posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 01:28 AM
I was recently reading my favorite portion of "Astronomy" magazine when I was introduced to Bode's Law by the author of the piece, Bob Berman.
He writes a piece in the magazine every month called "Strange Universe". This particular article was entitled "Odd patterns, dead oxen" In which
he addresses the question "Are all the planets numerically linked to earth?".
The part of the article about Bode's Law has really stuck with me just because you would think such a coincidence would be so ridiculously unlikely
that it could never happen.
But it does!
First, a rundown of what we're dealing with:
The pattern was first mentioned by David Gregory in 1702 and later it was published by Johann Titus, then Johann Bode.
1)Take the pattern 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192 (which continues to double)
2) Add 4 to each.
3) Insert a decimal point.
What you end up with is this..
0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.6, 2.8, 5.2, 10.0 and 19.6.
In the article I read, Bob Berman states: "Weirdly enough, this accurately expresses each planet's distance from the Sun." And it is absolutely
bizarre to contemplate. I've noticed it is also something fun to share with friends and loved ones because you would think such a thing so highly
unlikely could never be true.
What is interesting about this pattern is that it was "discovered" before we even knew about Uranus (10.0) or Ceres (2.8). But once Uranus was
discovered by William Herschel, whammo! Then, when Ceres was discovered, it also fit accurately and precisely with the sequence.
Then Neptune was discovered in 1846 but it didn't fit the sequence. Thus, the entire concept was tossed out as being a simple coincidence. But is
Perhaps the entire reason it is missing from the sequence is because it was missing from the original formation of the Solar System and was later
"captured" by the gravity of the other gas giants. Why would I say this? A couple of reasons. Primarily, Neptune's composition. It is mostly
hydrogen and helium with some other elements thrown in. One could almost sermise that Neptune was born as a dwarf star but was never able to form
large and massive enough to turn into an actual "star". This composition is vastly different than that of Saturn or Jupiter.
It would definately explain why scientists have never been able to accurately model the formation of the outer solar system. The idea that the outer
planets were formed by gravitational accretion alone has been tossed out because it doesn't explain the size, mass, and composition of the outer
planets based on what we know about how accretion really works. It is still completely unknown.
What is everyone's thoughts on this? It has really been bugging me!
Something else strange..
The rotation of all the planets seem somehow linked As Bob Berman states.. This one was discovered by a British reader named Roger Elliot who,
according to the aforementioned article, sent him this observation that all planets have a bizarre numerical connection with Earth.
During 1 "Earth" year, each planet spins a certain number of times (full spins) on its axis, then it rotates a further, additional, angle that is
always a multiple of 45 degrees. It isn't always exactly 45* but it always ends up being extremely close, nonetheless.
An example: In 1 "Earth" year Venus spins 883 times on its axis plus an additional 88.8 degrees. This ends up being just 1.2 degrees short of
being a multiple of 45 degrees.
And this same concept applies to all the other planets in the solar system, it applies to Pluto and it applies to the three largest Asteroids.