If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#31




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 08.01.2018 01.16, skrev Peter Riedt: On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:44:46 AM UTC+8, Anders EklÃ¶f wrote: Peter Riedt wrote: On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 7:08:23 AM UTC+8, Anders EklÃ¶f wrote: Peter Riedt wrote: Your points are valid. However, the formula using .5*sqrt(4)... produces the same result as using 13.... No  they don't, except for a circle. For Mercury 5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) gives 0,999956 and 13(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) gives 0.999650. The difference doesn't look big, but the devation from 1 differs by an order of magnitude. The comet Halley produces .85 for X. Only with 13(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) as you listed. Just try using .5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) instead. Since I don't have your values for a and b I can't check. The values for the semi major axis were obtained from Princeton.edu and the values for the semi minor axis were calculated by me with the formula semi minor axis = semi major axis * sqrt(1e^2): So, since you use the eccentricity e to calculate the semi major axis, what is the point of introducing a new "eccentricity constant" X? 1. What is the geometrical mening of X? 2. In what way is it useful? smajora smina e MER 57,909,231,029 56,672,064,712 0.2056 VEN 108,209,525,401 108,207,023,568 0.0068 EAR 149,598,319,494 149,577,457,301 0.0167 MAR 227,943,771,564 226,947,353,141 0.0934 JUP 778,342,761,465 777,430,569,626 0.0484 SAT 1,426,714,892,866 1,424,617,764,212 0.0542 URA 2,870,633,540,862 2,867,434,101,795 0.0472 NEP 4,498,393,012,162 4,498,226,658,512 0.0086 PLU 5,906,438,090,764 5,720,709,449,730 0.2488 The two formulas for X differ indeed: .05*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) 13(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) MER 0.999956281 0.999650256 VEN 1.000000000 1.000000000 EAR 0.999999998 0.999999985 MAR 0.999998201 0.999985606 JUP 0.999999871 0.999998969 SAT 0.999999797 0.999998377 URA 0.999999883 0.999999067 NEP 1.000000000 0.999999999 PLU 0.999904311 0.999234522 So much for you simplification of the formula. Can you still not see where the error is? You say my points are valid, and choose to ignore them.  I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. A very strange idea. X = X(e) = âˆš(43â‹…(1âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²/(1+âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²)/2 e = 0.00 X = 1.0000000000 e = 0.04 X = 0.9999999399 e = 0.08 X = 0.9999990338 e = 0.12 X = 0.9999950691 e = 0.16 X = 0.9999842377 e = 0.20 X = 0.9999609449 e = 0.24 X = 0.9999175202 e = 0.28 X = 0.9998438029 e = 0.32 X = 0.9997265649 e = 0.36 X = 0.9995487110 e = 0.40 X = 0.9992881691 e = 0.44 X = 0.9989163362 e = 0.48 X = 0.9983958716 e = 0.52 X = 0.9976775062 e = 0.56 X = 0.9966953251 e = 0.60 X = 0.9953596037 e = 0.64 X = 0.9935455742 e = 0.68 X = 0.9910751195 e = 0.72 X = 0.9876855065 e = 0.76 X = 0.9829727662 e = 0.80 X = 0.9762812095 e = 0.84 X = 0.9664653233 e = 0.88 X = 0.9512997861 e = 0.92 X = 0.9256679486 e = 0.96 X = 0.8733242883 e = 1.00 X = 0.5000000000 So you have made a function which evaluates to something very close to 1 for most eccentricities. What's the point with that? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? What does X tell us about the planetary orbits? Mercury e = 0.2056 X = 0.9999562811 Venus e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Earth e = 0.0167 X = 0.9999999982 Mars e = 0.0934 X = 0.9999982007 Jupiter e = 0.0484 X = 0.9999998711 Saturn e = 0.0541 X = 0.9999997986 Uranus e = 0.0472 X = 0.9999998834 Neptun e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Pluto e = 0.2488 X = 0.9999043107 You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X?  Paul https://paulba.no/ A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant. 
Ads 
#32




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
Dne 12/01/2018 v 23:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: [...] You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X? A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant. Only because you made your eccentricity formula to be near independent on the orbit shape.  Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject. 
#33




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
Dne 12/01/2018 v 23:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. How do you then explain, how could GR be able to predict the unexplained extra precession of the Mercury orbit, the famous success of the GR.  Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject. 
#34




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
Den 12.01.2018 23.48, skrev Peter Riedt:
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 08.01.2018 01.16, skrev Peter Riedt: X = .5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. A very strange idea. X = X(e) = âˆš(43â‹…(1âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²/(1+âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²)/2 e = 0.00 X = 1.0000000000 e = 0.04 X = 0.9999999399 e = 0.08 X = 0.9999990338 e = 0.12 X = 0.9999950691 e = 0.16 X = 0.9999842377 e = 0.20 X = 0.9999609449 e = 0.24 X = 0.9999175202 e = 0.28 X = 0.9998438029 e = 0.32 X = 0.9997265649 e = 0.36 X = 0.9995487110 e = 0.40 X = 0.9992881691 e = 0.44 X = 0.9989163362 e = 0.48 X = 0.9983958716 e = 0.52 X = 0.9976775062 e = 0.56 X = 0.9966953251 e = 0.60 X = 0.9953596037 e = 0.64 X = 0.9935455742 e = 0.68 X = 0.9910751195 e = 0.72 X = 0.9876855065 e = 0.76 X = 0.9829727662 e = 0.80 X = 0.9762812095 e = 0.84 X = 0.9664653233 e = 0.88 X = 0.9512997861 e = 0.92 X = 0.9256679486 e = 0.96 X = 0.8733242883 e = 1.00 X = 0.5000000000 So you have made a function which evaluates to something very close to 1 for most eccentricities. What's the point with that? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? What does X tell us about the planetary orbits? Mercury e = 0.2056 X = 0.9999562811 Venus e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Earth e = 0.0167 X = 0.9999999982 Mars e = 0.0934 X = 0.9999982007 Jupiter e = 0.0484 X = 0.9999998711 Saturn e = 0.0541 X = 0.9999997986 Uranus e = 0.0472 X = 0.9999998834 Neptun e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Pluto e = 0.2488 X = 0.9999043107 You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X?  Paul https://paulba.no/ A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant. Come again? The eccentricities of the orbits a Mercury e = 0.2056 Venus e = 0.0086 Earth e = 0.0167 Mars e = 0.0934 Jupiter e = 0.0484 Saturn e = 0.0541 Uranus e = 0.0472 Neptun e = 0.0086 Pluto e = 0.2488 They are very different, and not "close to the same constant". The values for your X, with same precision as above, a Mercury X = 1.0000 Venus X = 1.0000 Earth X = 1.0000 Mars X = 1.0000 Jupiter X = 1.0000 Saturn X = 1.0000 Uranus X = 1.0000 Neptun X = 1.0000 Pluto X = 0.9999 So despite the fact that the eccentricities of the planets varies a lot, your X is close to 1 for all of them. So I repeat the questions: What can the X tell you about the orbits? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful?  Paul https://paulba.no/ 
#35




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 7:54:50 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.01.2018 23.48, skrev Peter Riedt: On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 08.01.2018 01.16, skrev Peter Riedt: X = .5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. A very strange idea. X = X(e) = âˆš(43â‹…(1âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²/(1+âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²)/2 e = 0.00 X = 1.0000000000 e = 0.04 X = 0.9999999399 e = 0.08 X = 0.9999990338 e = 0.12 X = 0.9999950691 e = 0.16 X = 0.9999842377 e = 0.20 X = 0.9999609449 e = 0.24 X = 0.9999175202 e = 0.28 X = 0.9998438029 e = 0.32 X = 0.9997265649 e = 0.36 X = 0.9995487110 e = 0.40 X = 0.9992881691 e = 0.44 X = 0.9989163362 e = 0.48 X = 0.9983958716 e = 0.52 X = 0.9976775062 e = 0.56 X = 0.9966953251 e = 0.60 X = 0.9953596037 e = 0.64 X = 0.9935455742 e = 0.68 X = 0.9910751195 e = 0.72 X = 0.9876855065 e = 0.76 X = 0.9829727662 e = 0.80 X = 0.9762812095 e = 0.84 X = 0.9664653233 e = 0.88 X = 0.9512997861 e = 0.92 X = 0.9256679486 e = 0.96 X = 0.8733242883 e = 1.00 X = 0.5000000000 So you have made a function which evaluates to something very close to 1 for most eccentricities. What's the point with that? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? What does X tell us about the planetary orbits? Mercury e = 0.2056 X = 0.9999562811 Venus e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Earth e = 0.0167 X = 0.9999999982 Mars e = 0.0934 X = 0.9999982007 Jupiter e = 0.0484 X = 0.9999998711 Saturn e = 0.0541 X = 0.9999997986 Uranus e = 0.0472 X = 0.9999998834 Neptun e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Pluto e = 0.2488 X = 0.9999043107 You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X?  Paul https://paulba.no/ A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant.. Come again? The eccentricities of the orbits a Mercury e = 0.2056 Venus e = 0.0086 Earth e = 0.0167 Mars e = 0.0934 Jupiter e = 0.0484 Saturn e = 0.0541 Uranus e = 0.0472 Neptun e = 0.0086 Pluto e = 0.2488 They are very different, and not "close to the same constant". The values for your X, with same precision as above, a Mercury X = 1.0000 Venus X = 1.0000 Earth X = 1.0000 Mars X = 1.0000 Jupiter X = 1.0000 Saturn X = 1.0000 Uranus X = 1.0000 Neptun X = 1.0000 Pluto X = 0.9999 So despite the fact that the eccentricities of the planets varies a lot, your X is close to 1 for all of them. So I repeat the questions: What can the X tell you about the orbits? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful?  Paul https://paulba.no/ In terms of X, the orbits are indistinguishable. 
#36




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 7:54:50 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 12.01.2018 23.48, skrev Peter Riedt: On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 08.01.2018 01.16, skrev Peter Riedt: X = .5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. A very strange idea. X = X(e) = âˆš(43?(1âˆš(1e?))?/(1+âˆš(1e?))?)/2 e = 0.00 X = 1.0000000000 e = 0.04 X = 0.9999999399 e = 0.08 X = 0.9999990338 e = 0.12 X = 0.9999950691 e = 0.16 X = 0.9999842377 e = 0.20 X = 0.9999609449 e = 0.24 X = 0.9999175202 e = 0.28 X = 0.9998438029 e = 0.32 X = 0.9997265649 e = 0.36 X = 0.9995487110 e = 0.40 X = 0.9992881691 e = 0.44 X = 0.9989163362 e = 0.48 X = 0.9983958716 e = 0.52 X = 0.9976775062 e = 0.56 X = 0.9966953251 e = 0.60 X = 0.9953596037 e = 0.64 X = 0.9935455742 e = 0.68 X = 0.9910751195 e = 0.72 X = 0.9876855065 e = 0.76 X = 0.9829727662 e = 0.80 X = 0.9762812095 e = 0.84 X = 0.9664653233 e = 0.88 X = 0.9512997861 e = 0.92 X = 0.9256679486 e = 0.96 X = 0.8733242883 e = 1.00 X = 0.5000000000 So you have made a function which evaluates to something very close to 1 for most eccentricities. What's the point with that? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? What does X tell us about the planetary orbits? Mercury e = 0.2056 X = 0.9999562811 Venus e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Earth e = 0.0167 X = 0.9999999982 Mars e = 0.0934 X = 0.9999982007 Jupiter e = 0.0484 X = 0.9999998711 Saturn e = 0.0541 X = 0.9999997986 Uranus e = 0.0472 X = 0.9999998834 Neptun e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Pluto e = 0.2488 X = 0.9999043107 You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X?  Paul https://paulba.no/ A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant. Come again? The eccentricities of the orbits a Mercury e = 0.2056 Venus e = 0.0086 Earth e = 0.0167 Mars e = 0.0934 Jupiter e = 0.0484 Saturn e = 0.0541 Uranus e = 0.0472 Neptun e = 0.0086 Pluto e = 0.2488 They are very different, and not "close to the same constant". The values for your X, with same precision as above, a Mercury X = 1.0000 Venus X = 1.0000 Earth X = 1.0000 Mars X = 1.0000 Jupiter X = 1.0000 Saturn X = 1.0000 Uranus X = 1.0000 Neptun X = 1.0000 Pluto X = 0.9999 So despite the fact that the eccentricities of the planets varies a lot, your X is close to 1 for all of them. So I repeat the questions: What can the X tell you about the orbits? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful?  Paul https://paulba.no/ In terms of X, the orbits are indistinguishable. Which, as quite a few of us have tried to show you, renders X utterly meaningless, as it doesn't describe reality.  I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour 
#37




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
Den 14.01.2018 03.47, skrev Peter Riedt:
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 7:54:50 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 12.01.2018 23.48, skrev Peter Riedt: On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 08.01.2018 01.16, skrev Peter Riedt: X = .5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. A very strange idea. X = X(e) = âˆš(43â‹…(1âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²/(1+âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²)/2 e = 0.00 X = 1.0000000000 e = 0.04 X = 0.9999999399 e = 0.08 X = 0.9999990338 e = 0.12 X = 0.9999950691 e = 0.16 X = 0.9999842377 e = 0.20 X = 0.9999609449 e = 0.24 X = 0.9999175202 e = 0.28 X = 0.9998438029 e = 0.32 X = 0.9997265649 e = 0.36 X = 0.9995487110 e = 0.40 X = 0.9992881691 e = 0.44 X = 0.9989163362 e = 0.48 X = 0.9983958716 e = 0.52 X = 0.9976775062 e = 0.56 X = 0.9966953251 e = 0.60 X = 0.9953596037 e = 0.64 X = 0.9935455742 e = 0.68 X = 0.9910751195 e = 0.72 X = 0.9876855065 e = 0.76 X = 0.9829727662 e = 0.80 X = 0.9762812095 e = 0.84 X = 0.9664653233 e = 0.88 X = 0.9512997861 e = 0.92 X = 0.9256679486 e = 0.96 X = 0.8733242883 e = 1.00 X = 0.5000000000 So you have made a function which evaluates to something very close to 1 for most eccentricities. What's the point with that? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? What does X tell us about the planetary orbits? Mercury e = 0.2056 X = 0.9999562811 Venus e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Earth e = 0.0167 X = 0.9999999982 Mars e = 0.0934 X = 0.9999982007 Jupiter e = 0.0484 X = 0.9999998711 Saturn e = 0.0541 X = 0.9999997986 Uranus e = 0.0472 X = 0.9999998834 Neptun e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Pluto e = 0.2488 X = 0.9999043107 You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X?  Paul https://paulba.no/ A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant. Come again? The eccentricities of the orbits a Mercury e = 0.2056 Venus e = 0.0086 Earth e = 0.0167 Mars e = 0.0934 Jupiter e = 0.0484 Saturn e = 0.0541 Uranus e = 0.0472 Neptun e = 0.0086 Pluto e = 0.2488 They are very different, and not "close to the same constant". The values for your X, with same precision as above, a Mercury X = 1.0000 Venus X = 1.0000 Earth X = 1.0000 Mars X = 1.0000 Jupiter X = 1.0000 Saturn X = 1.0000 Uranus X = 1.0000 Neptun X = 1.0000 Pluto X = 0.9999 So despite the fact that the eccentricities of the planets varies a lot, your X is close to 1 for all of them. So I repeat the questions: What can the X tell you about the orbits? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful?  Paul https://paulba.no/ In terms of X, the orbits are indistinguishable. So the answers to my questions a Q: What can the X tell you about the orbits? A: Nothing. Q: Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? A: Yes.  Paul https://paulba.no/ 
#38




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 6:03:55 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.01.2018 03.47, skrev Peter Riedt: On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 7:54:50 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 12.01.2018 23.48, skrev Peter Riedt: On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:52:32 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 08.01.2018 01.16, skrev Peter Riedt: X = .5*sqrt(43(ab)^2/(a+b)^2) X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits. A very strange idea. X = X(e) = âˆš(43â‹…(1âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²/(1+âˆš(1eÂ²))Â²)/2 e = 0.00 X = 1.0000000000 e = 0.04 X = 0.9999999399 e = 0.08 X = 0.9999990338 e = 0.12 X = 0.9999950691 e = 0.16 X = 0.9999842377 e = 0.20 X = 0.9999609449 e = 0.24 X = 0.9999175202 e = 0.28 X = 0.9998438029 e = 0.32 X = 0.9997265649 e = 0.36 X = 0.9995487110 e = 0.40 X = 0.9992881691 e = 0.44 X = 0.9989163362 e = 0.48 X = 0.9983958716 e = 0.52 X = 0.9976775062 e = 0.56 X = 0.9966953251 e = 0.60 X = 0.9953596037 e = 0.64 X = 0.9935455742 e = 0.68 X = 0.9910751195 e = 0.72 X = 0.9876855065 e = 0.76 X = 0.9829727662 e = 0.80 X = 0.9762812095 e = 0.84 X = 0.9664653233 e = 0.88 X = 0.9512997861 e = 0.92 X = 0.9256679486 e = 0.96 X = 0.8733242883 e = 1.00 X = 0.5000000000 So you have made a function which evaluates to something very close to 1 for most eccentricities. What's the point with that? Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? What does X tell us about the planetary orbits? Mercury e = 0.2056 X = 0.9999562811 Venus e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Earth e = 0.0167 X = 0.9999999982 Mars e = 0.0934 X = 0.9999982007 Jupiter e = 0.0484 X = 0.9999998711 Saturn e = 0.0541 X = 0.9999997986 Uranus e = 0.0472 X = 0.9999998834 Neptun e = 0.0086 X = 0.9999999999 Pluto e = 0.2488 X = 0.9999043107 You said: "X is more useful than SR and GR which cannot calculate any real elements of solar orbits." Can you please explain what elements of solar orbits you can calculate using X?  Paul https://paulba.no/ A very good analysis by you. X may not be used to calculate solar orbits but it shows the various eccentricities of orbits are close to a constant. 
#39




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
Dne 14/01/2018 v 23:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 6:03:55 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: So the answers to my questions a Q: What can the X tell you about the orbits? A: Nothing. Q: Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? A: Yes. Q: What can the X tell you about the orbits? A: In terms of X, planetary orbits are the same as agreed by you. What makes the parameter X useless. It is useless even as a constant, because it is not a constant.  Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject. 
#40




The eccentricity constant of solar objects
On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 2:08:42 PM UTC+8, Libor 'Poutnik' StÅ™Ã*Å¾ wrote:
Dne 14/01/2018 v 23:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a): On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 6:03:55 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: So the answers to my questions a Q: What can the X tell you about the orbits? A: Nothing. Q: Wouldn't the function X = 1.0 be equal useful? A: Yes. Q: What can the X tell you about the orbits? A: In terms of X, planetary orbits are the same as agreed by you. What makes the parameter X useless. It is useless even as a constant, because it is not a constant.  Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject. X is a constant of 4 decimals for 8 out of 9 planets. It is a lot for such a diverse group of entities. It joins them together in a common bond of extraordinary magnitude. 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Hubble Harvests Distant Solar System Objects  HVAC[_2_]  Misc  9  September 28th 10 09:11 PM 
What Are the Solar System Objects in this Image?  Davoud[_1_]  Amateur Astronomy  1  May 25th 07 07:22 PM 
The oldest objects in the Solar system have Dried up(comets)  G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]  Misc  7  April 27th 07 02:03 PM 
Solar system objects graphic  Florian[_3_]  Amateur Astronomy  1  March 31st 07 03:02 AM 
Sunspot cycle and solar constant  TMATriMethylAluminum  Amateur Astronomy  14  March 9th 07 09:39 PM 