planets orbit like their stars vibrate ?

What? What is that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730026247 and pages of it. please google and read it all back for years. nothing new here. 160 minutes too.

Interesting that other sites on the 5 min solar pulses, cite that frequency as the result of many periodic events, making it possible to see that emerging 300 sec period as a standing wave source.
https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...ves-in-a-ripple-tank-late-picture-id640481860

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's going to take me a bit...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It gets interesting when you get to the 160 minute "c" wavelength. popularized by Kotov, K Russian Koutchmy. Russian astro physicists in the 1980,Basically, planetary orbit distances are never smaller than .3 AU =300 light seconds in orbit diameter, and not larger than 9,6 AU, 9600 light seconds (160 minutes) in wavelength.
~300 lights seconds is the Mercury to Venus to Earth diameter orbit distances (~,3 AU each)
5 octaves deeper, 5 doublings of length, is
~ 9600 light seconds is Saturn to Uranus to Neptune to Pluto diameter orbit distances, (~9.6 AU each)
a classic resonant system corresponding to the reach of the keyboard of the Yamaha grand piano in my living room.

The solar system can also be classed as a geometric series of doubling distances from Mercury out to Pluto, with no planets between Mercury and Venus, (no place for more than one 300 light seconds) , and Neptune added in the Uranus to Pluto field, (because it is twice more than 9.6 AU.)
What these wavelength might represent besides variations of Kepler's gravity based laws, the future might tell. L'Academie Francaise has a 1954 entry on the 5 minute Solar relation to planet orbits too. Nebel ~ 1994
Bode modified to explain inner and outer discrepancies.

 

Thank you, true, but
It is only alternate theories that have ever advanced humanity, otherwise we would still be swinging in the trees.
of course , even 99 % of patents are useless too, but,
at least scrutinise alternate theories carefully to find that one polished pebble, to misquote Newton.

 

That is not true.
The standard model of particle physics is one of the most successful theories ever developed. It continues to be the most active and fruitful area of research we have ever known. We will very successfully build our whole scientific world around it. We will build on it, we will tweak it, but it won't be replaced by an alternate theory.

 

Of course not. Many of the successful patents were of the : "--the improvement comprising--" type. Like in evolution, only the fitting mutations are carried forward. Aberrations will wither.
The explanation of harmonics present in the modified Titius Bode law, and pointing out the close match via "c" to solar pulsations, brings together 11 " coincidences ". is not in conflict with the theories you mention. imho.

 

I was simply refuting your assertion that progress is only made via alternate theories.

 

Fair enough. I knew my remarks could be misinterpreted. Even Kepler, Newton are alive and well and in use today, up to a point.and they were the alternate theories in their day.
I certainly do not insist that anything here should be part of tomorrow's mainstream science fare.
or moved to the humour section.

 

What do you mean by alternate theory? Do you mean simply a new theory?

I'm not sure Newton's or Kepler's theories flew in the face of earlier, well-established mainstream theories. I think they created theories where there were no previous theories.

 

Where there not theories in place that had the planets moving on glass spheres, firmly embedded in a firmament, Cycles and epicycles, over a flat Earth? Even Kopernicus stuck with that? It was Ptolemaic, complicated, but it worked kind of, you questioned that at the peril of your life. Then-Kepler.
Gregory pointed out the doubling of the planetary orbits before Titius.
The Bode "law" had the Neptune no fit problem invalidating the equation. , then the missing half distance orbits below Venus., then the demotion of Pluto as planet , although he/she/it has a firm place as the last known in the Bode/Titius sequence. namely #388.

the minimum, 3AU= 5 light minute , 160 light minute = 9.6 AU maximum fixes that. linking it via "c" to the most massive vibration in the Solar system, another possibility. to much to be a coincidence. imho.

 

This was before the age of modern science, in the 1500's through 1700's. So they had ideas about what they thought was true, but they were a far cry from what would be considered a theory. They didn't really go about trying to bolster their ideas through the act of falsification- they didn't have the means to gain more data than they already had.
I doubt anyone really asked "if the planets are really on glass spheres, we should see some evidence of the spheres. Let's go looking, and if we don't find anything, that will cast the idea into doubt."

I would consider an alternate theory to be one that brings down the foundation of an earlier, well-established, broadly-accepted theory. I just don't think those earlier ideas were well-established or broadly accepted by the community at-large in the sense that they would fall hard when toppled.

So when Newton and Kepler started explaining how the planets moved, I don't think there was much to refute them. They were providing mechanisms where none had existed before.

 

If you would stick to that narrow definition, there would be no "Alternative Theories" section on this forum. Even Einstein did not topple Newton, or Kepler, who's 3 orbit laws are still valid to calculate the orbits of newly discovered asteroids, comets.
I my h.o., not all alternate theories need to be seminal, toppling giants on whos' shoulders we stand. but
refuting ideas with good arguments is fun, rejuvenating. so,
just because there are 11 coincidences to the measurements of the solar System planet orbits, for which there are no links in established science, to which science journals , like 'Icarus' of Cornell, do not even consider papers for review, --does not mean an alternate theory might not one day prove to have held water. (to have been on somebody's bucket list of things to do), to crack it. .

 

I don't see why not.
The Alt Theories here are trying to topple well-established, experimentally-founded and widely-accepted theories.

And, whereas Newton's and Kepler's, contributions explained more than the ideas that went before them, the alt theories here fall short of explaining nature, at least as good as, or better than the existing theories. Put another way, Newton and Kepler's ideas provided more answers than questions, whereas these alt theories raise more questions than they answer.

 

There has to be a sporting spirit about this too.
The Gregory, Titius, Bode "law" and amendments, might seem to be low fruit for the picking, and like it is said, if you can bring "c" into the equations, you fit in with the advancing wave, standing wave.

PS # 4: I do not in any way want to belittle the deep involvement or sincerity of posters here, but bring it into perspective, because nothing is more deflating than have high hopes dashed. approach it as a game, not a life or death contest. accept objections to the idea that you have incubated, as help to veracity.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just to illustrate what could happen when the pebble hits the pond aka BB.

 

Huh. I did not know how a pebble could make ripples in a pond until nebel showed me.
Clearly he has a grasp of cosmology beyond my ken.

 

just an illustration for those that think everything is waves, from vibrating curled strings to 7 oscillation universes.

 

Does anyone, anywhere, believe you yet? How many are following, at the moment?

 

These possible connections have been the subject of discussions for decades. Correlation is of course not causation, so, not proposing any mechanism to connect the two, I hope people will believe the published data, of planetary orbit spacings, resonances, and take it from there. correlating such things is always the first step. arguments against it are always welcome. It is hoped, that belief in the religious sense never enters simple science. It is not a popularity contest. thanx