HD10180

[elas]

The criticism made so far by swansont and John Cuthber can be answered by replacing the unsatisfactory graph with the following table:

 

The distance between planets is given as a fraction of the greatest semimajor axis (39.44) and compared with the nearest Hall filling fraction and the difference expressed in percentage terms. Margins of error occur in the region of the Asteroids where a planet has failed to form or has formed and been destroyed. A larger discrepancy occurs due to the eccentric orbit of Pluto which is partly outside and partly inside the orbit of Neptune. But these explainable errors aside, this shows that the planets of both planetary systems fill different waves of the same fractional wave sequence. That is to say that both systems are constructed according to the same rules.

 

 

 

 

The original aim of this submission was to see if planetary field structure is similar to the balanced field structure given in the hypothesis on particle structure and also shown in the structural table of the elements. With that in mind I return to the graphs shown in reply 22.

 

The cause of the structural difference between inner and outer planets can be explained in a way similar to that used to explain the cause of the covalent atomic radii. To begin with the dust cloud that would become the Solar system had no central mass, the dust cloud held together because the G force between particles was greater than the ‘anti’ G force of the dust cloud provided by the G force of all external bodies, but the ‘anti’ G force was greater that the almost non-existent force of the dust cloud nucleus. As in atomic structure this means that the external force determined the radii (semimajor axis) of the outer planets. As the central mass increased a point was reached when the nuclear force became stronger than the external force (again as shown in atomic structure of the elements) and the internal (or nuclear) force determined the semimajor axis of the planets creating the inner planetary system. We could stretch this analogy even further by sugesting that the Asteriods are the cosmological equivalent of the Transitional elements.

 

To summarise, it has been shown that the structure of charged particles, atoms and planetary systems can be explained in terms of balanced fractional wave fields and that 2 dimensional Composite Fermions theory can be extended into the 3 dimensional world (Jain’s phrase).

Edited September 1, 2010 by elas

[elas]

Between this and your contention that the answers need not be exact, you can now "explain" just about any value you get, after the fact. Which means that it is not falsifiable; at the very least you need to have a way of a priori knowing if planets' orbits should fall into a wave or vortex.

 

The following table lists all known planatary systems with more than two planets. A comparison is made between Hall Filling Factors and Planetary Filling Factors. It shows that the larger errors occur in the Solar system and are due to the fact that during its creation the Solar system had more violent upheavals than the other much smaller planetary systems; such as the creation of the Earth/Moon twin planetary system, the creation of the Asteroid belt and the capture of Pluto. The key points of the table are presented in a logarithmic graph. This can be falsified by finding a planetary system that does not have the required Planetary Filling Factors within a reasonable and explainable margin of error.

 

 

[swansont]

To be falsifiable you need to announce what the fractions are going to be before you see the planetary orbit data. As it stands it appears that you are declaring little more than that a ratio of two numbers can be expressed as a fraction.

[elas]

To be falsifiable you need to announce what the fractions are going to be before you see the planetary orbit data. As it stands it appears that you are declaring little more than that a ratio of two numbers can be expressed as a fraction.

 

To do that it would be necessary first to predict the Semi-major axis of the planets before they are observed how is anyone expected to do that? I am showing that all the planets are assembled on a single fractional wave structure and predicting that will be the case in all future discoveries.

 

The wording on the graph has been corrected, both table and graph now show that all planets, without exception; occupy the vortex position. That agrees with my very first table on Solar planets. The wave action organises the dust cloud prior to the creation of a planetary system nucleus (star); concentric gravitational force between particles condenses the dust on each wave into a planet.

 

Stars are created by dust particles that do not have the correct velocity to keep them in an orbital position, that is not to be expected in an regular spinning dust cloud, hence the prevalence of twin star or single star/planet systems. It takes a degree of violence to disrupt the velocity of dust in a spinning dust cloud hence the shortage of multiple planetary systems.

Edited September 2, 2010 by elas

[John Cuthber]

"The criticism made so far by swansont and John Cuthber can be answered by replacing the unsatisfactory graph with the following table:"

Presumably, if someone points out more problems you will keep moving the goalposts to "solve" them.

This is, of course, at odds with the idea that your ramblings have any predictive value.

That means they are back in the realms of speculation, rather than science.

 

BTW, at least one of the "corrected" numbers is still way off (9% is hopeless compared to the accuracy with which astronomical data is known), so the idea is still pants.

[elas]

"The criticism made so far by swansont and John Cuthber can be answered by replacing the unsatisfactory graph with the following table:"

Presumably, if someone points out more problems you will keep moving the goalposts to "solve" them.

 

I have not moved the goalpost, but presented the same facts in a different manner.

 

BTW, at least one of the "corrected" numbers is still way off (9% is hopeless compared to the accuracy with which astronomical data is known), so the idea is still pants.

 

I have explained the cause of these differences between actual and theoretical fractions. QHFE and Composite Fermions both deal in 'approximate fractions' without giving a margin of error. I doubt if an astrophysicist or FQHE theorist would find the difference between actual and theoretical fractions unaceptable. It is not a case of challenging the accuracy of astronomical data, but of understanding what causes the data to be as observed.

Edited September 2, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

To do that it would be necessary first to predict the Semi-major axis of the planets before they are observed how is anyone expected to do that? I am showing that all the planets are assembled on a single fractional wave structure and predicting that will be the case in all future discoveries.

 

 

 

You have expressed them as a fraction of the largest orbit, so the radius is not necessary. But if you can't say what the fractions will be, of what value is the proposal? They have to be some fraction, so that's a tautology, not a prediction.

[John Cuthber]

"I have not moved the goalpost, but presented the same facts in a different manner."

No.

You have changed the maths you did on those numbers to force them to "fit" your ideas.

That's moving the goalposts.

If all you had done was change the presentation then the numbers wouldn't have changed.

 

Did you not realise that I would point that out?

[elas]

You have expressed them as a fraction of the largest orbit, so the radius is not necessary. But if you can't say what the fractions will be, of what value is the proposal? They have to be some fraction, so that's a tautology, not a prediction.

 

They are Hall fractions in so far as the numerator is always '1', but whereas Hall was limited by experimental parameters, nature has no such limitation.

Using the largest semi-major axis was a gamble based on the assumption that the Solar system is the largest possible planetary system. This assumption is based on the similarity of a graph of irregularities in planetary structure with graphs to be found in my submissions on lepton, meson and baryon filling order structures in that there is an irregular pattern at maximum radius (you dismissed all three as "numerology''). The PF archives seem to have disappeared , but one article can be seen on:

http://69.5.17.59/brynhf.pdf

This far I have shown that Hall fractions occur in the filling order tables of leptons, mesons, baryons and planets and that CF fractions of the lower Landau level are to be found in the electron shell structure of atoms. Electron shell fractions are unique in that they are exact fractions whereas all fractions derived from FQHE and CF experiments are approximate fractions.

 

"I have not moved the goalpost, but presented the same facts in a different manner."

No.

You have changed the maths you did on those numbers to force them to "fit" your ideas.

That's moving the goalposts.

If all you had done was change the presentation then the numbers wouldn't have changed.

 

Did you not realise that I would point that out?

 

You are misunderstanding what is happening on this forum. As with all my submissions I submit an idea and use the criticism of that idea to produce a final theoretical submission. A reading of the questions and answers between swansont and myself will show how this works.

 

Nine days ago a newspaper article announced the discovery of a new planetary system and that gave me an idea; criticism of the way that idea was expressed mathematically has led to the final table and graph; but each submission is based on the same observed or experimental data and is an improvement on the previous submission. There are different fractional sequences (compression, filling, vortex and spin) and It was necessary to sort out which was applicable to the available planetary data.

 

My latest reply to swansont shows how, in my opinion; all of my submissions knit together to form the foundation of new ‘wave fraction theory’. In reality responsibility for the final proposal of a wave fraction theory owes as much to swansont and his predecessors (over the last 21 years) as it does to me.

 

swansont may not be too happy about that, but it’s to late to backtrack now!

Edited September 3, 2010 by elas

[JohnB]

Okay, sticking my neck out and not fully understanding what the argument is about.

 

It strikes me that elas is saying that there is a predictable relationship in the distribution of planets in a system, both in size and separation. He thinks he has found it.

 

One of the reasons for disagreement is that the formula changes from system to system, another is inaccuracy.

 

Now I'm just speculating here, not trying to push a point.

 

It occurs to me that there must be "Laws" governing the separation and sizes of planets in a system. For example you couldn't have 2 super-Jovians close to their sun because there simply isn't enough matter in the accretion disc to form 2. Likewise there must be a relationship between size and spacing for a system to be stable, the bigger they are the further apart they must be for stability.

 

Another point is that all the planets will not form from the accretion disc at the same time. However once the first one forms, limits will come into play as to the possible masses and spacings of further planetary formations. From this it should be possible to predict where planetary orbits should be when only a couple are known. I would think 3 would be the minimum.

 

In the various comments about things getting inverted or whatever there has been no real exploration of "Why". To this, I simply point out that this discussion has ignored the largest mass in any planetary system.

 

Is it not possible that there is indeed a basic relationship that will allow accurate prediction provided the mass of the Sun is taken into account? I'm thinking here that up to a certain limit, perhaps expresses in Solar masses then equation A works, for higher masses equation A' and for very high masses equation A". So presumably the equation that works for a Sol system will not be exactly the same as the one for a Sirius type system.

 

If anything at the moment we don't have enough data on enough planetary systems to correctly formulate the variations.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[elas]

 

I would expand on your comments by adding that I am trying to show that there is a fundamental wave structure repeated on each compaction scale (various G compactions [planetary, stellar, galactic etc], and EM, and SF). During the formation of composite bodies the external force is constant while the nuclear force increases, this means that the external force is the superior (of two overlapping forces) for a time and as the nuclear force increases it (the nuclear force) gradually becomes the superior force.

 

Because particles are added from the outside this is most clearly seen in atomic structure; where we do not have to explain actions within a dust cloud. It is for that reason that atomic and composite particles produce compression fractions (as in CF theory), but cosmic bodies produce 'filling factors' as in Hall's experiment.

 

CF theory is 2 dimensional and so far attempts to expand CF into 3 dimensions have been inconclusive with margins of error of up to 20%; my work has not only reduced the margin of error to 10%, but has explained the cause of that single 10% error.

 

All experimental 2 dimensional fractions are approximate fractions, but the 3 dimensional atomic shell fractions are exact fractions.

 

Margins of error in the Table of planetary fractions divide into two distinct sections, in the inner 2/3 the margins of error do not exceed 1%, in the outer 1/3 the margins of error do not exceed 10% this can be interpreted as indicating that the most violent events occur in the outer regions of planetary systems during the early stages of planetary formation.

 

Finally I should point out that all the above is developed from my original hypothesis that there is one elementary particle and one elementary force (rm = G/2).

 

Thanks for your input, it has I believe; led to a clearer explanation of both the data and my aim,

elas

Edited September 4, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

 

It strikes me that elas is saying that there is a predictable relationship in the distribution of planets in a system, both in size and separation.

 

But it's not prediction, it's postdiction, and that's a major objection. The numbers are filled in after the fact. There is no discernible pattern to the order of the fractions. They all fall on a line because there is a free parameter — the order of the planet's appearance. The prediction is that the planets' orbits will be separated. That's it. That's the summation of the predictive power, as far as I can see.

[John Cuthber]

Which is true, the bit in the first post that asks "Where is the speculation? " or the more recent bit which says "s with all my submissions I submit an idea and use the criticism of that idea to produce a final theoretical submission."?

 

Is this idea meant to be speculative or is it a "done deal" as the first post in the thread suggests?

[elas]

But it's not prediction, it's postdiction, and that's a major objection. The numbers are filled in after the fact. There is no discernible pattern to the order of the fractions. They all fall on a line because there is a free parameter — the order of the planet's appearance. The prediction is that the planets' orbits will be separated. That's it. That's the summation of the predictive power, as far as I can see.

Which is true, the bit in the first post that asks "Where is the speculation? " or the more recent bit which says "s with all my submissions I submit an idea and use the criticism of that idea to produce a final theoretical submission."?

 

Is this idea meant to be speculative or is it a "done deal" as the first post in the thread suggests?

 

To a certain extent I understand the criticisms being made, but take into account the extract from Scerri’s paper given in reply No. 10. Prediction, although desirable; is not the main aim.

 

The aim is to show that planetary systems are constructed in the same manner as that proposed hypothetically for particles and demonstrated to be present in atoms (Table of Elements submission) and now shown to be present in planetary systems (reply 22 graphs). All three are balanced fields with inner and outer sub-divisions of the whole field. All three have fractional wave structures that are similar to those found in either FQHE or Composite Fermions theory. Reply 36 summarizes the current position.

 

The whole is classed as ‘speculation’ because we are using swansont’s definition of speculation and as it is posted in the Speculations Forum I did not feel that there was any need to define it as ‘speculation’ in my opening submission. I do get irritated at this whole ‘speculations’ business particularly in respect of my work on the Table of Elements, hence my admittedly unnecessary comment; but I am not going to argue about that all over again; there are better ways of using my time.

Edited September 4, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

I will rephrase my objection: what orbits are forbidden by your model?

[elas]

I will rephrase my objection: what orbits are forbidden by your model?

 

Reply 27 compares the fractions created using the Semi-major axis with the nearest Hall filling order fraction. Reply 36 paragraph 5 defines the limits of the margins of error. Any orbit that does not fit into the parameters given in reply 36 (without clear reason for not fitting) would be forbidden.

 

Orbits are disrupted by violent events and such events have to be taken into account, but it would appear that smaller systems have fewer violent events as smaller targets are less likely to be hit; therefor I do not expect this to be a serious problem.

 

To the above I can now (three hours later) add the following:

 

The Hall fractional sequence and the problems associated with the sequence are explained on:

 

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm

 

Some of the problems can be dealt with in the following manner:

 

Take a partial vacuum field and divide it into sub-division starting with 1/2, this gives the sequence 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc. the devisor is always an even number, but Hall found that the devisor is always an odd number 1/3, 1/5, 1/7 etc. Haldane and Halperin assumed that the fractions applied to quasi-particles, but the particle and planetary tables of the proposed wave fraction field theory show that the fractions relate to the distance between particle centres. The explanation of how this works in reality was given in an article published on the 11 Mar 2008 and can be found in Fig.3 on:

 

http://69.5.17.59/cmps1.pdf

Edited September 5, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

As far as I can tell, your formula is (distance to next planet)/(largest radius). Given all of the Hall fractions, if you include errors I think most orbits are covered. Not falsifiable.

 

But the FQHE gets weaker as you move away from the principle fractions. The orbits do not follow this. Shouldn't the largest fractions occur for the smallest orbits?

[elas]

 

As far as I can tell, your formula is (distance to next planet)/(largest radius). Given all of the Hall fractions, if you include errors I think most orbits are covered. Not falsifiable.

 

This problem is referred to indirectly in the warwick reference:

 

after a few layers of the hierarchy there will be more quasi-particles than there were electrons in the original system

 

We are saying that quasi-particles should be replaced with distance between as that is the wavelength.

A fraction of say 7/24 lying as it does, between 1/3 and 1/4 has an error of 50% well outside the acceptable margin of error so the proposal is falsifiable if a single planetary semi-major axis in a planetary system where all but one of the fractions are on the scale shown in the table, produces a fractional value of 7/24 or any other fraction outside the proposed margins of error; then the proposal is falsified. A whole in between layer of planets would be needed in a single planetary system to move into the next fractional sequence (or plateau).

 

This can be explained by returning to electron fractions where we showed that all the electron fractions are on the same layer (i.e. ²CF plateau), but if the experiments were carried out with different parameters say at higher temperature, then we might find that the electrons are on a different plateau likewise a planetary system complete with fractions in between each standard fraction would have higher orbital velocities similar to electrons in high temperature atoms. We have yet to find such a system on the cosmic scale, but I recall reading that stars orbiting the galactic centre, for some unexplained reason; do so at speeds greater than their calculated escape velocities so we might after all have a candidate for a higher plateau system at the galactic centre. The difference between galactic and stellar compaction is probaly the cause of this difference and may also explain the problem of orbital values in the outer regions of galaxies. But I do not have the data to work on that and it is most likely beyond my abilities. That said if I could access the data for galactic centres I would work on it.

 

But the FQHE gets weaker as you move away from the principle fractions. The orbits do not follow this. Shouldn't the largest fractions occur for the smallest orbits?

 

Because 1) gravity acts in the opposite direction to EM and 2) the total force on each G wave is a constant that is spread over different volumes as proposed in the particle hypothesis (fm=G/2).

Edited September 5, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

 

 

But the FQHE gets weaker as you move away from the principle fractions. The orbits do not follow this. Shouldn't the largest fractions occur for the smallest orbits?

 

Because 1) gravity acts in the opposite direction to EM and 2) the total force on each G wave is a constant that is spread over different volumes as proposed in the particle hypothesis (fm=G/2).

 

1. EM can be both attractive and repulsive, so no

 

2. The force of gravity drops off as 1/r^2 and its energy drops off as 1/r. Volume varies as r^3. The implication here, then, is that the denominator should increase as r decreases, (fraction correlates somehow with r) but that doesn't hold, either. Your fractions for the outer three planets are the same, and as you move from Mars to Earth to Venus, the denominator gets smaller.

[elas]

1. EM can be both attractive and repulsive, so no

 

Quite true, but electron shells are always negative, so yes.

 

2. The force of gravity drops off as 1/r^2 and its energy drops off as 1/r. Volume varies as r^3. The implication here, then, is that the denominator should increase as r decreases, (fraction correlates somehow with r) but that doesn't hold, either. Your fractions for the outer three planets are the same, and as you move from Mars to Earth to Venus, the denominator gets smaller.

 

This is what comes from answering to quickly, it is of course the fractional wave energy that is constant.

[swansont]

 

This is what comes from answering to quickly, it is of course the fractional wave energy that is constant.

 

Fractional wave energy?

[elas]

Fractional wave energy?

 

This is a difficult question simply because there is so little data available to work with, the best I can do at present is as follows:

 

CF theory divides the field into waves that are measured in fractions of the field radius; what we propose is that each wave has the same energy, wave compression being caused by a reduction in volume.

 

Surprisingly Jain, who states that experiments use atoms of electrons has remarkably little to say about spherical structure, it is all in the opening paragraph of chapter 5.10 which states that the field has constant density. This implies that as the electrons are compressed to different compression states (compression not compaction meaning that the electron retains the same volume) the electron wavelength (along the radial) is shortened with each decrease in distance working inwards from the field surface, but as the contents of the electron has not altered, it follows that the wave energy of each electron is unchanged.

 

It is proposed that something similar is occurring on the gravitational scale, just as interaction between the atomic nuclear force and the external force creates electron shells so also does nuclear and external forces divide gravitons into graviton shells each graviton and each shell has its peculiar wave. The fractions of atomic shells are given in Table 3 of my 2008 paper (http://69.5.17.59/cmps1.pdf); the fractions of graviton shells are given in submission 26 of this forum.

 

Jain refers (ref. 605) to a paper by J. H. Smet titled ‘Wheels within wheels’ Nature 422,391 (2003). But this paper does not appear in the ‘Nature’ net index nor is it on arXiv or to be found in a general search; if anyone is able to help it would be much appreciated.

 

PS Note that all the searches for gravitational waves are for waves created by disturbance of the static wave system; this is like looking for light wave emission from atoms rather than the waves that determine atomic structure.

Edited September 7, 2010 by elas

[elas]

PPS The European Space Organisation quotes the Titius-Bode law for finding the Semi-major axis, but Hall filling factors produce Semi-major axis of greater accuracy as shown by the following table and graph.

 

 

 

Applying a similar method to HD10180 shows that HD10180g does not comply with either method. But excluding 10180g shows that the Titius-Bode method is better by 0.00005Au

 

 

Finally the two Gliese systems:

 

Edited September 8, 2010 by elas