Krupin

Quote from the topic: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=30966&start=0 : At first glance it seems that all this is true. But consider the system Gliese 581. We write the order of the values of orbital radii: 0.030, 0.041, 0.073, 0.146, 0.220, 0.758. Multiply this numbers by 23.65. Obtain a series of numbers: 0,71, 0,97; 1.73, 3.45, 5.20, 17.9. What is it? Comparable to the orbital radius of planets in the solar system: 0.71 ; 0.97 ; 1.73 ; 3.45 ; 5.20 ; --- ; 17.9 0.72 ; 1.00 ; 1.52 ; ---- ; 5.20 ; 9.54 ; 19.1 As you can see, there is an obvious similarity, which confirms that planetary systems are created for one scenario. Although over five hundred planets discovered so far, but there are the only 7 systems are multyplanetary enough (more 3 planet) for reliable analysis. There are : Gliese 581, Gliese 876, 55Cancri, Upsilon Andromedae A system, My Arae, HD10180, Kepler-11. And all of them have made in accordance with an universal principle (but not Bode-Titius's "Law"). More over, systems of moons of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus have made in this way. Note the following important fact. When comparing the solar system with a system Gliese 581 major satelites of the systems have coincided to each other. This is our general principle. Let's draw up a comparative table of the six systems (left to right): Gliese 581, Solar, Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, Gliese 876. Orbital radius of the largest satelites take equal to 1. This celestial bodies are: Gliese 581 d, Jupiter, Titan, Titania, Ganymede, Gliese 876 e. Consider the part of systems lying below the orbits of primary satelite. Obtain the table:

System Kepler-11 has an interesting pattern. Let's say, between the outermost planet and one of the internal appeals asteroid. Then the asteroid and the outermost planet are in orbital resonance. These resonances 2 : 3 ; 3 : 5 ; 4 : 9 ; 1 : 2 . The first three resonances are such that the denominator is odd, and the numerator = (denominator + 1) / 2. There is a missing 4: 7. There it may exist another planet.

Phobos, the Martian moon, quickly approaches to the surface of the planet due to tidal effect (because Phobos's orbital period is shorter than a Martian day). Only a few hundred million years ago Phobos had to housed almost in a stationary orbit. The probability of formation of Phobos in accuracy in a stationary orbit is negligible. Therefore we must explain how Phobos could be in this orbit. The author offers the following explanation. After its formation the system of Martian moons consisted of three bodies, like modern Plutonian system. In addition to the tiny moons Phobos and Deimos Mars had another large moon (moon X). Phobos was in orbital resonance with the moon X, and this resonant system was stable and self correcting. Phobos was, as it is now, located below the stationary (areostationary) orbit. The moon X was located above it and tidal influence of Mars pushed the moon X away from the Martian surface. In an effort to keep the orbital resonance, resonant influence of the moon X pulled Phobos up too, in spite of the tidal effect of Mars. When Phobos had reached stationary orbit, new factor had appeared. This factor was an asymmetry of the Martian surface. Because Phobos's orbital period became equal to Martian day, Phobos located stationary above the surface on Mars, herewith some mountain area was behind him. The force of gravity of huge stone rocks permanently pulling Phobos ago, preventing resonance effect of the moon X. As a result, the moon X continued to rise, and Phobos had stopped at a stationary orbit. Orbital resonance was be broken. From this point Phobos was lowered under the influence of tidal friction of Mars. The moon X escaped from Mars because of tidal effect. Or it was broken accidentally flown asteroid. Perhaps some meteorites are fragments of the moon X.

There is unresolved the important question. Asteroids flying between the orbits of the planets divide the celestial bodies throughout the inter-orbit space. Why does planets form precisely at perihelion and aphelion of asteroids’ orbits? The answer to this question: In circular orbits of aphelion and perihelion of the asteroid’s orbit asteroid holds much more time than in the any other intermediate orbit. Just a stone thrown up lives at the upper point longer than in the interim. So resonant asteroids have a greater activating effect to bodies, moving in circular orbits at the aphelion and perihelion.

But what is a role, which could play a "bridging" asteroids? They were not too many, then to form a planet. And the impact velocity of the asteroid, which has an elongated orbit to the celestial body with a circular orbit is too high. The asteroid likely would split the growing planet, than join to it. On this question there is a paradoxical response. High impacts of those asteroids were useful for the formation of planets just because crushing them, preventing premature to shrink into a single monolithic body. With a relatively small asteroid hit the planet falling apart gravitationally bound in a swarm of small bodies. As the swarm has held many times more, it absorbs the dust and gas much faster than the monolithic planet.

I shall continue the exposition of my theory Theoretically my orbital resonances (I shell call they the orbital resonance 2-nd type) could appear when the Solar system was born or in time the following evolution. But the second variant is clear doubtful. We assume that the resonances - a consequence of the formation of the solar system. Only in times when the planets have not yet been, asteroids could fly between Jupiter and the orbit is not born of Venus, in some odd way contributing to its formation. I shall illustrate the idea on a following example. Behind a planet the Neptune is a belt of asteroids (Kuiper Belt) in which there is family Plutino which cycle time makes 3/2 periods of the Neptune. The greatest member of this family is Pluto, which is recently degraded of planet to an dwarf planet. Pluto (and many other members of its family) moves so, that in the perihelion it concern orbit of the Neptune. If in the aphelion of Pluto’s orbit there was another planet, the situation described by my formula would just be realized. No, I do not trust in existence of planet X. I assume, that to its creation have prevented any circumstances. Possibly it is the limited sizes protoplanetary disk (shortage of a building material behind an orbit of the Neptune) and shortage of time (to the beginning of construction of planet X the газо-dust disk has dissipated).

Sorry. Perhaps, I incorrectly translated the Russian word «адвокат». In Russia this word has a value of counsel and defender (in court). I want to say that I’ll defend the Jupiter. I want to remove from Jupiter the stigma of a destroyer of planets (for instance Phaeton) and prove that it, by contrast, is the chief architect of our solar system. It pointed out (by means of its gravitational effects) where other planets would be located. It has contributed to their formation. I think almost all readers understand what I mean. But in any case give the first available link. http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/mars/was-there-a-planet-between-mars-and-jupiter/

This story is very simple, but becomes an insurmountable contradiction with the prevailing today model of planet formation (model of planetesimals). According to this standard model each planet should be formed in quiet areas of the protoplanetary disk, where pebbles and dust particles are moving along a perfect concentric circles. Then, according to planetary science, the particles stick to each other and the planets are formed such as a snowman. In this concept the Jupiter exerted on the formation of planets negative impact. In particular, it has prevented the formation of Phaeton between Mars and Jupiter. According to these ideas planets in binary (two-stars) systems can not be formed. However, the planets in the systems of two stars were found that significantly undermined the generally accepted theoretical position (and in general it has in decades, had accumulated a lot of other problems). I will counsel of the Jupiter and I will prove that our Solar System was formed because of it.

Note that all three distinct resonance (my type) : the Earth-Venus, Jupiter- Venus, Saturn- Neptune asteroids does not intersect the orbit of Jupiter. And in all these cases, the asteroids are in resonance with the planet, which is closer to Jupiter. As I found out (I think that correctly), it is no accident. Since the sequence of planet formation in protoplanetary disks in the following sequence: First the Jupiter have been formed. Under the influence of its gravity was formed Saturn, at a resonant orbit 5 / 2 (classical resonance) with Jupiter. Below Jupiter under the influence of its gravity was formed asteroid family of asteroids 3 / 7. However, this family was not united in the planet, but was passed on elongated orbits with the same period (retaining the resonance 3 / 7 on Jupiter). When aphelion asteroid orbits arranged in the orbit of Jupiter, the perihelion descended into the orbit of Venus. The Venus was formed due this. Following this process is the Kirkwood gap 3 / 7 (regard to Jupiter) in the asteroid belt. Above the orbit of Jupiter process occurred in a similar manner. The Saturn formed asteroid family of 3 / 1, which ensured the formation of Neptune at its aphelion. Then the Neptune formed asteroid family Plutino, located in the resonance 3 / 2 on Neptune. The process is stopped due to lack of building material and the new planet at aphelion family Plutino (and the chief representative of Pluto) was not born.

But it is time to go at last to an explanation of the reason of my orbital resonances. In passing I give also an explanation to "classical" orbital resonances. The reason both is the same. For a priming I shall repeat posts from the termination of the interrupted theme An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

In the theme Generalization for Krupin ATM - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum I said that I was terrorized by unreasonable demands of macaw (that he actually did). And what I demand compensation for moral damage from him. This post was removed by the moderator. Administration forum regarded my words as a threat of prosecution. I was banned “never”. Because of this, my topic was closed and it was written

The topic (my An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum) was closed not because of my refusal to defend his hypothesis. It was closed due to the fact that I am too much a joke in another topic Generalization for Krupin ATM - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum .

Excuse me please, because I can not answer now full. While I have some time constraints. I answer as best as I can, but briefly. I am «He» (but not “She”) - Krupin Sergey. I'm not going to seek a new planet X. I believe that in the solar system there are no undiscovered planets. My commensurabilities are not a numerology. Specific types of resonances (4 / 5, 3 / 7, 3 / 1) - they were an accident - a consequence of many factors. For example, it is difficult to answer the question why Pluto and Plutino are in resonance with Neptune is 3 / 2, and not some other resonance type. This is a consequence of many factors. My hypothesis is very simple and in theory can be understood by a schoolboy, who knows the laws of Kepler and Newton (well, a little more chemistry). However, it is long and does not fit in one post. I would consistently explain it step by step. Some basic ideas I have represented briefly at the end of the topic An amazing formula - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum , before it was closed.

I do not want to be praised. I look forward to a serious and reasoned debate.

What is the alternative theory in your opinion? This all new that else was not? Live you in days of Kopernik, would name its hypothesis the alternative theory. And Einstein should be carried to the same category - its sights contradicted all existed opinions. I do not contradict theories any firmly established and checked up in practice - I do not try to deny Einstein, Kepler or Newton. But the planetary science still is not present. Any of existing hypotheses does not apply yet for a role of the theory. And it is possible, any of them is not true. Therefore any new hypothesis if it is not notorious nonsense, should take, at least, into consideration. From written by me it is clear, that I am not a numerology. Why Bode "law" which obviously has no physical sense, is not considered obviously alternative. Why my resonances, which I find physical sense and which are much more exact, you initially declare as alternative?