Pluto’s orbital Period

Pluto’s orbital Period

Using the formula P=sqrt((4pi2r3)/(G(msun+mplanet)) which was derived
from Kepler’s planetary laws, and using a value of 0.000000000066662
for the gravitational constant G we get the following differences (in
days) between the observed (in the case of Pluto predicted) and
calculated orbital periods:

MERCURY -0.0059718
VENUS -0.0106276
EARTH 0.0176480
MARS 0.1362043
JUPITER -1.6316242
SATURN 0.4371626
URANUS 1.3049705
NEPTUNE 1.8850109
PLUTO -285.4581278

The value of G used produces a difference of between -2 and +2 days
for the first 8 planets, sufficient to prove Kepler and Cavendish
correct. In the case of Pluto the difference of -285 days suggests
that one or more of the predicted orbital period (247.7years) or mass
or mean distance from the sun are wrong.

Peter Riedt

On Mar 13, 8:38*pm, Peter Riedt wrote:
Pluto’s orbital Period

The value of G used produces a difference of between -2 and +2 days
for the first 8 planets, sufficient to prove Kepler and Cavendish
correct. In the case of Pluto the difference of -285 days suggests
that one or more of the predicted orbital period (247.7years) or mass
or mean distance from the sun are wrong.

*Brevity snip*
You know, this analysis may provide some useful criteria toward
defining what is a planet and what isn't.

On Mar 15, 12:58*am, Ben wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:38*pm, Peter Riedt wrote:

Pluto’s orbital Period

The value of G used produces a difference of between -2 and +2 days
for the first 8 planets, sufficient to prove Kepler and Cavendish
correct. In the case of Pluto the difference of -285 days suggests
that one or more of the predicted orbital period (247.7years) or mass
or mean distance from the sun are wrong.

*Brevity snip*
You know, this analysis may provide some useful criteria toward
defining what is a planet and what isn't.

Ben, the universal constant G should be working the same for all
free fall bodies in the solar system regardless of classification.

Peter Riedt

On Mar 14, 7:45*pm, Peter Riedt wrote:
On Mar 15, 12:58*am, Ben wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:38*pm, Peter Riedt wrote:

Pluto’s orbital Period


Ben, the universal constant G should be working the same for all
free fall bodies in the solar system regardless of classification.

Peter Riedt


I'm completely confident that G is in fact constant and that no body
is exempt from it. Its just that Pluto's orbit is more eccentric than
that of the planet's and is subject to greater perturbation from the
gas planets. Consequently there is more variance between its
predicted and observed position. It's this extreme discrepancy that
makes it stand outside what one may define as "the solar system".

But that's not quite right either because the asteroids are part of
"the solar system". One could define the "planetary array" as those
bodies having less than +,- 2 days discrepancy between their observed
and predicted positions.

On Mar 15, 12:23*pm, Ben wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:45*pm, Peter Riedt wrote:

On Mar 15, 12:58*am, Ben wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:38*pm, Peter Riedt wrote:

Pluto’s orbital Period

Ben, the universal constant G should be working the same for all
free fall bodies in the solar system regardless of classification.

Peter Riedt

I'm completely confident that G is in fact constant and that no body
is exempt from it. *Its just that Pluto's orbit is more eccentric than
that of the planet's and is subject to greater perturbation from the
gas planets. *Consequently there is more variance between its
predicted and observed position. *It's this extreme discrepancy that
makes it stand outside what one may define as "the solar system".

Ben, I agree, Pluto is different from the eight 'normal' planets. More
work is
required into what goes on past the orbit of Neptune.

Peter Riedt

On 2011-03-14, Peter Riedt wrote:

Using the formula P=sqrt((4pi2r3)/(G(msun+mplanet)) which was derived
from Kepler?s planetary laws, and using a value of 0.000000000066662
for the gravitational constant G we get the following differences (in
days) between the observed (in the case of Pluto predicted) and
calculated orbital periods:

You do realize that the published values for the masses of the Sun and
planets in kilograms are derived in part from the laboratory value for G.

Bud

On Mar 15, 8:56*pm, William Hamblen
wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Peter Riedt wrote:

Using the formula P=sqrt((4pi2r3)/(G(msun+mplanet)) which was derived
from Kepler?s planetary laws, and using a value of 0.000000000066662
for the gravitational constant G we get the following differences (in
days) between the observed (in the case of Pluto predicted) and
calculated orbital periods:

You do realize that the published values for the masses of the Sun and
planets in kilograms are derived in part from the laboratory value for G.

Bud

Bud, however they are established, the masses, mean distances and
orbital
periods work well with the Psquare formula and a value of 6.6662E-11
for G.
The results are within a difference of +-0.4days for the selected
planets
and moons except for Jupiter and Pluto. It may be difficult to obtain
a
better value for G than 6.6662E-11.

Peter Riedt