Divine math and planetary orbits

The divine formula (phi) is dupilctaed all around us in nature.

My question is, does the diameter of planetary orbits follow this
formula as well, and if so, has it been used to determine the orbital
diameter of a missing planet?

I would do it myself, but im having a hard time doing the math (im not
the greatest math guy), but anyone with the skills to run the numbers,
I would be interested in the results.

It has been claimed that the planets follow a phi ratio, but they do
not - it is easy to calculate these values and see that they don't.

There was a theory put forward that included a ratio of 1.723 rather
than phi (1.618) which fits the average ratio better. This theory also
has a sine wave departure from the expected values and was used
successfully to predict a number of extra satellites of Uranus and/or
Neptune before discovery.

However the inbner and outer planets actually are nearer to making two
arithmetic series than one geometric series.

Ray

"Rising-Star8471" wrote in
ups.com:

The divine formula (phi) is dupilctaed all around us in nature.

My question is, does the diameter of planetary orbits follow this
formula as well, and if so, has it been used to determine the orbital
diameter of a missing planet?

Planetary orbits are approximately elliptical with varying eccentricity. If
by diameter you are meaning the major axis of their orbits then no.
Neptune's position was computed by Adams and LeVerier based on
perturbations noticed in the orbit of Uranus. It turns out though, that
they were a bit lucky, as their calculations were not so good mainly due to
poor data. The new discoveries in the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt)
are found by automated comparator surveys using digital images of the same
area taken at different times.

Klazmon.


From what has been determined from extra solar system planets, there are
all sorts of configurations out there.




I would do it myself, but im having a hard time doing the math (im not
the greatest math guy), but anyone with the skills to run the numbers,
I would be interested in the results.

yes i agree as far as the discovery of Neptune........

And it has occured to me that the solar system is dynamic, not static
and has changed quite a bit since its conception. Jupiter and Saturns
orbits have been changed at least once since the birth of the solar
system

I tried doing the math, and the distance between orbits doesnt seem to
be in proportion with anything else.

And without visually seeing the early configuration of the solar
system, it would just be another guess based on myth.

Still, it was a nice thought.......and I believe that there is enough
material in the Kuiper Belt to explain the inconsistancies with Neptune
and Uranus orbit (and of course they are pulling on each other as well)

On a related note, Voyager 1 should almost be far enough away to snap a
picture of the solar system as it appears from outside the heliosheath.
Problem is, it takes forever to get a signal out there, Voyager 1 still
checks in, Voyager 2 has gottin all ****y and wont talk unless its
talked to (which means if you dont know which way to point the dish,
your screwed) Not to mention there power is almost exhausted, there may
not be enough juice left to snap a picture.

PLUS the two voyagers are currently the fastest moving space objects
created by humans. Hauling outta here at more than twice the speed
needed to escape earths gravity ( I beilive it was a gravity boost from
neptune that made this possible.)

yes i agree as far as the discovery of Neptune........

And it has occured to me that the solar system is dynamic, not static
and has changed quite a bit since its conception. Jupiter and Saturns
orbits have been changed at least once since the birth of the solar
system

I tried doing the math, and the distance between orbits doesnt seem to
be in proportion with anything else.

And without visually seeing the early configuration of the solar
system, it would just be another guess based on myth.

Still, it was a nice thought.......and I believe that there is enough
material in the Kuiper Belt to explain the inconsistancies with Neptune
and Uranus orbit (and of course they are pulling on each other as well)

On a related note, Voyager 1 should almost be far enough away to snap a
picture of the solar system as it appears from outside the heliosheath.
Problem is, it takes forever to get a signal out there, Voyager 1 still
checks in, Voyager 2 has gottin all ****y and wont talk unless its
talked to (which means if you dont know which way to point the dish,
your screwed) Not to mention there power is almost exhausted, there may
not be enough juice left to snap a picture.

PLUS the two voyagers are currently the fastest moving space objects
created by humans. Hauling outta here at more than twice the speed
needed to escape earths gravity ( I beilive it was a gravity boost from
neptune that made this possible.)

Phi, Pi, they are both estamates since they are repeating decimals. You
estamate of 1.723 could be closer than it appears.

In setting up the formula for the solar system we need to account for
the possibilty of an extra planet occupying the asteriod belt. And for
the mass and distance of the Kuiper belt.

I do find it facinating that the distance between Jupiter and Saturn is
almost the same as the distance between Jupiter and Earth. Its almost
as if Jupiter represnts the solar systems half-way point.

Still, I cant shake this feeling that we are not accounting for
something. I feel like we only have half the data, or perhaps the
missing thing is a mechanic of the solar system we havent fully
understood yet. I dont know. But I bet its something that has been
staring us in the face for millions of years and we just havent opened
our eyes to it yet. And I also bet it something so painstakingly
obvious that we will be kicking ourselves in the ass for centuries to
come.