< G > Sun at the Center of a Massive Sphere: Solar-Planetary System

Chuck Blatchley writes,

/cyclesi/topicId_unknown.html#6944

[an apology to tuning@yahoogroups.com, and the physicists at
tuning, as well as to Charles Lucy, to whom Chuck takes issue:
but it seems imperative that you all read what Charles Blatchley
alleges about your understanding of *tuning* and you are welcomed
to respond at any of the groups mentioned:

celestial-tuning@yahoogroups.com, spacepeople@yahoogroups.com,
cyclesi@yahoogroups.com, physicsdebate@yahoogroups.com,
astrophysics2@yahoogroups.com, agrandunifiedtheory@yahoogroups.com,
cosmologyandastrophysics@yahoogroups.com, piclub@yahoogroups.com,
Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com

see below, or click
on 6944 above for Chalres Blatchley's comment, or read my response
first, below]

OK: Chuck: in particular you confused the *calculated means*
of the astronomers with Arnold's Law or the *ideal means*, so
that *IF* you reapply that much of your analysis correctly instead
of in error, we await your reply. See below:

Jack,

You wrote:

> ... It's possible that these forces
> affect the Earth more strongly than gravity as Bill says:
>
>> ``OK: Chuck, it is my opinion that *EMF laws* create the
>> *orbitals* the planets ride in, and it is *EMF* that keeps
>> the Earth in its present orbit.

> ... Do you have any
> ideas how this might be done in the lab, or where it might
> be occurring somewhere in the universe so that we could
> observe it?

Indeed I do. The rate of decay of the orbits of two massive binary
stars
with a small radius is just such a test. The fact that this decay rate
exactly matches that predicted by the field equations shows that both
the radiation coupling and the propagation speed of the radiation are
governed by the same speed, namely c. If either the speed of gravity or
of gravity radiation were different from this, the rate of decay would
be different.

However, this is not a "direct" measure of the speed of G. You could
directly measure the speed of gravity radiation with a pair of gravity
wave detectors close enough to the binary pair to detect the gravity
waves. Then you could directly measure both frequency and wavelength.

If you could then position them close enough to detect the near field
effects, you could also determine the speed of gravity. Most of us
think
they have to be the same anyway, because the field equations say that,
but this would be an empirical way to verify it.

As to Bill's opinion about whatever he thinks emf is, and how it is
controlling the planets, let's take a closer look, since several others
have presented similar ideas. First, Bill apparently went to Charles
Lucy to explain the connection of his "Law" to harmony. The description
used musical notation, starting with the lowest frequency (C1) to
correspond to the radius of Mercury's orbit, with higher octaves (C2,
C3, etc.) extending out to Pluto's orbit, plus two fifths above the
tonic (G) to fit the cases that don't line up.

Well, all waves, not just standing waves, obey the relation that
frequency times wavelength equals the speed of propagation. This means
that the longest standing wave node (Pluto) should have the lowest
frequency, not the highest. The shortest standing wave node (Mercury)
should have the highest frequency. Since the pattern described has this
exactly backwards, there is absolutely no way this particular pattern
can have anything to do with reality. The fact that Bill did not notice
this perfect backwardness in Lucy's explanation is consistent with his
thinking that a trade school text from 1950 on elementary electric
circuits contains fundamental laws of physics.

So, I think what they should have been trying to say, was that Pluto's
orbit should be considered as C1 and the two planets (Earth and
Neptune)
that did not fit as doublings were thirds above the tonic, rather than
fifths. A third above is the same interval as a fifth below. Otherwise,
the pattern is completely backward. We still have the problem that the
series for the inner planets does not match that for the outer planets.
They are still very much "out of tune" with each other.

Although this alternative has the lowest frequency properly associated
with the longest wavelength, and vice versa, it brings us to my second
comment on such patterns, namely that if you consider octaves, thirds,
and fifths on the musical scale, you basically have half the notes of a
major scale available for picking and choosing. That's 32 possible
parameters for nine planets plus the asteroid belt. In this case they
also used two different tonics, one for the inner planets and one for
the outer, effectively doubling the number of possible parameters to
64.

Unless there is a planet associated with each and every one of these 64
"notes," it suggests you simply have too many free parameters (more
than
six to one) for a fair test. As we like to tease the theorists, "Given
enough free parameters you can fit any theory to any data."

Thirdly, you can certainly fit any pattern of orbits where the
separations between planets continues to increase to the accuracy
cited,
over 20%, if you use the actual mean distances and not the numbers
Bill cites. Even when I add the radii of the Sun and Earth to the
textbook distances, I get other results than he reports. For example,
he
gives the mean distance from the Sun to Mercury as 31.4 million miles.
The book value is 36.0, even without adding the diameters. He says the
Earth's mean distance is 94.2 million miles, when it is below 94 even
with the diameters added. In other words, his numbers have been fudged
(either up or down as needed) to make them look like they fit when they
really do not.

Fourthly, even if they come out only a few percent off, which is what
other "harmony" pattern enthusiasts have claimed, this is not
physically
possible for standing waves. If we look at any type of musical
instrument, whether resonating strings or columns of air, we find that
the higher harmonics are very precise multiples of the fundamental
tone.
This is not because musical instruments have been designed this way,
rather, it is difficult to produce a resonant system that does not
follow the pattern. You need a STRONGLY non-linear system for this to
happen, for example, a string or column of air that changes effective
length with frequency. Simple physical systems do not do this.

This is especially true for electromagnetic waves in vacuum. Any
deviation at all from exact multiples (or fifths or thirds) would
destroy the standing waves. Thus, the fact that the orbits only
approximately make a fit (for two different sets of harmonics), makes
this hypothesis untenable.

Finally, we have sent spacecraft very close to the Sun and now out to
the edge of the solar system to measure electromagnetic fields in
space.
As impressive as these fields sometimes are, especially at the higher
frequencies, they are nowhere near the scale needed to even perturb
planets in their orbits, let alone hold them there in the absence of
gravity.

The frequency for a single node fitting between the Sun and Pluto, for
example, is 5.07 x 10^-5 Hz. You would have to wait nearly eleven hours
for a single wavelength to pass at that frequency. To have a field that
could move planets around at that distance, we would see a huge, very
nearly DC electric field on the surface of the Earth that would reverse
directions every five and half hours. We simply do not see that at
Pluto's frequency, nor at 16.6 minutes, the period of Earth's supposed
standing wave. Of course, if the Earth is on an anti-node, we would
expect to see the 16.6 minute signal away from Earth's orbit, say on a
Venus probe or recent Mars lander. Again, we simply don't see such
fields, either on Earth or anywhere in space.

Chuck

Bill
Author of Arnold's Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Vezzoli writes, "I would like to point out that .... simply
because a 'model' has worked for centuries in an almost precise
prediction of the orbits of the planets, for example, does NOT mean
that the model is a correct picture of nature...the data of Tycho Brahe
and the laws of planetary motion of Kepler indicated that the planet's
orbits were elipses [sic]...Newton...then employed the gravitational
constant, G...very cleverly employed his equation to calculate the
period of the moon, and obtained about 27 days which compared
excellently with the 28 1/3 days."

OK: Gary, Newton was *not* even close!

OK: Gary, Newton was *wrong* by 1 and 1/3 days by your *own* math!

OK: Gary, strange that you should bring up the name of Tycho Brahe.
Why not go back to Ptolemy, inasmuch as Ptolemy and Tycho had much more
accurate *data* on planetary and moon *predictions* than Newton with
his faulty <G> concept!

In my "Bode's Law Explained" paper of 1979 [see below], I wrote:

"The problem as seen from the standpoint of most astronomers was not
which theory best explained, but which best *predicted* the future
positions of the orbiting bodies in space. Astronomers ('namers' of
'stars') are really pragmatists at heart. Like the ancient Egyptian
geometers, the men in the fields as the Nile flood receded who surveyed
the land with lengths of rope, astronomers are as 'down to earth' in
accuracy when it comes to measuring things in the heavens" [84].
also:
"In 1543 AD Copernicus of Poland used Ptolemy's data in his now famous
book *De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium* (*On the Revolutions of the
Celestial Orbs*) and presented a revivied, heliocentric, sun-centered,
solar-planetary system (quite neo-Pythagorean). But most of the book
was in the well-established tradition of astronomical *prediction* and
concerned itself with detailed analysis and tables of planetary
motions" [85].
also:
"In 1577 AD astronomer Tycho Brahe of Denmark tried to do precisely
that. He used Copernicus' tables (based on Ptolemy's *Mathmematica*)
but found the planets were not where they were *predicted*. With
sophisticated, better-calibrated, larger mechanical equipment, money
from the King and armies of assistants and an observatory of his *own*
not far from Hamlet's famous castle, Tycho, the last of the "naked-eye"
astronomers, for twenty laborious years (1576-1596), created accurate
star catalogs and made extensive measurements of the planets which were
30 times (30X) *more accurate* than Ptolemy's data. For example,
without aid of a telescope (the telescope was not *perfected* until
1609 AD by Galileo), Tycho measured the year, the period of the earth
round the sun--to *within one second!* And because the earth year does
*not* vary more than + or - 40 milliseconds in any one year (see
Whipple, p. 109), this was a *landmark* achievement!" [86].

OK: Gary, here is the *K-I-C-K-E-R* paragraph of my 1979 paper:
"But the new observational data of Tycho did not support the *perfect*
circles implicit in the sun-centered system of Copernicus. Tycho, the
astronomer, interested in predicting the planet (particle), rejected
the wave theory of Copernicus and published support of Ptolemy, for
which the data made more sense, in the interest of accuracy--the law of
the astronomer. Tycho's data was impeccable although his
solar-planetary theory was not" [86].

OK: Gary, and Chuck, and all you other *particle* experimenters, take
*S-E-R-I-O-U-S* note that we *R-E-A-D* all you write. You might, like
Ptolemy and Tycho, be great *experimenters* and yet you also might be
less than great *theorists*!

OK: Ptolemy and Tycho were great *data* producing men, but admittedly
they were *W-R-O-N-G* on theory.

OK: Gary, and Chuck, and your bevy of *apologists* ought to take note
that theory is just that, *theory*! And the one with the best *data*
may *N-O-T* necessarily be the one to *B-E-S-T* explain
*T-H-E-O-R-E-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y* what the *data* describes as a *M-O-D-E-L*!

OK: in other words, you might be, and I say might, advisedly, you might
be as *wrong* as Ptolemy and Tycho with your *epicycle* views of the
*models* of micro and macro *structures*! OK, agreed?

OK: do you *not* understand that *data* does not prove a *theory*?

OK: do you *not* understand that it is *theory* which justifies the
data, and mutually-exclusive theories, such as a geo-centered system
vs. a solar-centered system are, *cannot* both be correct, or as we say
in science, they *cannot* both be *true and certain!

OK: Ptolemy and Tycho *pounded the table* and exclaimed that because
their *data* was more accurate, their *theory* was more accurate!

OK: Ipso facto, it does *not* follow, it does *not* compute! You must
drop that *logic* because it is *not* logical! Got it?
----------------------

Harmonic Voyager writes, "I am interested in understanding what you
are saying in Arnold's Law. I notice the simplicity of the ratios
and find it quite compelling as a view of an ordered system. Could
you explain to me how the 'ideal mean or perimeter' is calculated?
You mention: **means: adjusted for diameters of both bodies, sun and
planet. Perhaps you could derive the 3.14 X10(7th) miles for Mercury
as an example. I realize it may be very easy to see, but 'I' can't
see yet and would like to."

OK: Harmonic Voyager, interesting name. Anyway, the ideal arcs,
column two, are related to Arnold's law or the ideal arcs as an
expression of pi, column four, the perimeter of a circle [for a
fuller explanation I would have to reproduce several pages from
my 1979 paper--suffice it to say that that can be done]; inasmuch
as the actual calculated *means* become *ideal circles* they are
relatable. I did not put up the actual *data* given in a standard
encyclopedia by the astronomical community because it is readily
available, but I did publish it in my "Bode's Law Explained;"
understand that my 1979 paper is ten pages of fine print and quite a
lot to digest all at once and would overwhelm one post. Here are the
*calculated means* based on astronomical data: in this case column four
is the Calculated Means** [note I have substituted them for Arnold's
law of Ideal Means, but you ought to see how close the *Ideal* is to
the *Caluclated*; Arnold's law follows, below--so compare them and
discover as you note the simplicty and order system you spoke to]:

Arnold's Law of Ordinal Spacing in Our Solar-Planetary System:

Bodies_Proportion___Degreed Arcs___Fraction___Calculated Means**

Sun__________0___________0________0____________0
Mercury______1___________3_____1/120______3.64 X10(7th)miles
Venus________2___________6______1/60______6.77
Earth________3___________9______1/40______9.34
Mars_________4__________12______1/30_____14.21
Ceres*_______8__________24______1/15_____25.13
Jupiter_____15__________45______1/8______48.43
Saturn______30__________90______1/4______88.85
Uranus______60_________180______1/2_____178.00
Neptune_____90_________270______3/4_____279.15
Pluto______120_________360______4/4_____365.43

**means: adjusted for diameters of both bodies, sun and planet
[These are simple *arithmetic means* of the aphelion and perihelion
data points, added, divided by 2; then the radii of the Sun and the
respective Planet are added so that the *calculated distance* is center
to center; although in my paper I note that astrophysics refers to the
dance of the respective *centers* so that refinements would be needed
down the road, but for our purposes that is not necessary and would not
much alter the data I have given you].
----------------------------------------------

Arnold's Law of Ordinal Spacing in Our Solar-Planetary System:

Bodies_Proportion___Degreed Arcs___Fraction___Ideal or Arnold's law**
Or Perimeter or Pi Means

Sun__________0___________0________0____________0
Mercury______1___________3_____1/120______3.14 X10(7th)miles
Venus________2___________6______1/60______6.28
Earth________3___________9______1/40______9.42
Mars_________4__________12______1/30_____12.56
Ceres*_______8__________24______1/15_____25.13
Jupiter_____15__________45______1/8______47.12
Saturn______30__________90______1/4______94.24
Uranus______60_________180______1/2_____188.49
Neptune_____90_________270______3/4_____282.74
Pluto______120_________360______4/4_____376.99

*Ceres: prime representative of so-called "asteroids"

+
(c) Bill Arnold, "Bode's Law Explained," from the Bulletin of the
Foundation For the Study of Cycles, Vol. XXX, No. 4, pages 82-92,
1979.

OK: Harmonic Voyager, the key sections from my 1979 paper would take me
some time to put in a message, so if you have further questions, ask
away, and I will post some more; my paper began with the history of
astronomy since ancient Egypt, up to the work of Kepler, and one
hundred and fifty years later that of Titius and Bode, which resulted
in the moniker of *Bode's Law*; then I went into the *math* and showed
how the *astronomical unit* confused the math; converted it all to
what I call the *solar unit* and then explicated the *proportionality*
aspects; the end results you have seen, except for the actual
calculated *ranges* of the planets, aphelion and perihelion points;
the *arithmetic mean* of those two points you see as *calculated
means*!

Bill
Author of Arnold's Law

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus