The key signatures in the music of the spheres

Posted: March 25, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in Astrophysics, Electro-magnetism, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides

Trying to find the key configurations and cycles which have the strong effects is a bit like doing a cryptic crossword. The clues don’t at first seem to help obtain the answers. They help confirm you got the answer right once you’ve got it. Analogies can be pushed too far, and there is of course no ultimate certainty. Nature doesn’t print the solution to the crossword in the heavens the following Saturday morning.

However, those of us who have been getting on with the job instead of throwing up our hands in despair at the myriad numbers of cycles or loudly proclaiming the impossibility of the planetary effect on the strength of spuriously extrapolated ‘first principles’ have been making some good progress. This article looks at some of the principle harmonics in the solar system. The Jupiter-Saturn-Earth direct relationship to the Solar cycle of around 11 years and solar rotation has been recently dealt with so is left out of this discussion.

As well as the much argued about 60 year cycle there is a 45 year cycle plus longer harmonic frequencies which is strongly represented in direct evidence here on Earth by the beach ridges on quiet high latitude northern shores in Siberia and Canada which have been rising eustatically at a steady rate since the end of the last ice age.

Leif commented earlier in the WUWT thread that the fibonacci series progression I described for the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter “breaks down further out”, and I responded that there are other patterns which encompass the outer planets. What I didn’t mention is that these patterns link back to the inner planets too. Indeed the combination of solar influence via its mass and activity level and that of the outer planets via their angular momentum and the effect of their gravitational perturbation of the smaller planets seems to be what has organised the system.

I summarised the orderly nature of the inner solar system including Jupiter with the following observation:

During the time it takes for Jupiter to complete 2/3 of an orbit, Venus will go past Earth five times, as Earth makes eight orbits, while Venus makes thirteen, and Mercury will pass Venus twenty one times, as it completes thirty four orbits of the Sun.

2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.

2+3=5
3+5=8
5+8=13
8+13=21
13+21=34

This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance.

Now consider the following, for which we owe thanks particularly to Ian Wilson (Ninderthana), and  Ulric Lyons, who has also found planetary periods related to the ~45 year cycle.

This from Ian’s site, freshly pressed today:

The Jovian planets act like a large washing
machine, stirring the inner terrestrial planets with a
gravitational force that varies with a frequency that is
determined by the beat period between two main competing
Jovian planetary alignments.

The first is that produced by the the retrograde tri-synodic
period of Jupiter/Saturn ( = 59.577 yrs) and the second is
the pro-grade synodic period of Uranus/Neptune (171.41 yrs):

(59.577 x 171.41) / (171.41 + 59.577) = 44.21 yrs
[Note that this figure is close to two Hale Cycles and will vary a little due to angular momentum exchange between the  Jovian planets over various timescales. To be investigated - TB]

This driving period of the Jovian planets closely matches
the synodic periods of the three largest Terrestrial planets
with Jupiter:

69 × SVJ = 44.770 yrs    SVJ = synodic period Venus/Jupiter
41 × SEJ = 44.774 yrs    SEJ = synodic period Earth/Jupiter
20 × SMJ = 44.704 yrs    SMJ = synodic period Mars/Jupiter

The 44. 7 year period for the three largest Terrestrial planets
to realign with Jupiter appears to link Jupiter’s orbital period
directly into the time it takes for the three largest terrestrial
planets to return to their same (relative) orbital configuration,
which just happens to be 6.40 years:

4 x SVE = 6.3946 yrs  SVE = synodic period Venus/Earth
3 x SEM = 6.4059 yrs SEM = synodic period Earth/Mars
7 x SVM = 6.3995 yrs SVM = synodic period Venus/Mars
28 × SVE = 7 x (6.3946 yrs) = 44.763 yrs

================================

But there is much more to this than pebbles on beaches, as you will discover if you visit Ian’s site and read the rest of his article. It relates to the ~1.3 year periodicity in the tidal acceleration and retardation of the layers in the Sun near the tachocline discovered by the SOHO team and analysed by the GONG group.

GONG is a good acronym. If only the team realised the resonance it implies extends to the entire solar system.

Comments
  1. Keith Battye says:

    Fascinating Roger, thanks.

    Any ideas as to why, other than coincidence, the Sun and the Moon subtend the same arc when viewed from Earth?

  2. tallbloke says:

    Hi Keith, I touched on it in this thread:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/feedback-loops-in-the-solar-system/

    But for the full nine yards you should read Miles’ article linked there.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Planetary distance against orbital period

  4. Ninderthana says:

    Tallbloke,

    The ~ 44.7 year figure is exactly1/4 of the ~ 178.8 year classic Jose cycle

    The classic Jose cycle is supposed to be 178.8 years according to Paul Jose, however,
    there is some dispute as to the “true” length of this cycle. Geoff Sharp believes that the
    true length is ~ 171.4 years – (see http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/226). However,
    I do not believe that Jose meant that the period was exactly 178.8 years, since the time
    period of his study was so short. I believe he would have been happy with a Jose
    cycle length ~ 178 – 179 years.

    If you look at the angular momentum of the motion of the Sun about the centre of the Solar System, you get a long-term repetition period of ~ 171.4 years which is very close to the 171.38 year synodic period of Uranus and Neptune (N.B. assumes T(Uranus) = 84.01 yrs, and T(Neptune) = 164.79 years).

    However, the 171.4 year period could also be the average of a Jose cycle with a length of 178.0 years and the orbital period of Neptune = 164.79 years.

    (164.79 + 178.0) / 2 = 171.40 years

    This would mean that maximum (or minimum) values in the irregular variations in the Barycentric motion (primarily) cause by Neptune (and to a lesser extent Uranus), would oscillate between a Barycentric motion that is dominated by Neptune (164.79 years) and one that is dominated by the realignment time for the four Jovian planets (~178.0 years).

    As noted by Geoff Sharp, the real long term realignment period for the Jovian planets is 4628 years. (It is really 4 x 4628 years ~ 18512 years since it takes four grand alignments of the four Jovian planets to return to the roughly the same postion with respect to the stars). And:

    27 x 171.41 = 4628.07 years
    26 x 178.00 = 4628.00 years

    However, Geoff may be right since,

    26 x 178.8 = 4648.8 years
    178.0/4 = 44.5 years.

    Go figure…

  5. David Springer says:

    Keith Battye says:
    March 25, 2012 at 10:48 am

    “Any ideas as to why, other than coincidence, the Sun and the Moon subtend the same arc when viewed from Earth?”

    The only alternatives to chance are law or design. There is no law I know of that demands the moon’s apparent diameter matches that of the sun when viewed from the earth. So that pretty much leaves design as the only alternative. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, famous for his pioneering work in discovery of extra-solar planets and coining of the phrase “Galactic Habitable Zone” has a book (and a movie by the same name) titled “The Priveleged Planet”. In the book he enumerates an extraordinary list of convenient things about the earth which makes it an ideal platform for observing the rest of the universe. The moon perfectly covering the sun (at least in this epoch) enabling us to see the corona with the unaided eye, is but one fortuitous coincidence.

    Guillermo was denied tenure at Colorado State because of that book, by the way. Before he published it he was the golden child at NASA doing extraorinary work in extra-solar planet discovery. He co-authored an astronomy textbook used by a great many prestigious universities, he had the cover of Scientific American in 2001 “Galactic Habitable Zone”, and had more peer-reviewed publications than the head of the astronomy department at CSU. The stink of him being denied tenure is nauseating. This is how it works in academia today – you either make your obesiences to the two great scientific hoaxes of our day (evolution by chance & necessity and anthropogenic climate change) or you get black-balled if you question it.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Dave, you need to add the big bang to that list of no-go areas to challenge.

    Halton Arp was denied further telescope time after publishing his anomalous red shift data.

    At least they didn’t put him under house arrest to make sure he couldn’t spread his heresy like the Catholic Cardinals did with Galileo.

    That’s progress for ya. :)

  7. Keith Battye says:

    Thanks Roger . . double fascinating. Now I am reading his book on relativity.

    I don’t even know what I don’t know.

    [Reply] Careful Keith, best regard Miles as entertainment first, and science after you verified it. He does make you think though, which is good. :)

  8. Keith Battye says:

    Thanks David, now I have a whole bunch of reading up to do . . makes my day.

    Pangea anyone?

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    If the spheres, it was thought, were to be harmonic, planets had to follow perfect circular orbits, however their no so circular orbits, but instead elliptic, precisely denotes its vibrational quality, the more elliptical the more vibratory, that is why, Mercury, Hermes Cosmocrator:
    Ηερμε χοσμοχρατορ, ενχαρδιε, χιχλε σελενεσ, στρογγυλε χαι τετραγονε, λογον αρχεγετα
    γλοσσεσ, πειτοδιχαιοσινε, χλαμιδεφορε, πτενοπεδιλε, παμφονου γλοσσεσ μεδεον, τνετοισι προφετα. *
    Hermes, Lord of the World, who lives in our hearts , orbit of the moon, round and square , the inventor of words, language, he who obeys justice, wearing the chlamidę , winged feet, lord of issuing all the sounds of language , prophet of mortals …

    (* Greek text without accents)

  10. adolfogiurfa says:

    If , as David says: The only alternatives to chance are law or design., there is a Law behind, and there is no other law in the known universe as the Law of the Octave, the law of Music, as presented by Pythagoras. According to this law we should find the higher pitch of the solar sphere in the Sun, which is obvious…
    Sometimes if something does not happen as stated by the law, that something shows we are watching an irregularity which, again, by law, will be corrected, sooner or later, by nature, it does not matter if for us would be catastrophically.

  11. Richard111 says:

    Fibonacci series. Gosh! That takes me back over fifty years when I was a Queenie in the Signals. That series was very much a part of one of the machines behind the green door. I have never thought of it since, and now, Wow! Thanks for the memories.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Richard 111: There are many fascinating things concerning the Fibonacci series, the primary one being that it is intimately related to the golden section, Phi. This ratio 1.618:1 of which the inverse ratio is 0.618:1 crops up in all sorts of natural phenomena, from the growth of shells and plants to human biology to the configuration of the solar system and electro-magnetic intractions, to the ratio between the ascending and descending sides of the ‘average’ solar cycle, to the subatomic physics of particle energies, and radio wave energies.

    It is a truly universal constant.

    Landscheidt wrote a nice piece about the golden section:

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/consider.htm

  13. Sparks says:

    I believe it to be a no-go area NOT to challenge science and our understanding of the universe, after all we are only at the beginning of human discovery, I also don’t like how some (not all) scientific establishments aggressively defend their theories to a point where it almost becomes like a religious crusade to them.

    Roger, Halton C. Arp has articles on his official site in digest form here: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

    Very interesting, I have to say that I have not thought about the Big Bang theory being so contentious, there appears to be an awful lot of unexplained and an almost equal amount of assumptions and contradictory evidence, for the theory not to be investigated further, it’s like scientists have no balls these days and are just well funded lackeys, advisers, fund raisers and media agents for their all knowing holier than thou institutions.

    If minds have already been made up at the top and all we have is formal scientific consensus from influential institutions then this is not science, but a scientific dictatorship promoting Ideologies and agendas for the political persuasion of the public.

    In astronomy, I like how Sir. Patrick Moore insists that amateur astronomers have an important role in contributing to astronomy, and he encourages them at every turn, compare this to other sciences particularly issues around climate or the Earth sciences where amateurs are aggressively attacked, ridiculed, unfairly labeled and subject to harassment from environmental groups or political activists on their latest witch-hunts. Amateurs, enthusiasts and professionals alike really need a thick skin when studying these areas of science.

    Science needs to be opened up, the know it all good for nothing so-called ‘scientific elitists’ need to be brought back to earth, pushed of their high perch and made to have a good look at the sorry state and new lows their profession has been dragged to.

    Just a thought!! though it’s not all bad. ;)

  14. gallopingcamel says:

    Sparks,
    Here is Patrick showing off his telescopes in 1969.

    A few years later my mother lived in Emsworth and persuaded Patrick to show me what the moon looked like in a 15″ plus reflector telescope. Turned out that he was crazy about cricket too!

  15. Roger Andrews says:

    The notation in the musical scores is interesting. Back in Medieval times two basic tempos were recognized – three beats to the bar, which was regarded as “perfect” time because of its analogy to the Trinity, and four (or more) beats to the bar, which was regarded as “imperfect” time. Perfect time was depicted, supposedly, by a perfect circle, which here comes out as a bloated “G”, and imperfect time as half of a perfect circle, which here comes out as a backwards “C”, or as a trellis-like symbol.

    What does this tell us about planetary harmonics? That the Earth, Venus and “Hic locum habetetiam”, wherever that might be, have perfect harmonic cycles but that the other planets have imperfect harmonic cycles. Theologically-minded solar scientists should perhaps bear this in mind in their continuing investigations.

  16. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Sparks: Politics has also influenced and made science spin even against natural laws; it has happened in every epoch. In special during wars. Could you imagine somebody giving some credit to Max Planck during WWII?

  17. adolfogiurfa says:

    An interdisciplinary study is needed with urgency. That would be facilitated if kids were taught the fundamentals of music, geometry, and electricity. The Holoscience group is making a great effort. http://www.holoscience.com/
    There is a living tradition too and those commonly ignored “symbols” of the “perennial philosophy” waiting to be read by open minds.
    Alchemists used to say that we should read the “mutus liber” (the silent book) more often…

  18. archonix says:

    The wife says it means “he has the place here” or “this has the place”. I’d suggest it’s a prediction for the position or appearance of a “harmonic” that hadn’t been observed.

  19. archonix says:

    That was@roger. WordPress choked when I was posting and I had to wait a while before it would go through.

  20. Roger Andrews says:

    archonix:

    It’s the moon, and Kepler.

    “In 1619, Kepler published what he described as his major achievement, not a book on mathematics of astronomy but on the music of the heavens: Harmonice Mundi (Harmony of the Worlds). The divine law he had been seeking was uncovered at last: the velocities of the planets and their orbits are related to specific musical scales! Earlier astrologer-astronomers had assigned single musical notes to individual planets; but Kepler claimed to have realized a specific series of tones for each planet: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury–as well as the Moon, “hic locum habet etiam” (“The Moon always occupies this position”).”

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/6.Revolution.html

  21. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Excellent spot. Kepler is one of my favourite scientists from when I studied the history of astronomy. A man of art as well as scientific acumen it seems.

  22. Roger Andrews says:

    TB: Yes, a gentleman and a scholar. There aren’t many of us left.

    But the question of how Kepler came up with his musical analogies is intriguing. If we use the notes as proxies for the cyclic behavior of the planets we get:

    Earth: period 3 notes, sinusoidal
    Saturn and Jupiter: period 5 notes, sinusoidal
    Moon: period 7 notes, sinusoidal
    Mars: period 9 notes, sinusoidal
    Mercury: period 14 notes, skewed
    Venus: period 3 notes, but zero amplitude

    Do these results match what we know about planetary cycles? Be interesting if they did.

    Incidentally, I tried playing Kepler’s music but didn’t learn much. One problem is that the music for Mars and the Earth is written in a key that contains a single C-flat, and there is no such key in modern music. Maybe I’ll try Gustav Holst instead.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Earth: period 3 notes, sinusoidal
    Saturn and Jupiter: period 5 notes, sinusoidal
    Moon: period 7 notes, sinusoidal
    Mars: period 9 notes, sinusoidal
    Mercury: period 14 notes, skewed
    Venus: period 3 notes, but zero amplitude

    Hmmmm. Well. Hmmmm. :)

    Mercury has a heavily eccentric orbit. Probably spottable in Keplers day.
    Mars too, but observation difficult
    Venus has an almost circular orbit, and a monochrome appearance

    I give up for now, I can’t break that code.

    Here a fun one though, I’ll add a drawing in a bit

    In the old astrological symbols the planets had, the order is like this:

    3 – Saturn – furthest out visible planet – slowest moving Saturday
    4 – Jupiter – next in Jeudi, Thors day, Thursday
    5 – Mars – Mardi, Tew’s day, Tuesday
    6 – Sun – Sunday, Dimanche, Demeter’s day?
    7 – Venus – Vendredi, Freya’s day, Friday
    8 – Mercury – Mercredi, Woden’s day, Wednesday
    9 – Moon – closest and fastest moving, Moon day, Monday, Lundi, Lune’s day

    Now, try this at home folks. Draw a circle and put the planets and their days in numerical order round it at seven points.

    Then draw a line from saturday to sunday to monday and so on.

    What do you get?

  24. @ TB

    say:
    “….This ratio 1.618:1 of which the inverse ratio is 0.618:1 crops up in all sorts of natural phenomena, from the growth of shells and plants to human biology to the configuration of the solar system and electro-magnetic intractions, to the ratio between the ascending and descending sides of the ‘average’ solar cycle, to the subatomic physics of particle energies, and radio wave energies…”

    and pyramid cheope…..

    http://www.sectioaurea.com/sectioaurea/the_golden_angle.htm

    0.619 – 1 – 1.619 – 2.619 – 4.238 :smile:

    and…

    and…
    I found this links:

    http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4c_07.html

    http://em01.powweb.com/bi-gravitational_solar_system.pdf

    I speak / write a little English….
    Check two links…
    Fake?

    bye
    mic

  25. tallbloke says:

    Michele, good find with the last two links, that’s very interesting, and is similar to my verbal Fibonacci formulation for the inner planets.

    “During the time it takes for Jupiter to complete 2/3 of an orbit, Venus will go past Earth five times, as Earth makes eight orbits, while Venus makes thirteen, and Mercury will pass Venus twenty one times, as it completes thirty four orbits of the Sun.”

  26. Roger Andrews says:

    Some insights on how Kepler translated orbits into music:

    “While medieval philosophers spoke metaphorically of the “music of the spheres”, Kepler discovered physical harmonies in planetary motion. He found that the difference between the maximum and minimum angular speeds of a planet in its orbit approximates a harmonic proportion. For instance, the maximum angular speed of the Earth as measured from the Sun varies by a semitone (a ratio of 16:15), from mi to fa, between aphelion and perihelion. Venus only varies by a tiny 25:24 interval (called a diesis in musical terms). Kepler explains the reason for the Earth’s small harmonic range:

    The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway.

    At very rare intervals all of the planets would sing together in “perfect concord”: Kepler proposed that this may have happened only once in history, perhaps at the time of creation.

    Kepler also discovers that all but one of the ratios of the maximum and minimum speeds of planets on neighboring orbits approximate musical harmonies within a margin of error of less than a diesis (a 25:24 interval). The orbits of Mars and Jupiter produce the one exception to this rule, creating the unharmonic ratio of 18:19. In fact, the cause of Kepler’s dissonance might be explained by the fact that the asteroid belt separates those two planetary orbits, as discovered in 1801, 150 years after Kepler’s death.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

    Though how he figured out that the Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi and not So, La, So or Re, Mi, Re isn’t clear.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Roger: Nice! So my intuition of the notes relating to orbital eccentricity was correct!

  28. Roger Andrews says:

    Do you predict earthquakes too? I ask because I’m off to Guerrero tomorrow. .

  29. tallbloke says:

    Only when I’m wearing my tinfoil hat.

    Maybe you should take your bubblewrap suit.

  30. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tallbloke: See chapter IX : “Fragments of an unknown teaching” by P.d.Ouspensky (A russian physicist of early XX century):

    http://www.giurfa.com/fragmentsof.pdf

  31. Sparks says:

    It’s close enough!

    Uranus/Neptune Jupiter/Saturn
    (171.41 + 59.577) / (59.577 x 171.41) = 44.21 years

    Rounded to the nearest number in the Fibonacci Sequence
    (230.987) = 233 (10212.09357) = 10946

    (233) / (10946) = 46.97 years
    a difference of [2.76] The golden ratio squared is [2.61]

    (Fibonacci Sequence)
    * *
    2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946

    Indecently between [233] and [10946] there are 7 Fibonacci numbers (1.618034) * (7) = 11.326238

    Uranus/Neptune Jupiter/Saturn
    (233 – 1.618034) (10946 – 1.618034) (231/10944)
    231 / 10944 = 47.37 – pi = 44.22 years
    OR 231 / 10944 = 47.37 – phi = 44.75 years

  32. Tenuk says:

    Interesting how phi pops up so many times in the natural world. Miles Mathis has had a first attempt at a mechanical explanation of why this could be – paper below …

    “…but I think I have shown that phi in nature is not a coincidence. There are numerical coincidences in Nature to be sure, but most of the number relations that have been passed off as coincidence or numerology are, I believe, simply mechanical phenomena yet to be explained.”

    http://milesmathis.com/phi.html

  33. tallbloke says:

    Sparks: not so fast.

    If you look at the orbital distance versus orbital period graph I posted above, you can see that the outer planets follow a different pattern to the inner planets (I need to do a bigger version for the inner solar system so you can see it more clearly). The last three gas giants and pluto are at a fairly regular spacing about 160 light minutes apart, Jupiter being roughly half that distance in from Saturn. The inner planets follow a spacing pattern that matches the Fibonacci harmonics I described above.

    So we can’t just go extrapolating the Fibonacci sequence to the gas giants. We have to think about why the Solar system is hinged around Jupiter. I’m guessing that since the strength of gravity and electromagnetism fall off with the square of the distance, whereas tidal force is related to distance cubed, and because the planets generally get bigger from Sun to Jupiter, then smaller from Jupiter to Neptune, that’s where we’ll find the reasons for the uneven anomalies in Bode’s law. Not that Bode’s law is anything more than a rough heuristic, it isn’t. It will be fun to see if Miles Mathis’ proposed replacement does any better when we’ve investigated this more thoroughly (not an easy problem to tackle).

  34. tallbloke says:

    Tenuc: I think there are different reasons for phi cropping up in different parts of nature. In plants, it maximises the sunlight hitting leaves. In shell growth, it forms the strongest interstices, etc.

    So phi leaves a good trail of clues behind, but we don’t need to get mystical about it. As Miles says, there are mechanical explanations hiding beneath the geometrical wonders we see on the surfaces.

  35. Harriet Harridan says:

    Would this help with some visualizations? (Free Download – but required the dreaded Windoze).

    http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html

  36. Sparks says:

    No problem at all Roger, Let’s look at this, on wiki, it explains how a solar cycle has a period of about 11 years. “The cycle is observed by counting the frequency and placement of sunspot activity”.
    What I showed above was, between [233] and [10946] on the Fibonacci sequence there are 7 Fibonacci numbers (1.618034) * (7) = 11.326238. It relates planetary orbital values with the sun. Numbers are a diagnostic tool, I wasn’t trying to fit the whole universe to a Fibonacci sequence, I was thinking out loud about how the principle would work in regard to your post. The thing about numbers is that you could curve fit (scale) a mouse to an elephant using Mathematical tools.

  37. tallbloke says:

    Sparks, thanks for that. And I agree there is value in using scaling techniques other than linear ones to try to understand the outer solar system. Maybe you should take a read of Miles’ essay on Bode’s Law. If you can get your head around his slightly different take on gravity (he holds that it is composed of a stronger ‘attractive force’ and a weaker repulsive force implicit in Newton’s equation), then it may set off a productive line of thought. I’d really like to make headway with this, and you seem to have a good facility with numbers.

    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

  38. Wayne Job says:

    Let us not also forget that the giant planets are our sentinels against intruders and as such may have been perturbed greatly in the past. Our beaded bracelet the asteroid belt may be part of the past perturbations.

    Remember also there is harmony and beauty in chaos and all of creation is rooted in non linear equations, that harmonic nodes that create order from chaos form to create the beauty, was a big surprise to both mathematics and science. Many still refuse to learn the lesson.

    The harmony in the outer planets may be found in the chaos.

  39. Sparks says:

    bodes law? are you pulling my leg? ffs have you read that page you linked to?

    “it would be like solving Goldbach’s Conjecture or Fermat’s Last Theorem”
    I can do that with an irrational constant, ha!

  40. tallbloke says:

    Heh. :) I quite like Miles iconoclasm and bombast actually. And maybe you should take a look at his Fermat paper before you scoff. Anyway, yes, I have read the page several times, and it’s making more sense each time. it is quite densely written though, and you probably need to read his paper on the Moon and Sun’s same apparent size to get his drift about the charge field and the gravitational field creating a balance point.

    http://milesmathis.com/third9.html

    And refer also to:

    http://milesmathis.com/moon.html

    http://milesmathis.com/orbit.html

    The trouble with Mathis’ work is that so much of it interlocks that you end up having to take more on board along with a suspension of disbelief while you let him develop his thesis, that you end up losing your place and not being able to decide whether it’s all consistent or not. We had quite a good discussion about whether or not he’s crazy in a thread on his Pi=4 paper. :)

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/galactic-scale-electric-current-detected-more-amps-than-you-can-shake-a-black-hol-at/

    I’m still undecided.

    Fun reading that makes you think either way.

  41. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tallbloke: As Miles Mathis says. A passing glance at the Solar System would tell you that Jupiter is a dividing line. Inside Jupiter, most things are caused by the Sun. Outside Jupiter, most things are caused by Jupiter. The fields outside Jupiter cannot be the same as those inside.

    We should remember, also, that wherever the sq. root of 2 appears we have the length of the hypothenuse of two forces at right angles, measuring each=1, sine + cosine, the gravity field plus the EM field.

  42. adolfogiurfa says:

    Though I must add that such a difference between “fields” it is an artificial one. There is but one and only field: The field of charges, which when dynamically equillibrated, “neutral” are what we call “bodies”, “mass”, planets and so on. Solids are currently called, by chemists, “solid solutions” as they are really that.

  43. Ninderthana says:

    To be quiet frank, I think all this sequence and cycle fitting is meaningless unless
    it is backed by physical principles.

    Let’s get back to the basics.

    It is reasonable to divide the planets up into two dynamical groups:

    The inner (low mass) terrestrial planets that, to all intents and purposes,
    revolve around the centre of the Sun.

    The outer (high mass) Jovian planets, each revolving around their respective
    centre-of-mass that they form with the Sun.

    The bulk of the solar system’s moment of inertia (MOI) {mass x (distance from
    Sun)^2} lies with the outer Jovian planets. The moment of inertia is name given to
    rotational inertia and it is similar to the inertia associated with one-dimensional
    linear motion. MOI is a measure of the resistance of a body to changes its rotational
    motion.

    This means that it is the orbital resonances of the elephants in the outer solar system
    that dictate the orbital resonances of the inner mosquito-like inner planets.

    When postulate the following:

    “The Jovian planets stir the inner terrestrial planets with a
    gravitational force that varies with a frequency that is
    determined by the beat period between two main competing
    Jovian planetary alignments.

    The first is that produced by the the retrograde tri-synodic
    period of Jupiter/Saturn (= 59.577 yrs) and the second is
    the pro-grade synodic period of Uranus/Neptune (171.41 yrs):

    (59.577 x 171.41) / (171.41 + 59.577) = 44.21 yrs”

    It is not pseudo-scientific appeal to some mystical number system.

    It is actually associated with a mathematical variation that you
    would expect if you to counter-rotating forcing terms that represented
    the effects of planetary alignments.

    The one piece of speculation that enters my argument is the fact that
    I point to the near coincidence of the 44.21 year repetition period for
    the Jovian planet forcing to the 44.28 year period that is the time
    required for Jupiter to advance by 360 degrees ahead of the tidal
    bulges that are induced on the surface of the Sun by the periodic
    alignments of Venus/Earth once every ~ 1.6 years.

    I realize that most of the posts on this discussion thread are raising
    legitimate questions and are given in the spirit of freely bouncing ideas
    of each other. However, my study tries to use genuine physical principles
    to guide my investigation rather than blindly look for any near coincidence
    or cycle.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ian,

    My apologies that the discussion headed off into a freeform Sunday evening ramble.

    I was in two minds whether to post your article in its entirety here as a standalone but decided to push traffic your way to help get people interested in the other posts on your site by offering a taster mixed in with other points and providing a link. Did you get the Howe update I emailed you?

    I completely agree that we need to pin down the physical forces, and that your analysis is aimed at that. The gravitational force doing the stirring is the area that needs some more understanding I think.

    As you correctly say, the inner planets follow the Sun, whereas the outer planets are freer to go their own way and this leads to differentiated forces acting across the Sun directly as well as entraining the inner planets in a sympathetic harmony which then creates tidal effects on the sun, modulating its activity.

    Thats what I meant when I said:

    “the combination of solar influence via its mass and activity level and that of the outer planets via their angular momentum and the effect of their gravitational perturbation of the smaller planets seems to be what has organised the system.”

    However I am intrigued by the fibonacci sequence manifesting in the inner planet cyclicities, and I think it’s telling us something important about the pulsation of the energy flow from the Sun. At this moment I’m reading up on Kepler triangles, which link phi and root 2. These are fundamentally important quantities in electro-dynamics as well as the spacing and timing of the planetary orbits.

    To get enough power for the feedback we believe must be there, we need resonance. That requires the right timings, the right energies and the right medium for that energy to transmit through. I’m not convinced gravity is enough. I think we need to incorporate the force which is quite a few billion times stronger – electro-magnetism, as the amplifying mechanism.

    So forgive us for our kicking odd looking ideas around at the same time as sections of your work, and feel free to announce a disclaimer that you don’t go along with any of our electro-magnetic speculation if you feel the need to. :)

    Were not making any claims yet anyway. Just exploring ideas.

  45. Ninderthana says:
    March 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    The basics of the 6558 day period cyclic weather forecast presented on my site, is the repeating patterns of the inner planets synod period effects and the lunar declination, phase, perigee/apogee cycles. the maps that it produces are an average of the past four cycles of the total mix of both the inner and outer planets influences, as the outer planet influences IMHO are mostly electromagnetic induction effects, and don’t repeat in the short term 6558 periods, their pulsed effects show up as large swings in the actuals from the “forecast.”

    The next stage of development I intend to add to this forecast method is to determine the analogues effects as a change in the inner planet expected forecast to show the amount and type of effect the outer planets have at synod conjunctions between the earth and themselves, and generate a set of algorithms to adjust the inner planet forecast to include the expected outer planet influences.

    The recent quakes in Mexico, and the large blocking highs of the past two weeks (that were responsible for the NA heat wave now fading away) I think were all due to the configuration of the alignment of Mars and the upcoming synod of Saturn, as noted in;

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/michele-casati-acapulco-earthquake-successfully-predicted/

    These short term effects [quake, heat wave due to blocking highs] are typical of the sudden shifts away from the 6558 day cyclic patterns, and currently my “forecast without outer planet compensation goes way off in these expected directions because of predictable effects that seem to be mostly electromagnetic in effects and process, CMEs, flares, Quakes, shifts in the production rates of tornadoes, intensity shifts in tropical storms and hurricanes, synced to the outer planet Synod conjunctions.

    My hope was to show how the inner/outer planet effects drive the weather so that it could be extrapolated on to how they affect the climate on the scale of their longer periods of interactions. The process I intend to follow is to plot real data from as many valid sources as are available to show the physical inter-workings from a physical/mechanical perspective.

  46. tallbloke says:

    Richard, that sounds like a good if labour intensive approach. Not that you are afraid of solid hard work as I know you are not. More power to your elbow and brain sir. :)

  47. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Richard Holle: And if, as a consequence, your new program sounds harmonic, you could make a MP3 version of it. :-)

  48. Ninderthana says:

    Roger Tallbloke,

    In the spirit of contributing to the speculation, if you ignore the Terrestrial planets and you use the Titius-Bode law to determine the predicted distances of the Jovian planets from the Sun you get:

    [N.B. the first set of differences are those predicted by the TB law
    while the second set of distances are the actual distances.]

    Asteroid Belt____2.8 A.U._____0.28____~1/4
    Jupiter________5.20 A.U.____0.52____~1/2
    Saturn________10.0 A.U.____1.00____ 1____(actual distance 9.6 A.U.)
    Uranus________19.6 A.U.____1.96____~ 2____(actual distance 19.2 A.U.)
    Neptune_______39.6 A.U.____3.96____~ 4____(actual distance 30.1 A.U.)
    so it is really ~ 3 times.

    So for the outer planets of our solar system, each planet is roughly twice as far from the
    parent star as the planet planet immediately inside its orbit. Clearly the pattern breaks
    down by predicting a distance for Neptune that is too large.

    Comparing our solar system with the solar system around the solar like star
    HD 10180 (MK spectral type G1V) [N.B. on confirmed planets used]

    [N.B. the first set of differences are those predicted by the TB law
    translated to HD 10180, while the second set of distances are the
    actual distances.]

    HD 10180 c__0.0756 A.U.___0.0641 A.U.____0.237____~1/4
    HD 10180 d__0.1403 A.U.___0.1286 A.U.____0.476____~ 1/2
    HD 10180 e__0.2699 A.U.___0.2699 A.U.____1.000____ 1
    HD 10180 f___0.5290 A.U.___0.4924 A.U.____1.824___ ~ 2
    HD 10180 g__1.069 A.U_____1.422 A.U._____5.269__ ~ 5

    You get the same doubling pattern which breaks down for the outermost planet(s).

    So there may be something to the search for order in planetary distances.

  49. Bruckner8 says:

    Roger Andrews said: Incidentally, I tried playing Kepler’s music but didn’t learn much. One problem is that the music for Mars and the Earth is written in a key that contains a single C-flat, and there is no such key in modern music. Maybe I’ll try Gustav Holst instead.

    The clefs in TB’s graphic run the gamut, few of them modern. No C-flats in there!

    Saturn: Bass Clef (first note is G)
    Jupiter: Contrabass Clef (first note is also G, but the key has B-flat in it)
    Mars: Tenor Clef (first note is F, B-flat in key)
    Earth: Soprano Clef (G-Ab-G)
    Venus: Treble Clef (All notes are E)
    Mercury: Mezzo-Soprano Clef (first note is A below middle C)
    Moon: Soprano Clef (first note is G)

  50. tallbloke says:

    Bruckner8: Welcome, and thanks!
    OK, next we need the ratios of the frequencies of those notes, so we can further decipher Kepler’s unusual music. Adolfo?

  51. tallbloke says:

    Ian: “So there may be something to the search for order in planetary distances.”

    Absolutely there is, because Kepler and Cpoernicus tell us about the relationships between orbital distance and orbital period, and synodic periods between planets. But as you can see from my graph above, their laws aren’t quite accurate throughout the solar system because there is non-linearity. I’m expecting to find a relationship between that non-linearity as we get near the Sun, and the falloff by the square of the distance for gravity and the cube of the distance for tides, and/or the 4th power of the distance for Miles Mathis’ ‘foundational E/M charge field’.

    By the way Ian, bode’s rough heuristic is nothing like as elegant as Miles’ formulation:

    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

    Root 2 and phi are connected via Kepler triangles.

    That’s why we are seeing the fibonacci series manifested in the inner solar system, and a doubling pattern further out where the charge field between planets starts to rival the field from the Sun.

    Why the last planet should not be as far out is a good puzzle, since it arises in both systems Ian has exemplified.

    In our system it is likely something to do with the unusual orientations of Uranus’ spin axis and magnetosphere.

    http://milesmathis.com/uran.pdf

  52. Tenuk says:

    Following Bruckner8’s post, here’s a useful reminder in case anyone fancies a go at singing along to the music of the spheres…

    Do = Doe- a deer, a female deer
    Re = Ray- a drop of golden sun
    Mi = Me- a name i call myself
    Fa = Far- a long long way to run
    So = Sew- a needle pulling thread
    La = La- a note to follow so
    Ti = Tea- a drink with jam and bread

    Based on this the Earth sings approx. Mi, Fa, Mi… :-)

  53. Bruckner8 says:

    Since all of the musical passages are scales, and since we’re assuming Harmonic Series, there are only 3 ratios to worry about:

    Minor Tone (small whole step): 9/8 [think "Do-Re" in Major mode]
    Major Tone (big whole step): 10/9 [think "Re-Mi" in Major mode; yes, it's a different ratio than above...two different sized whole steps in this world!]
    Half Tone (semi tone): 16/15 [think "Mi-Fa" in Major mode]

    All other intervals are derived from their sums. To wit, when traversing the Major 3rd, Do-Re-Me (Venus), the interval sum is 9/8 * 10/9 = 5/4. Thus 5/4 is the ratio of the “pure Major 3rd” defined by this system [which is much lower than our modern, Equal temperament ratio of 2^(4/12) = 1.26]

    IMO, the “trick” in trying to find patterns in the cosmos would be to find INTEGER RATIOS (thus the definition of Harmonic Series). The simplicity and elegance in that (if discovered…and many are trying here) would add credence to it.

    Finally, musicians have come to “learn to prefer” the ratios that use the lowest integers (say, 16 and below). I suppose the cosmos would be a lot more advanced than that, lol. There might be legitimate ratios along the lines of 1357/981, but that would have no use for real-time, live music-making. Extrapolating that indefinitely (er, calculus), I suppose one could find ANY integer ratio to satisfy any tiny margin (epsilon?) of curiosity. (IOW, cherry-picking)

    I guess what I’m saying is: I won’t be impressed with any of this unless we find ratios like 4:5:6 (the major chord), etc.

  54. Bruckner8 says:

    I mistakenly said Venus for Do-Re-Mi above. It should be Saturn.

  55. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tallbloke: OK, next we need the ratios of the frequencies of those notes, so we can further decipher Kepler’s unusual music. Adolfo?
    I order to do this we must in first place put aside the Babilonian “confusion of tongues”, and, putting aside, also “Pride and Prejudice”, realize that:

    The laws of unity are reflected in all phenomena. The decimal system is constructed on the basis of the same laws. Taking a unit as one note containing within itself a whole octave we must divide this unit into seven unequal parts in order to arrive at the seven notes of this octave. But in the graphic representation the inequality of the parts is not taken into account and for the construction of the diagram there is taken first a seventh part, then two-sevenths, then three-sevenths, four-sevenths, five-sevenths, six-sevenths, and seven-sevenths. Calculating these parts in decimals we get:
    1/7=0.142857 . . . 2/7=0.285714 . . . 3/7=0.428571 . . . 4/7=0.571428 . . . 5/7=0.714285 . . . 6/7=0.857142 . . . 7/7=0.999999 . . .

    “Fragments of an unknown teaching”,Chapter Fourteen,
    pp.296

    http://www.giurfa.com/fragmentsof.pdf

    Remembering that the octave has two intervals (gaps) at: C#0/Db0 and at A#0/Bb

    Note  Frequency (Hz)
    DO C0 16.350
    C#0/Db0 17.320
    RE D0 18.350
    D#0/Eb0 19.450
    MI E0 20.600
    FA F0 21.830
    F#0/Gb0 23.120
    SOL G0 24.500
    G#0/Ab0 25.960
    LA A0 27.500
    A#0/Bb0 29.140
    SI B0 30.870
    DO C1 32.700

    For those more mechanically oriented, we could say that obviously there are two ways in the octave: The way to higher “pitches”, the ascending octave, the negentropic way, and the descending octave, to lower “pitches”, the entropic way. There is a mechanical device which reproduces this law: The “ram pump”, where there are also two “check valves”, corresponding to each of those “gaps” or intervals. It is a good example, where to reach a higher “head” pumping water it is needed to “increase pressure” in an ad-hoc vessel. Analogy teaches a lot.

  56. Bruckner8 says:

    There are no gaps at all in an octave; only choices. I suppose it’s as equally valid to “not choose,” but now we’re in the realm of mythology….or maybe another non-Euclidian geometry? Seriously, I can’t tell of this is to be taken seriously, or if I’m just supposed to take wild assumptions, and see where it leads, just for “fun.” I feel as if Euclid’s parallel postulate has been removed…(that an octave ain’t necessarily so)

    Note that adolfo’s ratios have nothing to do with harmonic series, so,therefore, I am done, lol. Do-So is a perfect 5th, which is 3/2 ratio. 24.5/16.35 = 1.49, which is more aligned with human-invented Equal Temperament (or some other invention), but certainly not natural. IN fact, all of adolfo’s intervals are in Equal Temperament, so I have no idea where he was going with the 7ths at the top of his comment. (ty for the link;good reading there!)

  57. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Bruckner: Can´t believe you don´t know those black keys on the keyboard (“Ebony and Ivory”, remember?

  58. Bruckner8 says:

    @adolfo:Of course I do, and each black key comes with many ratio[nal] choices depending on desired musical context, all based on Harmonic Series. I won’t bore this scientific blog with them, and I won’t pretend there are cosmological correlations.

    Here are some examples: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.06.12.3/duffin_table1.pdf

  59. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Bruckner8: Those correlations do exist: In order to keep an octave sounding, working, it needs energy from the outside; you need to breath in order to provide electrons to the iron +2 in your hemoglobin to turn it into iron +3, you also need water and food, if you do not have these you die, the octave, that energy evolving, sounding, needs discrete packets of energy from the outside to keep it going. As there is an INPUT there is also an OUTPUT: your thoughts, your moods, your character, (it depends on you how harmonic they are). The input depend on an exterior will: The strike you give on the piano keyboard. You see?, we need also the energy from the Sun to live, and we are supposed to transform it to the highest pitches we can and not to spend it fruitlessly, as the higher its pitch, the higher its energy the longest it lasts. Have you thought about that “Ram pump” I mentioned before?
    Knowledge, information, is as material as everything in the universe: How high pitches does your brain reach? You know, there is another law, that of resonance, if your energy it is not high enough your knowledge won´t reach the levels you dream of.
    Those correlations do existe, my dear Bruckner8, and the wavy, undulatory nature of everything, the interplay of sine and cosine describes the movement of charges, not “out there”, but also in you and me. So we have a responsibility, we have a duty, at least the duty of survival.

  60. Bruckner8 says:

    (sorry everyone, whilst adolfo and I hijack this thread, lol)

    @adolfo says: “In order to keep an octave sounding, working, it needs energy from the outside; ”

    All I can say about those words is “duh.” The same is true for any interval, not just octaves, lol. What makes an octave special? ANS: We fallible humans have “arbitrarily” assigned meaning to it! We see usefulness in binary systems, doubling, etc. Maybe we “feel good” about the way octaves sound(?)

    Your [and Mr G.'s] charming writing style sounds like an Intelligent Design argument in the making…all wonderment.

    I guess it comes down to “If a tree falls in the woods, and no human is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” My agnostic [scientific?] answer is “If a human can’t observe it, then WE CAN’T KNOW.” I would surmise that you could write a 10-paragraph poem on the expected sound of such a thing, complete with colorful metaphors and technical jargon, all very convincing!

    @adolfo says: “(it depends on you how harmonic they are)”

    What makes one “thing” more harmonic than another? Who decides? How do we measure “harmonic-ness?” I’m not being flip; I want to know….after all, your attempt at providing chromatic scale ratios was not “harmonic” in any way. (It was logarithmic, in that it only used fractional exponents of 2…all irrational numbers except when exponent was an integer; ie,the octave!)

    @adolfo says: “we need also the energy from the Sun to live, and we are supposed to transform it to the highest pitches we can and not to spend it fruitlessly, as the higher its pitch, the higher its energy the longest it lasts.”

    Says who? Who said that I’m “supposed” to achieve this transform? Define “fruitless.” It sounds like value-judgment to me, which isn’t science anymore. Where is it stated (mythology or science) that higher pitch directly relates to higher energy? Don’t get sucked into “human hearing” versus objective decibels. (human subject might report that a higher pitch “feels” louder to them…doesn’t mean that it really is.)

    I could pull out each line of your text, and “argue” it just for fun, but no one would learn anything new. I only entered the thread at all to point out technical inaccuracies in the musical/harmonic aspect, and show that there is a firm foundation for it…not mystery. I do appreciate your writing style and words, but they do put a little smirk on my face as I feel the smugness coming from them. For even when confronted with “corrections” (ie, ur Harmonic argument isn’t harmonic at all), you veer off to lofty heights of the ultimate meaning, ignoring the detail. I find that entertaining. ty.

  61. tallbloke says:

    Bruckner8 says:
    What makes an octave special? ANS: We fallible humans have “arbitrarily” assigned meaning to it! We see usefulness in binary systems, doubling, etc. Maybe we “feel good” about the way octaves sound(?)

    This is a very interesting question, to which there are a lot of answers. Here are a couple of thoughts.

    Many thousands of years ago when a musically orientated human was listening to the wind whistling through a crack in the cave ceiling, they heard the sound jump an octave when the wind blew extra hard for a few seconds.

    Experimenting with a reed pipe reproduced the effect. So well in fact that a really hard blow could get a two octave jump. This person’s friend, who had been experimenting with stretching a dried goat intestine across a bowed tree branch, found they could get a variety of dull ‘notes’ by pressing the ‘string’ onto the wood and plucking the longer length. But also discovered a magically pure sound could be obtained by gently damping the string without pressing it onto the wood if their finger was placed half way along the string. This created the same interval as the reed pipe was getting when blown hard, and then soft.

    A third member of the band who had opted for the percussion role, discovered that by taking two similar lengths of wood and then breaking one in half and hanging the long and short pieces from string and hitting them with another stick, could also get the ‘magic’ interval.

    An idea was born.

    Why 8 notes in an octave? Just keep dividing by two. This is the way it went for mechanically oriented ‘instrumental’ societies, though I believe some cultures which are acapella only tend to use different ways of dividing the scale?

  62. Harriet Harridan says:

    Probably not what you want to read on this theory but a new (20/3/12) paper:

    The Influence Of Planetary Attractions On The Solar Tachocline
    Dirk K. Callebauta, Cornelis de Jagerb, Silvia Duhauc,
    Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

    Says…
    “5. Conclusions

    We calculated various accelerations near or in the tachocline area and compared them with those due to the attraction by the planets. We found that the former are larger than the latter by four orders of magnitude. Moreover, the duration of the various causes may change a bit the ratio of their effects, but they are still very small as compared to accelerations occurring at the tachocline. Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. Specifically, we improved the calculation of ainert in paper I and gave an alternative estimation. If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too. The time evolution of the sunspots would then be totally different and the difference between the solar maximum and its minimum would be much less pronounced.

    Taking into account the duration of the acceleration aJup does not really change the conclusions of paper I: the planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation); moreover, they fail to give an explanation for the polarity changes in the solar cycle. In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times. In fact, a planetary explanation of the solar cycle is hardly possible.

    Besides, we estimated various other effects, including the ones due to the magnetic field (buoyancy effect and centripetal consequence) and those due to the Coriolis force; their relation to the tidal effects can be indirect at its utmost best (by influencing motions which might affect the solar dynamo).

    As all planets rotate in the same sense around the sun their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion e.g. at the solar surface. This may have an influence on the meridional motion or on the poleward motions of the solar surface, having in turn an influence on the solar dynamo (maybe leading to an effect like the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule). Again, this will be very indirect and the effect of one planet or one orbital period will be masked.”

    Just to let you know Tallbloke… :-/