One of the statements in Martin's response that really caught my attention was
I conducted several searches to find more details about this claim, but only found it quoted in a number of online locations with no details of its justification. I could find nothing describing details of the ill-defined 'law of planetary distances'.Martin: "6. Quantized planetary orbits – a law of planetary distances matches the preferred redshift of quasars with a ratio of 1:1.23."
But that wasn't too severe a problem. After all, information on planetary distances in the solar system are readily available. I collected some values from NinePlanets.org, Appendix 1a: Solar System Data.
I included the values for the asteroid Ceres and even Pluto to increase the number of possible data points.
In the table below, I present the data and the analysis. For each planet, I have the distance (actually the length of the orbit's semi-major axis) from the Sun (heliocentric distance) in kilometers, which is often designated with the letter a (column 2). I then compute the ratio of the distance of the planet (n) and the distance of the planet immediately before it (n-1) (column 3). Since there is no prior planet, we can't set the value of this ratio for Mercury. We then compare this result to the claimed value (column 4) and report the percent error, 100.0*(actual-predicted)/predicted (column 5).
As an additional check, I also constructed some plots using a planetary ephemeris file available at the JPL Solar System Dynamics web site. The distance ratios are again computed based on the orbital semi-major axes. The error bars are computed using the range of heliocentric distances driven by the orbital eccentricities.
|Click to enlarge|
|Click to enlarge|
So what gives? This poor fit agreement between actual data and the predicted line do not coincide with any generally agreed definition of quantization (wikipedia). The scatter in the actual data points suggests that even some modification of the claimed 'quantization rule' would not improve the situation. Again, it appears the Geocentrists are incapable of doing even basic math. Or could it be that the Geocentrists know their statement is false and think their supporters are too ignorant to do basic math to check them?
If Mr. Martin or other Geocentrist supporter wishes to clarify this claim with a link to a specific analysis, I will allow them to post a link with more details OF JUST THIS PARTICULAR CLAIM OF QUANTIZED PLANETARY ORBITS. Anything else will be rejected.