Mr. Martin responds to "Stupid Geocentrist Tricks" with In Response to Dr Bridgmans "Stupid Geocentrist Tricks". I've already made some reply in the comments to the previous article.
One of the statements in Martin's response that really caught my attention was
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).
| Planet | semi-major axis (km) | a(n)/a(n-1) | claimed ratio | % error |
| Mercury | 57,910,000 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Venus | 108,200,000 | 1.87 | 1.23 | 52% |
| Earth | 149,600,000 | 1.38 | 1.23 | 12% |
| Mars | 227,940,000 | 1.52 | 1.23 | 24% |
| Ceres | 446,000,000 | 1.96 | 1.23 | 59% |
| Jupiter | 778,330,000 | 1.75 | 1.23 | 42% |
| Saturn | 1,429,400,000 | 1.84 | 1.23 | 49% |
| Uranus | 2,870,990,000 | 2.01 | 1.23 | 63% |
| Neptune | 4,504,300,000 | 1.57 | 1.23 | 28% |
| Pluto | 5,913,520,000 | 1.31 | 1.23 | 7% |
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.
8 comments:
What about the "preferred redshift of quasars" relationship? Did you find anything which says what this is (or is supposed to be)?
To be sure, there are quite a few such, proposed by various people over the years; however, as far as I know, there is no consensus - among the various 'alternative' communities - on one over any other.
Nereid
I could have spent months digging through all the different redshift 'quantization' claims, unless someone has written a good summary.
Planetary 'quantization' was simple enough for even grade-school children to graph themselves. It just invited some attention.
Thanks Tom.
I guess the answer to my question is:
No, there was nothing in Mr Martin's statements to indicate what he meant by, or was referring to, "the preferred redshift of quasars".
Nereid
Tom
A clarification of my statement can be found in the following articles -
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-92139647/new-light-redshift-periodicities.html
and the following
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-92139648/ii-astronomical-quantization-and.html
The papers mention the number 1.23 in relation to quasar quantization and the Titus Bode law of planetary distances.
JM
This is apparently an article by Halton Arp from Apeiron, volume 2, number 2 (April 1995) available at the Apeiron web site
Thanks Mr. Martin. I had been looking the origin of some EU claims that appear to be in this paper.
So, the 'preferred redshift of quasars' (or 'quasar quantization', which is a completely different thing!) is simply a modified version of the Karlsson relationship?!?
John Martin: you do realise, don't you, that there are now hundreds of thousands of quasar redshifts in the literature, cf the ~hundreds Arp based his claim on (in turn based on work done many years before 1995)?
Nereid
Please check my research paper that shows all planetary systems (solar and extrasolar) to be quantized and correlated to the parent star rotaiton period.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1199
regards,
Jean Paul
Jean Paul,
Sorry for my delay. I been taking some time off and wanted time to actually read your paper and check some other sources before responding.
'Quantization' would be a good term if your delta-n was zero within your numerical precision. These are enhancements or resonances more that quantization, but you do often put 'quantization' in quotes so you're not taking it too literally. Beyond that, it looks like an interesting work and you even include a number of details about the 'sanity checks' you ran on your results. My only concern would be is this effect really dominated by the usual orbital resonance type processes, or is the stellar rotation really an important component? You do note that the effect seems to be less pronounced with distance from the star.
I suspect you found my site with a search engine and got links to a bunch of crank sites as well. Halton Arp tries to claim (in the Apieron paper linked above) that the solar system quantization is a power law, something like 1.22^n.
If you actually what to get more play with this, you should probably stop calling it quantization since that term has been so heavily promoted and abused by the cranks. In the future, you might want to remove comparisons to the Bohr model which you make in the paper. Do you really want all that crackpot junk to show up when someone searches for your paper? ;^)
Post a Comment