Periodicity in the mass of planets?

  1. "Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

    Hello,

    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/article-1G1-92139647/new-light-redshift-periodicities.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Chronos

    Chronos 9,971
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: "Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

    Orbital peridodicity is not unreasonable. Redshift quantization is, however, ridiculous.
     
  4. Re: "Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

    The date on the article is very suggestive...
     
  5. Re: "Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

    Hello,

    I shouldn't have included the redshift quantization since I'm actually only concerned about the mass "quantization" of planets in the solar system.
     
  6. mfb

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: "Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

    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.
     
  7. Re: "Periodicity" in the mass of planets?

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?