Should we drop Neptune for T-B's sake?

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:50 pm

For the sake of the Titius–Bode law
let's reinstate Ceres, Pluto & Eris as planets
....BUT DROP Neptune!

--------------------------------------
<<The Titius–Bode law (sometimes termed just Bode's law) is a hypothesis that the bodies in some orbital systems, including Sol's, orbit at semi-major axes in an exponential function of planetary sequence. The hypothesis has failed as a predictor of orbits since 1846, on the discovery of Neptune's orbit.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bode%27s_Law

Code: Select all

Titius–Bode law :  a = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2^m
.................................................
Planet 	__k 	_T-B 	Real distance
----------------------------------
Mercury	__0 	_0.4 	0.39
Venus_ 	__1 	_0.7 	0.72
Earth_ 	__2 	_1.0 	1.00
Mars__ 	__4 	_1.6 	1.52
Ceres_ 	__8 	_2.8 	2.77
Jupiter	_16 	_5.2 	5.20
Saturn 	_32 	10.0 	9.54
Uranus 	_64 	19.6 	19.2
Pluto_ 	128 	38.8 	39.44
Eris__ 	256 	77.2 	67.67

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Color.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cere ... arison.png

makc · Post by **makc** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:40 am

let's nuke it and pretend the law is perfect.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:04 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Thats so funny.

Sounds like a tit-bit law.

makc · Post by **makc** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:09 pm

On the other hand, let's keep it. I see another evidence of supreme force in our universe here. Neptune orbit is clearly out of order, so it must have been moved into that orbit by named force. That conveniently explains minor deviations of other planets orbits.

God or aliens. Or maybe magic (imagine ancient wizards moving planets around by spell: )

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:03 pm

Well if Neptune is excluded then Pluto must also be excluded as a portion of its orbit lies inside Neptunes'

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:27 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Well if Neptune is excluded then Pluto must also be excluded as a portion of its orbit lies inside Neptunes'

The T-B law relates to the semi-major axis of the planets.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:01 pm

makc wrote:On the other hand, let's keep it. I see another evidence of supreme force in our universe here. Neptune orbit is clearly out of order, so it must have been moved into that orbit by named force. That conveniently explains minor deviations of other planets orbits.

God or aliens. Or maybe magic (imagine ancient wizards moving planets around by spell: )

Galileo would have told us if Neptune is a planet.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

<<Galileo's drawings show that he first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613; on both occasions, Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close (in conjunction) to Jupiter in the night sky. Believing it to be a fixed star, he is not credited with its discovery. At the time of his first observation in December 1612, it was stationary in the sky because it had just turned retrograde that very day; because it was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, Neptune's motion was far too slight to be detected with Galileo's small telescope.

Yet, on January 28, 1613, using that same diminutive telescope, Galileo noted that the distance between two supposedly "fixed" stars, a and b (Neptune), that were near Jupiter had increased from the previous night. He made sketches of the changing position. Hence, not only did Galileo record Neptune, but he was also the first person to detect its motion. Had he publicized the finding or tracked it, Neptune would have been discovered more than two centuries earlier, even before Uranus.>>

Code: Select all

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
.............................................................
Fri 1612 Dec 28 2:08 UTC  Galileo drawing #1

              Right                   Distance    From 45°N 12°E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth

Jupiter     11h 48m 21s    +2° 41.2'     5.163    37.065  -47.756 Up
Neptune     11h 49m 15s    +2° 37.1'    30.049    36.889  -47.952 Up
.............................................................
Fri 1613 Jan 4 2:08 UTC  *OCCULTATION*
http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/planets/occltlst.htm

              Right                   Distance    From 45°N 12°E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth

Jupiter     11h 49m 14s    +2° 37.6'     5.054    40.296  -40.272 Up
Neptune     11h 49m 13s    +2° 37.7'    29.931    40.300  -40.270 Up
.............................................................
Sun 1613 Jan 27 2:08 UTC  Galileo drawing #2

              Right                   Distance    From 45°N 12°E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth

Jupiter     11h 48m  6s    +2° 51.9'     4.734    47.464   -9.809 Up
Neptune     11h 48m 24s    +2° 44.3'    29.585    47.329   -9.894 Up
.............................................................
Mon 1613 Jan 28 2:08 UTC  Galileo drawing #3

              Right                   Distance    From 45°N 12°E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
Jupiter     11h 47m 55s    +2° 53.4'     4.722    47.604   -8.295 Up
Neptune     11h 48m 20s    +2° 44.7'    29.572    47.449   -8.429 Up

Starship Asterisk*

Should we drop Neptune for T-B's sake?

Should we drop Neptune for the sake of T-B?

Should we drop Neptune for T-B's sake?

Galileo voted thumbs down!