ----------------- FORMULAS 2 ----------------- In simplified terms: The square root of (Orbit n divided by Orbit 1, 2, 3...) EQUALS = Velocity 1, 2, 3..., divided by Velocity n WHEN 'n' is any planet or moon, and 1, 2, 3... are any other planets or moons, as long as planet or moon 'n' is further out than 1, 2, 3... The chart and examples are dated 7 AM, Aug 27/80, and were buried deep long forgotten, in a stack of notes long thought lost. The notes turned up on February 11, 1996, to which other notes were added in commentary, as follows: ... Nature doesn't like dangling particals, he said, clearly in amusement. Let's look at this first column where the measures are noted for solar orbits. A resonance coupling between planets is here very visible; by simply dividing the orbit of any planet by the orbit of another planet nearer the Sun. The square root of that, is the orbital velocity of the planet closer to the Sun divided by the outer planet's velocity. Choosing a random example, lets choose Earth and Venus, for which: --- the | Earth orbit Venus velocity square..... | ----------- = -------------- root of | Venus orbit Earth velocity --- that is: --- the | 1.4957 x 10 to 13 cms 35.017 kms/sec square..... | --------------------- = -------------- root of | 1.0811 x 10 to 13 cms 29.771 kms/sec --- as seen in two identical ratios next below: --- the | Earth orbit square..... | ----------- = 1.1762 220 same root of | Venus orbit --- Venus velocity -------------- = 1.1762 117 same Earth velocity In the above example (and all examples following) the SEMIMAJOR velocity of a planet's orbit is used. And the SEMIMAJOR axis is used for the orbits. Let's try two other planets: --- the | Jupter ORBIT Mars VELOCITY square..... | ------------ = ---------------- root of | Mars ORBIT Jupiter VELOCITY --- or, in other words: RATIO 1 RATIO 2 --- the | orbit 5 velocity 4 square..... | ------- = ---------- root of | orbit 4 velocity 5 --- | RATIO 1 = 1.8480 507 same RATIO 2 = 1.8480 692 same | COUNTER INTUITIVE It is logically self evident that RATIOS 1 and 2 can also be factored in the forms of FORMULAS 1, in which ORBIT 4 (nearer the Sun) is divided by ORBIT 5 (farther from the Sun). But just try and picture how much more complex such ratios will be when attempting to type them, as reciprocals, with just the means of the raw basic characters of a typewiter keyboard, to draw mathematical equations. Very unweildy looking. Furthermore, both forms of FORMULAS 1 would need to be shown, to mathematically diagram the complete nature of the relationship between a given pair of ORBITS and VELOCITIES. It is lost to grasp. In seeking all elegence in mathematical simplicity, choosing the counter intuitive approach of using the object FARTHEST out from the Sun as ORBIT 1 (the form of FORMULAS 2), yields a relationship correctly seen at once, in self evident truth. As illustrated in the next example, in the mode of FORMULAS 2. Here is another example, this time showing a max extended range of the 'Math Patterns' as follows: --- the | 59.09 x 10 to 13 cms Pluto ORBIT square..... | -------------------- , for ------------- root of | .5795 x 10 to 13 cms Mercury ORBIT --- --- the | Pluto orbit Mercury velocity square..... | ------------- = ---------------- root of | Mercury orbit Pluto velocity --- --- the | orbit 9 vel 1 square..... | ------- = 10.097 88 = ----- = 10.097 75 root of | orbit 1 | vel 9 --- | | percentage of certainty And so on. The percentage of certainty reveals deviation of one part in 100,000, which shows you where nature can be more accurate than measures by science. Here is another linky on the same chin, another 'Math Pattern', another pair of winkies in the same grin. The following proportion shows that for any pairing of 2 planets, Orbit 1 and Orbit 2, the square root of the orbit of the one, divided by the other, times the velocity of the 1ST, equals the velocity of the 2ND. This is a similar formula as already given above in examples. It's different, in that it produces real terms (a velocity), as a result. Here it is exampled again: __ First, let \/ mean a square root. ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | Pluto orbit | | \/ | ----------- | x PLUTO velocity, equals | | Mercury orbit | | ---- | MERCURY velocity. ----------- --------- that is: ----------- ------------- | ---- | | __ | 59.09 x 10 to 13 cm | pluto velocity | \/ | ----------- | x 4.7365 kms/sec | | .5795 x 10 to 13 cm | | ---- | ----------- ------------- = 47.8286 kms/sec Mercury velocity. This is a typical example from all possible combinations. The total is a very extensive 'Math Pattern' that covers the whole of the Solar system. Except, that Moons around planets are only coupled to other Moons around the same planet. In this regard, the Universal Gravitational Constant is not manifesting in a universal way. COMMENT If Kepler's 3rd Law continues through all solar moon orbits with the same number, then here, the universal gravitational constant is manifesting in a universal way. Otherwise, it is a question of local systems breaking up the universality of the constant's resultant dynamics. It is easy to say this, because it is clear that MASS of a local system's host planet does not predictably govern the size of moons, or their obital distances, or value of the 3rd Law. ONLY the moon's velocities are MASS products. More pulling power is all that larger mass achieves. Bigger mass means higher velocities closer in. The gravitational force, as we currently know it, involving masses, is an end product. Hints of another force, underlying, loom larger in the picture. MOONS Yes, the Moon's are interesting. Here is what we have, for instance, for Europa and Ganymede, 2 Moons of Jupiter: ----------- ------------- | ---- ganymede orbit | | __ | 10.71 x 10 to 10 cm | ganymede velocity | \/ | ----------- | x 10.871 kms/sec | | 6.712 x 10 to 10 cm | | ---- europa orbit | ----------- ------------- = 13.7321 kms/sec europa velocity which of course is the velocity of EUROPA in orbit around Jupiter = 13.732 kms/sec. Even the tiny Moons of MARS, in their dinky orbits, blow the bugle in harmonizing their thermodynamic dance, with orbital velocity coupling. Mars has only 2 known Moons, that vibrate as orbiters almost skimming the sands they resonate so close to Mars. Observe how they moon-dance together. Watch how easily the velocity of PHOBOS is calculated: ----------- ------------- | ---- deimos orbit | | __ | 2.3457 x 10 to 9 cm | deimos velocity | \/ | ----------- | x .4268 kms/sec | | .9408 x 10 to 9 cm | | ---- phobos orbit | ----------- ------------- = .6739 256 kms/sec phobos velocity which of course is exactly the velocity of PHOBOS in orbit around Mars = .6739 kms/sec. However, we break stride when going from planet to planet. Then, moons don't compute. For instance: ----------- ------------- | ---- | | __ | Ganymede orbit | ganymede velocity | \/ | ----------- | x 10.871 kms/sec | | Earth Moon orbit | | ---- | ----------- -------------- = 30.288 kms/sec nothing This is no velocity matching anything in the solar system, neither Moon nor planet. It is meaningless. In other words, moon Orbital-Velocity coupling only works between Moons in the SAME system, such as the Moons around Jupiter, or, for Moons around Saturn. Here is a symmetry break. The law is not universal for all orbiting bodies found in the solar system when concidering the System as one whole dynamic. The same short circuit occurs if attempting ratios via a Moon from Jupiter and one from Neptune, for instance for Ganymede (Jupiter) and Tritan (Neptune) in checking out two Moons from two multi-moon systems. The resulting end ratio is a meaningless velocity. No resonation is seen to occur between Moons between local systems, for instance for Moons around Saturn with Neptune, or Jupiter with Earth. There is no 'Math Pattern' for such Moons. There is no cross linking between moons of planets. Although there might be. I have not tried every possible combination for Moons (author's comment). ADDITIVE COMBINATIONS Combining two planets, with another two, to form ratios with a 1 + 1 factor included, also does not seem active. For example: The root of (Pluto + Neptune) orbits, divided by (Mercury + Venus) orbits, = 7.917168741 (Mercury + Venus) velocities, divided by (Pluto + Neptune) velocities, = 8.150746253 Obviously, these two ratios are NOT the same. PROPORTIONS Lets look below at PROPORTIONS 1 and PROPORTIONS 2. These are the same as other formulas given in examples further above. There is an eloquence contained in Proportion 2 in that the same embodied mathematical proportion (with different variables) can also be used to calculate ECLIPSE STATES. PROPORTION 1 ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | Pluto orbit | Mercury velocity | \/ | ----------- | = ---------------- | | Mercury orbit | Pluto velocity | ---- | ----------- --------- that is, in abstract: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | orbit X | velocity Y | \/ | ----------- | = ---------- | | orbit Y | velocity X | ---- | ----------- --------- PROPORTION 2 ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | orbit X | | \/ | ----------- | x velocity X = velocity Y | | orbit Y | | ---- | ----------- --------- However, there is a rule of MATHEMATICAL direction. Multiplying the orbital input ratio by Velocity Y does not directly yield Velocity X. Velocity X is calculated by: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | orbit X | | \/ | ----------- | x 1 / Velocity Y | | orbit Y | | ---- | ----------- --------- = 1 / Velocity X when ORBIT X is the farther out orbit. ---------------------- ECLIPSES ---------------------- A 'central operator' holds a simplified proportionate ratio equation for ECLIPSE mechanisms, as follows: CENTRAL OPERATOR orbit X [ ------- ] x radius A = radius B orbit Y where: radius A can be the radius of the Sun thus radius B will be the radius of the Moon when orbit X is the orbit of the Moon and orbit Y is the orbit of the Earth. The 'central operator' becomes a mathematical strange attractor that produces the exact radius of the Moon, for certain positions of the Earth in orbit, in combination with certain locations of the Moon, when an eclipse occurs. The radius of the Earth can also be precisely known, found in the amount the Moon shifts in actual orbit, in synch with 3 precise and well known orbits of the Earth, in accomodating eclipses. The diameter of the Earth can also be precisely known in the same 3 eclipses. - Finis - Equations Mathematical consequences Data results Interpretations APPENDIX 1 Discussion Pairing does not mean one, then the next, in orbital sequence out from the Sun or a planet. The first and the last can be a PAIR of planets, or Moons. And, ALL possible COMBINATIONS in between also factor. The total combination of factors, just for planets, is 36, in this priveledged thermodynamic property. The count can be immediately summarized as follows: Pluto, the outermost planet, resonating with Neptune through to Mercury, constitutes 8 paired combinations. Neptune, resonating with all of the inner more planets, is another 7. Uranus, resonating with all of the inner more planets, is another 6, All the way down to Venus resonating with Mercury, as a single combo for Venus, since Venus is already listed resonating with all of the outer more planets. And Mercury resonating with itself, counts as zero. The total of this list is 36 possible planet pair resonations. The resonations are in terms of orbits and velocities. Like the Keplerian 3rd Law, the resonations occur without regard to mass. The reason why thoughts do not just conclude that any duo set of mathematical terms can be linked by common ratios, is that the ratios FALL APART COMPLETELY when moving about to look at any ratios for different Moons between different Moon systems. The Moon systems do not transfer their dynamics. The resulting ratios are unique within each system of Moons. Ergo, each Moon system for each planet, has a UNIQUE cause, as shown through its ratios. Extrapolating to the solar system as a whole, forces the same assumed conclusion, that the inter-planetary ratios are fundamental for this solar system, and are not mere raandom constructs from trivial mathematical properties. Deep in the solar orbital modes of all of the planets in this solar system is a full range interlinking phenomena. In this, multiple PLANET orbital and velocity COUPLING is demonstrated for all of the planets. There is no known name or term for such endowment. So, for the sake of discussion, these can be called simply, 'Math Patterns'. But what patterns they are. Any group of Moons around a planet (such as Jupiter), also mutually link in a deeper way beyond Kepler's 3 known Laws of Thermodynamics. A 4th Thermodynamic Law is obvious. The word is true for all of the planets. For instance the orbit and velocity of the last planet, or second last planet, joins right up in EQUIVALENCY COUPLING, to the orbit and velocity of the first planet, or second planet, and so on, by simple forms of equations, whose only variables are the input terms for any two planets (or Moons). The number of variable input terms and combinations thereof thus constitutes the greater 'Math Pattern'. Such RESONANCE coupling is easier seen by a convention in which, any planet orbit divided by another orbit NEARER the sun, is in resonance coupling ratio with the velocity of the planet nearer the Sun, divided by the velocity of the FARTHER out planet. Similarly for Moons, the resonance coupling has the same easiest seen convention; that any Moon orbit divided by another orbit nearer the host planet, is in a resonance coupling ratio with the velocity of the Moon nearer the host planet divided by the velocity of the farther out Moon. APPENDIX 2 Solar Physical Constants. Solar physical constants for the planet and moon Orbits and Velocities are taken from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st Edition, 1980-1981. I don't see indications that the accuracy of modern day exact solar constants is vital to produce the ratios. Any reasonably accurate tables will show the same results more or less, since minor variances in systems of units measurements are filtered out by consequences of all pure ratios. The exact value of the Universal Gravity Constant effects the known value of orbits and velocities, the differences from one value of the Universal Gravity Constant vrs another are filtered out, in the pure ratios of orbital/velocity planetary couplings. APPENDIX 3 Conventional forms. How many different ways of presenting the same information have you counted in the above disclosure. Since I know nothing of the kind of formal math used to make a paper understandable to only a handfull in the world, I have written a disclosure which I hope will be instantly understandable to every professional and amateur astronomer everywhere, in every country. I ahem used devices from the realm of poets, to present some of the information. I hope you don't mind. APPENDIX 4 Further ECLIPSE notes. The CENTRAL OPERATOR has a kink in it, in that orbit X is smaller than orbit Y, and reason might think it should or would therefore correspond to the form of FORMULAS 1. But in eclipse cases, the form is conversed. A 'central operator' for an actual form of FORMULAS 1 is correct, in for instance, the following: CENTRAL OPERATOR x orbit X [ ------- ] x 1/ diameter A = 1/ diameter B orbit Y where: diameter A can be the diameter of the Moon thus diameter B will be the diameter of the Sun when orbit X is the orbit of the Moon and orbit Y is the orbit of the Earth. however the accuracy of the equation in calculating the diameter of the Sun may be too limiting to allow for precise or perfect values. For sure a 'strange attractor' in the math does not occur, in this form of formula. The opposite will occur. The end value may unravel, when the equation is done over and over again. APPENDIX 5 More on the Keplerian 3rd Law. Its accuracy is marginally improved when masses are included as K(m1 + m2), where m1 is the mass of the Sun and m2 is any planet (or planet satellite, in which case m1 is the mass of the host planet). A log sloping straight line for orbits and periods in AU's (astronomical Units), is the best demo of the Keplerian 3rd Law, true for the planets, and all satellites including man made around each planet's local gravity source. The radius of a circle, and TIME to travel around the circumpherence of the circle, is the main 3rd Law Keplerian IMAGE. The speeds of travel around the circumpherences are in part hidden, as are the masses of the planets when the general case of the 3rd Law for K and not K(m1 +m2), is studied, since the mass contribution to accuracy is almost not there being so slight due to the great difference between the mass of the Sun, and any planet including Jupiter. The mass of the Sun is 1000 times greater than Jupiter. APPENDIX 6 Other known equivalents. That orbits and velocities of planets are equivalents is now known, for the first time. That electricity and magnetism are equivalents was initially shown by one individual, and later HOW they can be equivalents was determined by thousands of physicists working through the question for years. Here is another case of mystery revealed. HOW are the orbits and velocities EQUIVALENT, for planets? The answer to this question is quite a challenge, I'm sure. But loads of intuition harking to wave and partical dualities and momentums well up out of the darkness, as well as the more instantly obvious images of Magnetism as lines of force, and Electricity as momentums of velocities circling around the lines of force. One circle, cycling end to end around a magnetic line of force, replaces many spirals around a magnetic strand, in extrapolating to solar images. What else is new. A 90 degree rotation in alignment, and expansion of a circle to spiral both end points of a magnetic strand, is all it takes to achieve solar orbits in image. One magnetic end the Sun. What if the magnetic strand is a MONOPOLE. APPENDIX 7 Whispers in the wee hours. Look to kenetic energies and momentums as a cause for solar formation, and gravity attraction between masses as the end result, after the formations have formed. The forces of momentum, kenetic energy, and even spin, can be far greater than the forces of gravity between two masses. Cogs and wheels and mighty mechanical technologies have a sound that roars pleasantly throughout the whole of the solar creation. Well oiled well lubricated continuously moving dynamics self systained as one large machine is the image. Gravity is a piss that comes and goes now and then, weakly, to keep the whole system stable from blurring, in a continuing way, later. The whole of it is swirling in an organized coherent fashion. Even if some planets have barely a spin, revolutions for planets and moons are tightly adhered in whirl motions. In fact, think of the whole solar system as a dynamic moving system of spin dances. All of the so-called Laws do not use mass to specify the Law. Only a dim witted thinker will conclude, therefore, that only mass, is the Law. The whole of it is an assembly of spins. The Gravity Dance which resulted, was formed from the energies of temperatures, against the deep cold backdrop of surrounding outer space. The two temperature gradients contrasted and gave a mighty source to certain thermodynamic results. Except, the results could only have come from sources that were already latently there in understuctures waiting to be manifested as patterns, patterns that were waiting among the temperatures. The Gravity Dance came after, after the inbalances in temperatures sorted themselves out in system wide coherences of velocities and distances, and periods. All that gravity mass does, is to cause momentary pertubations in the midst of totally coherent spins. The dynamically interconnected understructure is very strong compared to the forces of gravity masses. All that the power of gravity mass seems able to do in ARCHITECTURE, is effect the daily spins and revolutions of small planets and moons, in what is known as spin-orbital coupling, for instance for the Earth's moon, and the spins and periods of Mercury and Venus and Earth, which have an orchestration together in the form of whole integer ratios. A question looms as to whether the whole-integer ratios exist in the form of a more basic geometry, which acted its influence to force gravity into its cause. REGARDS THE WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM Orbit revolutions are an orchestration of coherent spins pulled into place and permanently set in motions there, before gravity became the dominant after-effect influence to keep the whole system boogying along in the same manner after the fact, for a long time. Gravity masses begins to sheep herd the flock, after the flock has been created by forces greater than gravity. A thermetic solar view is closer to the source by far. Gravity mass forces begins to sheep herd the arrangement AFTER its original formation. Gravity mass forces can take effect only after all of the other forces forming, have stablized the product into CONSTANTS, and so, effect no more. Termperatures rule the roost in formatting the new original. How many different ways can the same thing be said. Many, apparently. Ho hum or Wow. These thoughts are offered from the intuition in the wee hours. Whispers. Their only purpose is to push thinking toward seeking underlying cause beyond gravity for the fluid precision in the formational dynamics of the solar system, a dynamics in which turbulence has been eliminated. Witness the way orbital/velocity coupling permiates the whole of the structure, without the size of masses being involved. Bode's Law takes on more Cosmic light. Since Bode's Law adequately describes planet orbits, the masses of planets came in on top of it, that is, Bode's Law (or something else similar), defined the orbits. Then the masses, such as Jupiter, concentrated on top of the understructure, the masses resulting in the final finished look governed by the behaviors and laws of the weaker acting Universal Gravity Constant. APPENDIX 8 What lays beyond, going backwards to sources. The spin of an elimentary particle, if unleashed, is said to be vast beyond any energies the particle might contain in its mass. Even when mass is transformed into energy, every photon also has spin, and how much energy is contained in those final spins is said to be almost unbelievable, even for a tiny fork full of mass. So, spin has a great deal of energy in it. Does it not? APPENDIX 9 Limiting factor. HOST PLANET PAIRS COUPLED-PAIR VELOCITY RATIOS ------|----------|------- --------|-----------|------- Semimajor VELOCITIES (in kms/sec) ------|--------|------- PLANET VELOCITY COUPLED PAIRS ------ -------- ----------------- vel X / vel Y -------------------| |------------------------|---------------------- Mercury | 47.828 | | MERCURY / Mercury | = ........... Venus | 35.017 | | mercury / Venus | = 1.365850872 Earth | 29.771 | | mercury / Earth | = 1.606529844 Mars | 24.121 | | mercury / Mars | = 1.982836532 Jupiter | 13.052 | | mercury / Jupiter | = 3.664419246 Saturn | 9.6383 | | mercury / Saturn | = 4.962285880 Uranus | 6.7951 | | mercury / Uranus | = 7.038601345 Neptune | 5.4276 | | mercury / Neptune | = 8.811997936 Pluto | 4.7364 | | mercury / Pluto | = 10.097964698 -------------------| |------------------------|----------------------- If the Velocity ratio for Mercury / Earth is divided by the Velocity ratio for Mercury / Venus a new ratio turns up which seems by miracle to be the Velocity ratio of Venus / Earth, calculated by independent means. But, this is not the case. All that has happened is that a common term has fallen out in the proportioning of the two Velocity ratios, as follows: A/B = D ratio 1 for Mercury / EARTH A/C = E ratio 2 for Mercury / VENUS B D then: - = - = F = Venus / Earth C E As you can see, term A is dropped right out, leaving only terms B C and D E to correctly form ratio F . APPENDIX 10 Total of possible planet pairs = 36. HOST PLANET PAIRS ------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------- | | PLUTO Mercury 8 | NEPTUNE Mercury 7 | URANUS Mercury 6 Venus | Venus | Venus Earth | Earth | Earth Mars | Mars | Mars Jupiter | Jupiter | Jupiter Saturn | Saturn | Saturn Uranus | Uranus | ...... Neptune | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | SATURN Mercury 5 | JUPITER Mercury 4 | MARS Mercury 3 Venus | Venus | Venus Earth | Earth | Earth Mars | Mars | ...... Jupiter | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | EARTH Mercury 2 | VENUS Mercury 1 | MERCURY Mercury 0 Venus | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... ...... | ...... | ...... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Finis - _____________________ 'META'S EQUATIONS' - in email from Meta A. ===================== Back to coupling first: A snag: ====== I was taking a look at Kepler's 3rd law and the new keplerian 4th law in Appendix x-2 of , and it looked to me that the 4th/5th law can be proved from the 3rd law since both of them involve only two main parameters,i.e displacement and time; where velocity is a function of the two. And it seems to me that the 4/5th in this case would be a simplification of the 3rd law. And when i tried it out, it came to what i had expected. Have a look at it below. This is how I went with it: Defining the terms: ================== R - semimajor axis T - orbital period D - orbital distance/circumference Ki - constant of proportionality where i can be 1,2,3,.... V - average planetary velocity (used 'average' because planetary velocity seem to be faster at the minor axis and slower at the major axis) Deriving: ========= R cubed / T squared = K1 -> Kepler's third ....... [eqn 1] A circle shows a simple relationship betwen R and D, I would expect an ellipse to exhibit the same, where; R is proportional to D , of which [eqn 1] may as well be expressed as D cubed / T squared = k2 or D * (D/T)squared = k2 Now since (D/T) can be replaced by V, then D * (V)squared = k2 ..............................[eqn 2] or SquareRoot(D) * V = k3 ..............................[eqn 3] Assuming that the constants (K1,K2,K3,...) are the same for all planets (that's if mass is not a factor), then applying [eqn 3] to two planets, say Pluto and Venus, i'd come up with something similar to EQUATION X-2A given in That's from eqn 3 we can arrive at: squareroot [D of pluto/ D of Venus] x (V of pluto) = (V of Venus) which is similar to EQUATION X-2A: ----------- --------- | ---- | | __ | PLUTO orbit | | \/ | ----------- | x PLUTO velocity, equals | | VENUS orbit | | ---- | VENUS velocity. ----------- --------- _________________________________ [eqn 3] would also explain EQUATION X-1 except for that mysterious value of k3 being a value of ONE when (parameters are in AU's) ____ Meta Hi Meta. Perfect Eclipses also occur without mass involved. Space itself is engineered so precisely that the equatorial radius of the Earth, and the polar radius, can each be factored in a few simple proportional equations to exactitudes matching the best solar datas available at the time the equations were done in 1989. Perfect eclipses also occur for Venus, Mercury, and Mars, which is how it is possilbe to similarly calculate Mars polar and equatorial radii, the same for Venus, and the same for Mercury. The distances between these orbiting solar bodies (also Jupiter and Saturn) with eccentricities, and other variables such as the orbit of the moon, calculate corresponding elementary particle wavelengths to again exact compliments including individual charge states for particular particles involved. The solar system is a huge outer recurrance, another state, of the interraction distances between nucleons and particles in elementary structures, adding and subtracting wavelengths for certain particles results in corresponding mass energy states for other particles. Bear in mind that wavelength structure and mass energy structures cannot be mutually calculated because of the fact that mass energy increments by 1+1+1 whereas wavelengths increment by ratios in 1x1x1 due to the intrinsic nature that one (mass energy) is a reciprocal math to the other (wavelength). In the case of frequencies embodied as photons in atomic shell structures, the conversion between one manifestation (mass energy) and the other is through conversion constants such as the rydberg constant with planks constant and the fine structure constant. However, the two domains are mutually inclusive, that is, wavelengths can add and subtract producing small variances that translate into major differences in Mev's, the mev's exactly the match of certain particles existing with just those mev's, no other mev's seem randomly possible. There is, I am sure, a backbone spectrum, but I have not found it, so far, and it has been nearly 8 years since I last had a look. The subject is under hyperwaves' and 'hyperwave estates' but you will have to be patient reading this material I was not able to organize it in an easy way and much of it is speculation included just in case correct. I would like to include your derivation at the end of Coupling.txt, with a pointer to it at the top. I am not surprised that a derivation is possible, just, had never seen one, and believe yours is probably as much a significant contribution to Keplerian Law as anything. In the early 80's (1980-81) I had become notioned that many of the fundamental physical constants had common connections such that they could relate in a series of exactititudes which turned out to be correct when an aquaintance used APL programming on a mainframe to set forth the equations, it was a surprise to him when he saw all the 0's = o's and his list of them was a first, to me it accelarated the understanding of the constants by seeing how they all interrelated in one greater picture. (That information is buried in boxes of notes and I cannot get at it until in a place big enough to have room to spread sorting around finding that information). The same for Keplerian constants, the fact that the whole solar system could be seen as one consistently operating fluid transmission dynamo made me feel this was the bottom line and the 3rd law was single statements within the whole picture. The fact that you say this is true is confirmation not that my holler about a 4th law is correct (I was borrowing some personality from cranks who know how to get attention) but that the 'quote' 4rth law gives you the whole picture at once. Can I use your derivations and cite you as source. Perhaps an email address for you if anyone wishes to contact you. Reply - from Meta A. Hi. OH!, time rushes that fast. I was looking at that abstract on coupling/keplers 4,5th law? The mass of a planet doesn't affect it's orbital period? Would there be such a thing as 5th-D physics that can only be understood in this dimension as constants or is it the other way round? I been at Cosmicastronomy.com not so many times. This is the website I've been preparing to read with a lot of patience after realising that there are some new challenging concepts in there, especially in areas that interest me the most, i.e. Maths, physics and it's equations. It was a surprise website to me. I thought i'd read the rest of the stuff at missingmass before getting to the cosmicastronomy website but the rest never ends, well, the information is the same but my understanding changes all the time. And before i realise it, the day ends. And then of late the oahspe has taken most of my time. It amuses me to read on how different beings falter. But another reason is also for me to extract some of the wisdom presented in their to share with some people making sure that no negativity is induced in ht process. I begun to realise how delicate people are the instant i got a few funny comments, er, that's when i had wanted everyone to know of what I had came up with. Since then I've withdrawn back to my original doing-it-alone status. These days I've came to understand how people understand. It seems like the understanding levels are too different with everyone and I wonder how such a condition develops. Now that makes it a little hard for me to hold these general conversations. --- It's too absurd that most institutions do not base on understanding but on copying, passing and getting papers and degrees in whatever way possible. It's just everywhere. So that's what they call accomplishment. -na Done.