"Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

by Morgaen
Tags: mass, periodicity, planets
Morgaen is offline
Oct23-12, 06:24 PM
P: 2

I've recently come across a very odd article (link at the end ot my post) in the internet, and I'd like to hear other opinions on this topic.

The article claims that the mass ratios of earth with any other planet in our solar system can be described by the formula 1.228^n, where n is always extremely close to an integer number.
It goes on with the moons in the solar system: The mass ratio of the planet with any of its moons can again be described by 1.228^n, where n is now always extremely close to an integer, or a "half-integer" (... -1.5, -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5 ...)
The article includes further mass ratios (e.g. ratio of the mass of earth and the mass of an electron, and even ratios of the distances of the planets to the sun) and the formula 1.228^n is - according to the article - always very precise.
(It is also pointed out, that there's some (alleged) redshift quantization of QSO with a periodicity of 1.23 EDIT: I'm actually only concerned about the mass "quantization" of planets in the solar system.)

So what should one think about all of this?

Link to the article: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/artic...odicities.html
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
Unique pair of supermassive black holes in an ordinary galaxy discovered
Red stars and big bulges: How black holes shape galaxies
Image: X-raying the cosmos
Chronos is offline
Oct24-12, 01:56 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,183
Orbital peridodicity is not unreasonable. Redshift quantization is, however, ridiculous.
Dickfore is offline
Oct24-12, 02:26 AM
P: 3,015
The date on the article is very suggestive...

Morgaen is offline
Oct24-12, 02:47 AM
P: 2

"Periodicity" in the mass of planets?


I shouldn't have included the redshift quantization since I'm actually only concerned about the mass "quantization" of planets in the solar system.
mfb is online now
Oct24-12, 07:38 AM
P: 10,846
By picking any number similar to 1.228, you already get (relative) errors below 10%, with an average of ~5%. Why? Because "10% less" and "10% more" have a difference of 1.1/0.9=1.222. The average error is below 5%, but:
You have the additional freedom to adjust that value to the mass ratios of the planets, so you expect that the average error is less than 10%. I don't see any mention of this in the article, which is a clear indication of bad science.
Oh, and the probability estimate there is... weird.
Dickfore is offline
Oct24-12, 08:45 AM
P: 3,015
Ah, so he essentially made a cascade of values similar to the one for Standard Resistor values. Making sure that each mass actually falls into a bin with no more than 10% error.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
In binary can we have a value with "deci" "centi" "mili" or more lower valued prefix? Computers 14
"Symphonies of Planets" - Underlying Data Astrophysics 0
""any mass accelarating @ 'c' is light "" Special & General Relativity 2
Call them DOLPHINS (not "dwarf planets") General Astronomy 3
Periodicity & Chemical Bonding "Homework Help" General Chem Chemistry 3