Can you find an error in the theory?

[Fred Collins]

A new theory is put forward regarding the stability of the solar system. Can you find an error in the PI SERIES THEORY? The mathematics is at the high school level. The text and charts are at the non-commercial http://www.jjeewoodinmotion.com

[Demonperformer]

It is hardly a surprise that all the planets fit this, as the smallest factor he is using is pi/16, which works out at 0.236 of a year. 5% of this amount is 0.0118 of a year, which is about 4 days. By selecting the most appropriate factor of pi that best fits, it is hardly surprising that they are close. Strikes me rather like the person who found predictions of Princess Diana's death in the text of the whale novel that SGL won't let me name: (Moby [removed word]) by starting with the right letter and then counting off every 23rd letter (or whatever it was), ie a bit spurious!

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I think Demonperformer has found the flaw here, the author seems to be cherry picking his numbers to fit. incidentally, the solar system isn't completely stable. One super-computer simulation suggests there is about a 1% chance of Mercury being pushed into an unstable orbit within the next billion years. From there, it could be ejected from the solar system, crash into the Sun or have a close encounter with Venus or Earth, scrambling their orbits in the process.

[JamesF]

"Theory" is the wrong word here. "Hypothesis" is what it is. And I agree that Demonperformer has already picked out a significant flaw. He seems long on assumption and short on genuine demonstration that his ideas are valid to me.

James

[jakeybob]

"we are going to multiply Jupiter's orbital period in years by factors that contain Pi to determine if a consistent relationship between Jupiter's orbital period and the orbital periods of all of the planets as well as the large asteroid Vesta can be established"

This says it all really. Another way of saying it would be "I multiplied pi by random fractions until I got within a few percent of the accepted values, and because it has pi in it it looks significant."

At first I thought this would at least have some theory for where the factors come from - a numerical progression, a power series or whatever. But nope, as far as I can tell, it's just pick and choose. At least the Titius-Bode law has a way of generating the data (with a much better fit to reality, Neptune aside).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law

[J_M_Franklin]

My take on this "theory" (and I use that word very carefully and advisably) is Poppycock.

If such an idea had any basis, and this is true for the Titius-Bode method too, then the same equations would be consistent across all objects, from stars to planets to moons, and it simply fails to work when applied to planetary satellites and even the Dwarf planets in the outer solar system. Seems to me the chap should have spent more time chatting to members of the opposite sex that wasting his time on this pointless nonsense.

[J_M_Franklin]

For what it's worth I have just spent several hours doing calculations to find some form of relationship that allows for the calculation of a body in orbit about another using various parameters such as the Gravitational constant, mass, distance etc etc and no matter how i do the calculations NONE give any clue as to a relationship, although the periods of the planets do form a linear curve when graphed...that's not very helpful other than to imply there clearly is a relationship there..

[J_M_Franklin]

Interestingly, the plot of major objects in the solar system falls down in the outer solar system and that makes me wonder if there are simply undiscovered bodies out there between Pluto/Haumea/Makemake and Eris.

I also wonder, and do not have time for the maths, if the layout of the solar system is not related directly to the current planetary parameters, but rather gravitational influences that resulted in the creation of a logarithmic spiral that in turn caused temperature inversions and instabilities in the disc of material as it rotated about the proto-sun and these inversions/instabilities are where the proto-planets formed. Only after these objects formed did other parameters come into play that resulted in the creation of major planets and the ejection of many objects from the solar system.

In reality it's more complicated than that makes it sound though.

[Fred Collins]

It is hardly a surprise that all the planets fit this, as the smallest factor he is using is pi/16, which works out at 0.236 of a year. 5% of this amount is 0.0118 of a year, which is about 4 days. By selecting the most appropriate factor of pi that best fits, it is hardly surprising that they are close. Strikes me rather like the person who found predictions of Princess Diana's death in the text of the whale novel that SGL won't let me name: (Moby [removed word]) by starting with the right letter and then counting off every 23rd letter (or whatever it was), ie a bit spurious!

It reminds me of the man that declared that the statue of the Venus de Milo should be thrown into the trashcan because it had no arms. A deep analysis of the admittedly thinnest part of the presentation should not necessarily lead to a discard of the whole.