Planetary system rotation

[elas]

I would like to know if when viewed from the same point in space, the planets of HD10180 are rotating in the opposite direction when compared to the Solar system?

[CaptainPanic]

You should probably define the rotation against the plane of the galaxy or its center, or some other reference point that is fixed.

 

Let me try to explain the problem with your question.

My question to you is: do these windmills (click) turn the "same way"?

How about these? Or these?

 

From the reference point of the camera, they don't seem to turn the same way. But you will probably say they do. And that only means that the question was wrong, not you or the camera.

 

Btw, even if you rewrite the question, I cannot give you the answer.

[Airbrush]

I believe all the windmills in an area would be set to turn the same way just from simple uniformity in design and set up. The angle of the blades determines what rotational direction (clockwise or counter-clockwise) a windmill turns, but all windmills will be aligned with the wind direction by necessity. Nothing will be gained by having windmills turning different ways. Why would they not?

 

On a similar subject, how is the plane of our solar system aligned with the plane of the Milky Way?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Airbrush

[elas]

I particularly avoided any specific cosmological point because one of the systems could be at 90 degrees to that point. But I overlooked the fact that the observer on Earth does see both planes so my question should read are they observed to rotate in the same or opposite directions?

 

The reason I ask is because I noticed that there are similarities between planetary and atomic structure that can be explained mathematically, but one problem that remains unsolved is that of differences in orientation. The problem (if it is a problem and not just a coincidence) is explained in graph form, it shows that the mass structure of two systems have similarites that are increased once the inversions caused in part by opposing rotatation are removed.

 

 

Because my work is speculative and to avoid breaking Forum rules, coupled with the fact that I am in unfamiliar territory on this forum; I have to be careful how I make submissions to this forum. But I should be on safe ground with the following graph and predictions. This is so elementary that I suspect something similar is already in use by astronomers and would welcome confirmation that that is the case.

 

 

Finally I am hoping that the order in which the systems appear on the graph is related to their distance from the galactic centre, but again this measurement does not appear to be published.

Edited September 14, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

elas, why don't you just work it out. The direction and distance from earth are published so it is merely a matter of simple trigonometry to find the distance.

[elas]

elas, why don't you just work it out. The direction and distance from earth are published so it is merely a matter of simple trigonometry to find the distance.

 

Being unedified as they use to say, I frequently need reminding of the blindingly obvious, its back to school time; but I will get there.

Thanks.

 

On having a go I found that the margin of error for the galactic centre is six times greater than the spread of the known planetary systems (with three or more planets) so perhaps I was over optimistic as to how far I could develop this aspect of my work.

Edited September 15, 2010 by elas

[elas]

I was not satisfied with the position of the blue line so after writing the above reply I returned to excel and altered it on the bases that Pluto is a captured planet and HD218396 is just forming with plenty of shrinking caused by condensation; still to come, then Neptune became the right hand marker.

 

This led to an adjustment to semi-major-axis predicted for the proposed outer planet of 55rho1 shown on the amended graph. Recalling reading a comment about a faint indication of an outer planet I conducted a search and failed to find the comment I was looking for; but I did find the following on:

 

http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/55cnc.html

 

55 Cancri is a mid-sixth magnitude star (magnitude 5.95) class G (G8) dwarf 41 light years away. A bit cooler (5280 Kelvin) and carrying just under a solar mass, it shines at just 58 percent of the luminosity of the Sun, its radius 0.9 solar. Like most stars with planets, 55 Cnc is rich in metals, its iron content (relative to hydrogen) quite high, twice that of the Sun. 55 Cancri is also a double star . Moving along with it through space is a dim 13th magnitude (13.7) class M red dwarf (probably M6) that is at least 1040 AU away and takes at least 30,000 years to orbit. From 55 Cancri's planets, the neighbor would shine somewhat dimmer than Venus at her maximum as seen from Earth.

(55 Cancri aka 55rho1) The underline has been added.

 

Of course prediction after the event has no value, but note that I am saying this is an outer planet while astronomers call it a twin star the difference being (I presume) one of nuclear activity. But if astronomers are saying that the 'twin' formed from a different dust cloud then I would have to disagree.

 

Edited September 16, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

elas, what is represented by the x axis on that graph?

 

i've commented before on your poor axis labelling.

[Klaynos]

What are your errors on your predictions?

[elas]

elas, what is represented by the x axis on that graph?

 

i've commented before on your poor axis labelling.

 

The systems are arranged in order of largest semi-major axis of each system. In my opinion there is no known reason why this should appear as a straight line in either metric or logarithmic form. If a zero line is drawn along the bottom of the graph to represent the stellar body position then we have a pattern that is similar to one I have produced using electrons and atomic nuclei. The ultimate goal being to show that nature uses a repetitive wave structure on all levels of compaction.

 

In standard graph form, a line drawn between maximum semi-major axis is similar compession lines that can also be produced from atomic structure; while observation of the shortest semi-major axis (in logarithmic form) shows that the shortest semi-major axis occur in three distinct bands just as is observed in atomic structure.

 

Of course, it is much to early to put any great an emphasis on what could be pure coincidence due to the small number of known planetary systems with three or more planets; that is why I publish elsewhere. But I have at times, to use the non-speculative forums to get the data and help needed to continue development.

 

What are your errors on your predictions?

 

This is a difficult question because the semi-major axis of the planets already contain large margins of possible error, so I am going to give the largest possible value of plus or minus 10%. The value has to be given in percentage because of the vast differences in stellar system size. Hopefully, sometime in the future; more accurate measurement will allow a reduction in this value.

 

At present the Titius-Bode rule is used as a rough guide, but a more accurate method can be found using wavelength, but as that is speculative it cannot be repeated on this forum.

Edited September 17, 2010 by elas

[Klaynos]

It shouldn't be that difficult, you must have used some maths to get your predictions and can therefore do error analysis...

[Ophiolite]

Have I understood you correctly? You are saying that the x-axis is simply the sequential position in your data set, ordered by the largest value of semi-major axis? And you feel the straight line character of a logarithmic plot in these circumstances is significant?

[elas]

Have I understood you correctly? You are saying that the x-axis is simply the sequential position in your data set, ordered by the largest value of semi-major axis? And you feel the straight line character of a logarithmic plot in these circumstances is significant?

 

My whole aim over 21 years has been the pursuit of simplicity (as predicted by Newton), it is not just the straight line that is significant; it is that once arranged in this manner one can draw on similarities with the field structure of atoms. If I go any further than that this forum will be moved; if I give a reference to other forums I have started I will receive a caution. Therefore a complete reply to your question requires you to conduct a search without my providing references. In the days of the Theory Development forum things were different, but that golden age has past thanks to the behaviour of people whose membership should simply have been cancelled, but instead the forum was closed now, as far as I am aware; I am the only surviving member from the Theory Development subscribers.

 

Having said that it should be remembered that this is a theory under development, I am seeking information and constructive criticism that will allow me to go forward (that is how all my work has progressed), and I am not claiming to be presenting a finished product. Only my work on the Table of Elements is complete; my work on particles is a hypothesis which I can take no further and my work on planets is just starting.

 

It shouldn't be that difficult, you must have used some maths to get your predictions and can therefore do error analysis...

There is a wide gulf between a Master of Physics and a poorly educated amateur pursuing a simple understanding of nature, but I think I know what you require and will do my best to produce a mathematically correct reply. I have to start as always, by looking up the professional term i.e. error analysis.

Edited September 17, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

but you don't have a valid reason for ordering the samples in that particular order other than 'it looks nice'.

 

because of this, there is absolutely no physical significance in the graph at all.

[Ophiolite]

elas, thank you for your reply, now would you care to answer the questions? Implicitly you seem to have answered it, but I wish to be asboslutely clear.

(1) Is the x-axis of your chart simply the sequential position in your data set, ordered by the largest value of semi-major axis? Yes, or no?

(2) Do you feel the straight line character of a logarithmic plot in these circumstances is significant? Yes or no?

 

I was not asking you to go further. I was not asking for a review of forum history that does not interest me. I was not asking for a display of paranoia. I was asking you two straightforward questions. I hope this time you will answer them so that we can move forwards.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Ophiolite

[elas]

elas, thank you for your reply, now would you care to answer the questions? Implicitly you seem to have answered it, but I wish to be asboslutely clear.

(1) Is the x-axis of your chart simply the sequential position in your data set, ordered by the largest value of semi-major axis? Yes, or no?

(2) Do you feel the straight line character of a logarithmic plot in these circumstances is significant? Yes or no?

 

Yes and yes again

 

I was not asking you to go further. I was not asking for a review of forum history that does not interest me. I was not asking for a display of paranoia. I was asking you two straightforward questions. I hope this time you will answer them so that we can move forwards.

 

Replies are read by more than one person and I am entitled to give the reasons for my reply; the use of the term paranoia displays a certain bias in your thinking, this is a debate not just an examination. History is an inportant part of my story that in a minor way is reflected on a higher scale in the last five chapters of Lee Smolin's book The Trouble with Quantum Physics. In trying to restrict the debate to your parameters you are guilty of the very behaviour that Smolin finds unaceptable.

 

but you don't have a valid reason for ordering the samples in that particular order other than 'it looks nice'.

 

because of this, there is absolutely no physical significance in the graph at all.

 

The Table of Elements was built on mass values and chemical similarities, in this case I am using field size and wave length. Unfortunately forum rules prevent the inclusion of the wave aspect so the cause of my questions cannot be fully explained, but there is a physical signicance to my graph that is explained on forums I am not allowed to refer to.

 

Please keep in mind that I opened this forum seeking information that will help me to go forward, it was never my intention to put forward a completed work, discussion of my work came in response to replies.

 

What are your errors on your predictions?

I hope the following answers your question. The prediction for Gl876 is mine, the prediction for 55rho1 is that of the observing astronomers:

 

Edited September 18, 2010 by elas

[Ophiolite]

Yes and yes again

Thank you.

 

Replies are read by more than one person and I am entitled to give the reasons for my reply;.

Of course you may post what you wish within the rules of the forum. I have no objection whatsoever to you explaining one of your answers. I was objecting to the fact that you didn't give one. You seemd to be saying yes, but that was a deduction on my part. If you had answered directly in the first place we could have avoided this sidebar.

 

the use of the term paranoia displays a certain bias in your thinking, this is a debate not just an examination.

It does not illustrate a bias, it demonstrates a plausible interpretation of your response. It carried several of the hallmarks of the professional woo-woo: the world is against you; your views are being suppressed; etc. That may not qualify as paranoia in a medical sense, but it's close enough for me.

 

I repeat, I have no interest in the history of your attempts to develop and promote your theory. I have no interest in you. I am interested in your theory and its evidential base. Therefore, when you interject irrelevant personal information I shall reserve the right to comment on how I perceive that personal and historical information. If you felt that to properly appreciate the nature of the x-axis I needed more information and that information, for whatever reason, could not be divulged on the forum all you had to do was send me a pm. It's not rocket science.

 

In trying to restrict the debate to your parameters you are guilty of the very behaviour that Smolin finds unaceptable.

I freely confess that I don't give an aardvark's arse what Smolin finds unacceptable. Nor do you have any grounds on which to declare I have restricted the debate to certain parameters. I am bemused that you even think that is the case. I asked you two things in order to clarify my understanding of your position. If you choose to read something into those questions beyond their open intent that is your problem, not mine.

[insane_alien]

elas, you do realise that all you've done is show that you ordered your dataset, right?

Edited September 18, 2010 by insane_alien

[Ophiolite]

elas, you do realise that all you've done is show that you ordered your dataset, right?

He has absolutely no idea that is what he has done. Further discussion with him will be fruitless. He is too embedded in his hypothesis to listen to advice or commentary, however it is phrased. (Although look up the works of Duncan Lunan to see how such warped thinking can get you a series of book deals.)

[insane_alien]

oh i know he's not going to listen to me. he never has before.

 

just hoping that something will filter through.

 

elas, if you take a random dataset and sort it from smallest to largest, of course you're going to see a straight line (although the regime in which the line is straight depends on the distribution)

 

you have a logarithmically distributed data set, so when you take the log of the values and plot them in order then it comes as no shock at all that you get a straight line. this is related to benfords law. it does not hold any significance other than saying that planetary orbits as logarithmically distributed.

[elas]

elas, you do realise that all you've done is show that you ordered your dataset, right?

 

No, not right, there is no reason why ordering a data set should result in a straight line rather than a curved line; indeed as I have already pointed out; in standard (non-logarithmic) form the result is a compression graph.

 

What I did was to notice certain similarities between my explanation of atomic structure and planetary positions, but the oblique straight line was missing; installing the straight line necessitated the making of two predictions one of which turned out to already exist in the form of a supposed twin star the other remains to be proven.

Edited September 19, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

you have a logarithmically distributed data set, sorting it on a logarithmic plot will result in a straigt line. this is something any statistician could tell you.

 

it would be the same if you plotted lake sizes in the same way, or anything that follows benfords law.

 

also, looking at that chart again you seem to have made a few ommisions. you have 49 disvisions on the x axis(and the 49-th contains data) but only 43 data points.

 

as it is a graph of size versus position in the data set that means you've took data out, what happened to that?

[Ophiolite]

oh i know he's not going to listen to me. he never has before.

Good luck with that. However he seems quite blind to the fact that many data will plot as a straight line on a log-linear plot ranked by magnitude. (I was unaware this was called or related t Benford's Law, so thank you for that info.)

 

I keep being reminded of a friend who, when playing darts, would occassionaly look at the board in simulated shock and awe and declare, "My God! Look! They form a triangle."

[insane_alien]

I keep being reminded of a friend who, when playing darts, would occassionaly look at the board in simulated shock and awe and declare, "My God! Look! They form a triangle."

 

rofl. that definitely seems to be whats happening here.

 

also, in the interests of backing myself up, i propose that elas creates a set of logarithmically distributed numbers and plots the log of them ordered by size.

 

to do this, have the function =exp(rand()) in excel, make a decent dataset, 100 would be good take the log of it, order by size and plot on a graph. i'm willing to bet money you get a good approximation of a straight line.

[Ophiolite]

i'm willing to bet money you get a good approximation of a straight line.

You would win the bet. I did much the same thing before I posted in this thread, just to make sure I wasn't missing something.