*Here is a rather poor image of part of Emile Sevin’s 1946 paper I have dug up off the net:*

Comptes rendus de l’ Academie des Sciences 1946 tome 222 p220.

Translation:

**Astronomy:- On the structure of the solar system (Prevision of a new planet)**

**Note of M. Emile Sevin presented by M.Ernest Esclangon**

Using the logarithms of the periods T of revolution of planets, expressed for example in days, let us form the following sums:

log T (Venus) + log T (Pluto) = 7,309;

log T (Earth) + log T (Neptune) = 7,342;

log T (Mars) + log T (Uranus) = 7,324;

log T (asteroids) + log T (Saturn) = 7288;

log T (Jupiter) + log T (Hidalgo) = 7,344;

These sums being very appreciably constant, the general structure of the solar system rises to an intricacy, of which the double period lies between those of Jupiter and Hidalgo; and as it would be surprising that only Mercury did not have one combined, has led us to envision that there exists, beyond the orbit of Pluto, a planet which constitutes the same limit of the solar system and which we will designate by letter X.

Under these conditions, the planets were left again in two groups: that of the planets inferiors, whose periods are shorter than the period doubles and who includes/understands Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, the asteroids and Jupiter that of the planets superiors, of which the periods are on the contrary longer than the period doubles and or one meets Hidalgo, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and X. It is not without surprise that in 1920 Baade has discovered Hidalgo, a small planet of 22km of ray, strayed, seemed it, a little further that Jupiter; in fact, it is thus the first higher planet and, as we will further specify it, among the others its place is, mathematically, very clearly marked.(1.)

(1 .)Of course, it could be that Hidalgo was not isolated, but found to be the type of a certain number of other asteroids, with periods close, which remain to be discovered.

According to our view, it is a cataclysm, to which the Sun has been subjected to, which can generate planets, whereas the satellites of those would come of secondary cataclysms. And one can think that it is in particular that these secondary cataclysms which one must allot the slight differences that the periods observed present, compared to those which result of a perfect involution (intricacy), However the involution (intricacy ) is still rather well preserved so that it is possible to recognize that the period of vibration of the Sun, i.e. the period of its infrasonic vibration (1/9 of day), has played an essential role in the distribution of the superior planets.

So indeed, one calculates the periods of revolution for which the equations of light “C” (the time that that light traverses the equatorial radii of the orbits) are equal has successively the period of the infrasonic vibration multiplied by 3/10, 1/2, 1, 3/2, and 2, one finds the periods of revolution of Hidalgo, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (which are separated by considerable intervals) with the relative variations written here:-1/223,+1 / 84, +1/1 39,-1/18 and 1/27.** [Garbled text recognition in these figures]**

As for planet X, we will show that it is the multiplier 4 which is applicable for him. It locates the limits of the period of revolution and the average movement of planet, 247.275 days or approximately 677 years, 5, 24113, sizes that, relatively, one can considerer like exact has some hundreths close. And one obtains in excellent agreement with the sums indicated above.

____________________________________________

This text was referred to by Valery Kotov and S. Koutchmy in their 1985 paper ‘A Possible Relation Between Planetary Distances and the 160-Minute Solar Pulsation’. In that paper, they reformulated Sevin’s insight and put the relationship between the 160 minute solar pulsation (hypothesized(?) by Sevin and empirically observed by them) on a sounder footing which didn’t require the use of Tiny Hidalgo. Their reformulation of Bode’s law recieved validation in 2005 with the discovery of Eris, a small planet around the size of Pluto, with a moon, Dysnomia. But Eris’ semimajor axis is not at the distance expected by Sevin, due to its high eccentricity. Sevin predicted a multiplier of four on the 160 minute light-speed wavelength which Kotov calculated to be L = 19.24a.u. In fact, Eris’ Aphelion is at 5L, perihelion is at 2L and the semimajor axis is at 3.5L. This gives Eris and orbital period of 557 years, rather than the 677 years Sevin predicted.

Kotov wrote a paper in 2007 ‘There are ten, not eight planets’ in which he expressed his annoyance at the downgrading of Pluto to ‘dwarf planet’ status following Eris’ discovery.

In 1946, E. Sevin postulated the global vibrations of the Sun with a period P 0 = 1/9 day and a “wavelength” L 0 = c x P 0 = 19.24 AU and predicted the tenth planet at a mean distance of 4.0 x L 0 = 77.0 AU from the Sun (c is the speed of light). The global vibrations of the Sun, precisely with the period of 1/9 day, were actually detected in 1974. Recently, the largest Kuiper Bell object 2003 UB313, or Eris, with an orbital semimajor axis = 3.5 x L 0 = 67.5 AU was discovered. We adduce arguments for the status of Eris as our tenth planet: (i) the object is larger and farther from the Sun than Pluto and (ii) the semimajor axis of Eris agrees well with the sequence of planetary distances that follows from the resonance spectrum of the Solar system dimensions (with the scale L 0 and for all 11 orbits, including those of Pluto, Eris, and the asteroid belt). We point to a mistake of the Prague (2006) IAU Assembly, which excluded Pluto from the family of planets by introducing a new, highly controversial class of objects-’dwarf planets.’

I think he has a point. If the relationships between the orbital distances of the planets and the Sun’s activity can be discerned, then they are of a family, even if some of them are small. Calling the small ones ‘dwarves’ is very un-PC these days. :)

What then of Sevin’s idea of adding the logarithms of the revolution periods of the pairs of planets? This is an interesting consonance, because it doesn’t rely on splitting the planets into two groups as Kotov did (inner planets and outer planets, with Jupiter at the ‘hinge’), though as we saw with Sevin’s inclusion of Hidalgo, it does require some creative thinking.

Sevin expected ‘planet X’ to have a period of 677 years (via Kepler’s third law: The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.) on the assumption of a 4L semimajor axis length. But Eris has a semimajor axis of 3.5L not 4L, so how might the circle be squared to account for this apparent disharmony in his scheme?

Both Eris and the planet at the other end of the solar system he wanted to pair it with, Mercury, have high eccentricity orbits: 0.206 for Mercury and 0.441 for Eris. This gives their aphelion distances as 0.466a.u for Mercury and 97.56a.u for Eris.

Orbits at these distances would take 116days and 351963 days respectively

log116+log351963=7.611

Orbits at their semimajor axis distances give a figure of 7.2523

But if we take the log of Mercury’s perihelion orbit and add it to the log of Eris’ aphelion orbit we get

**7.3408**

Which is right in the frame of the added logs of Sevin’s other planetary pairs. I think that given the fact Eris’ semimajor axis falls nicely on a zero crossing node at 3.5 times Kotov’s L value derived from the speed of light multiplied by the 160 minute solar pulse, we can therefore count Eris as one of our family, if a slightly wayward one who as her name suggests introduces a discordant and offbeat note into the music of the spheres. Her Moon daughter is after all Dysnomia, Δυσνομία, which translates as ‘lawlessness’.

Incidentally, Mike Brown from the discovery team, who chose the names ‘Eris’ and ‘Dysnomia’ must surely have read Robert Anton Wilson’s and Robert Shea’s ‘Illuminatus’ trilogy. Who says astronomers don’t have a sense of humour?

Hail Eris! All hail Discordia! – Final proof that we are comparing apples with apples! :)

Off Topic

UK Met office got it wrong and they want more money for better computers.

BBC News

30 April 2012 Last updated at 17:52

April is the wettest month for 100 years

Aerial video shows Somerset floods

Man dies as floods create havoc

Somerset’s rivers on flood alert

Badminton Horse Trials cancelled

This has been the wettest April in the UK in over a century, with some areas seeing three times their usual average, figures from the Met Office show.

Met Office 3-month Outlook

Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12

The forecast presented here is for April and the average of the April-May-June period for the United Kingdom as a whole.

This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:

The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole,

and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months.

With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 1971-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

Getting flashbacks from last year when I investigated Quaoar, another trans-Neptunian like Pluto and Eris, flagged up by – could have been Paul Vaughan, I don’t think it was Vuk. Significant resonances. I seem to remember working out then, that while Pluto is ~30-50AU, avg ~40AU [2 L O as we now have it], Eris was ~40-100AU, avg ~70AU [3 1/2 L O]. But hey, don’t forget Sedna, ~4 L O perihelion, ~49 L O aphelion.

Most telling to see Wikipedia itself full of references to cycles and resonances. Look at the resonant transneptunians and just click on that picture twice to really enlarge it. Look up Haumea. Look at the classical Kuiper belt objects and look at asteroid Pallas with its resonance with Jupiter.

[Reply] Probably Volker Dormann. Thanks for the links – as soon as I’ve got the big boys nailed down, I’ll be finding out more.Here is a resonance that is closer to home.

5 x S(V-E) = Pent-synodic period of Venus-Earth Alignments = 7.995 years

T (Jupiter) = Orbital period of Jupiter = 11.863 years

5 x S(V-E) x T (Jupiter) = 7.995 years + 11.863 years = 19.858 years

___________________= Jupiter-Saturn Synodic period.

The question is why?

Corrections included:

Here is a resonance that is closer to home.

5 x S(V-E) = Penta-synodic period of Venus-Earth Alignments = 7.995 years

T (Jupiter) = Orbital period of Jupiter = 11.863 years

5 x S(V-E) + T (Jupiter) = 7.995 years + 11.863 years = 19.858 years

___________________= Jupiter-Saturn Synodic period.

The question is what does this mean?

Hi Ian, it’s phi and Fibonacci at work. There are 3:2 and root 2 resonances all over the system. You might remember I said that

Jupiter makes 2/3 of an orbit, while Earth and Venus conjoin 5 times as Earth orbits 8 times, as Venus orbits 13 times while Mercury conjoins her 21 times as he makes 34 orbits.

2,3,5,8,13,21,34 – the Fibonacci series.

You can extend this to Saturn too.

This is why Kepler was fascinated with Pythagoras and The golden section.

Ultimately, Pi, phi and root two relate to sub atomic proportions of scale and charge. The solar system is the atom writ large. As above – so below.

We are getting closer to reconciling gravity and the laws of motion with electromagnetism, and the microcosmos with the macrocosmos. The ‘great work’.

What it means is that the organisation of the solar system is analogous to the growth of plants, which also follow the fibonacci series. In their case, the underlying reason is the maximisation of sunlight falling on leaves which avoid shadowing the leaves beneath them as best they can. So my guess is that the planetary organisation is something to do with maximising energy flow. Any body which is blocking that flow will get pushed until it falls back in line with a suitable eccentricity and precession. Because cybernetic governers always oscillate either side of the mean, a characteristic beat will emerge which relates back to longer term oscillations in the wider cosmos.

Tallbloke,

“Jupiter makes 2/3 of an orbit, while Earth and Venus conjoin 5 times as Earth orbits 8 times” is out by 33.6 days. The “resonance” that I have noted below is out by ~ 8 hours.

5 x S(V-E) + T (Jupiter) = 7.995 years + 11.863 years = 19.858 years

___________________= Jupiter-Saturn Synodic period.

It is 100 times more precise.

Hi Ian, point taken, though it’s worth noting that 33.6 days is nearly a Fibonacci number too, and Kotov has found that axial spins and eccentricities are also related to harmonics of the 160 minute ‘wave’ (I haven’t tracked a copy of the paper down yet). Earth and Venus have a 3:2 resonance too. Venus spins 3 times in two Earth years. Mercury spins 3 times as it orbits the Sun twice.

You remember those mechanical spinning tops when you were young? The ones where you pumped the handle up and down to make the top spin? I think Jupiter’s eccentricity may have something to do with the close consonance you have noted. Let’s take a look at that on your thread which I’ve just published.

The other thing about the Fibonacci series I found is that if you plot the deviation of the fractions from the golden section of 1.618:1 as you approach unity, the ‘errors’ form a smoothly and exponentially growing sinusoidal curve oscillating either side of the exact value. Of course, going the other way, it looks like a decay curve – energy density decreasing as you get further from the sun. So whilst the inner planets obey the Fibonacci sequence closely, things get looser further out.

Ninderthana says: May 1, 2012 at 7:12 am

5 x S(V-E) + T (Jupiter) = 7.995 years + 11.863 years = 19.858 years

___________________= Jupiter-Saturn Synodic period.

The question is what does this means?

This is IMO not a coincidence like the Fibonacci series. It probably means that we don´t understand how and why energy is moved back and forth among celestial bodies. A number of resonances develops. It should also mean that a resonace structure can stay rather intact over long times even if the whole solar system is contracting.

Furthermore a planet or a dwarf star moving straight through the solar system would “exite” the system and introduce a new resonance structure. Compare this with what can happen in molecules or atoms.

One interesting fact about the solar system is the crucial role that the Earth-moon system has in distributing energy between the inner planets due to its unique double planet configuration close to the sun. This is a major reason why Earth-moon modulates the sunspot generation which basically is driven by the kinetic situation of the Jupiter- Saturn system. Sunspots are just a proxy value of energy transfer between sun and the other celestial bodies in our solar system. Look at my statements as an hypothesis that can be investigated and evaluated by scientific methods.

Tallbloke,

The Fibonnaci sequence rocks!!

Hans,

You may want to look at my paper that can be freely downloaded at:

http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3811

Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do

They Affect Climate?

Ian R. G. Wilson

We are essentially claiming the same thing. The level of activity in the solar cycle is controlled by the planets while the Moons tidal affects on the Earth’s climate are linked to these planetary change because the lunar orbit is coupled to the planetary motions. This is a thesis that I have

been pushing since about 2006.

Hans

Look at my statements as an hypothesis that can be investigated and evaluated by scientific methods.I think you’ve got the makings of a paper/article yourself in there.

———————-

Rog, what’s the article of yours that puts forward the appearance of all those Fibonacci numbers?

Lucy, I formulated that statement a while ago. It appears in a thread back in march, I’ll find it for you. Oh yes, Music of the spheres:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-key-signatures-in-the-music-of-the-spheres/

tallbloke says: May 1, 2012 at 8:38 am

“The other thing about the Fibonnaci series I found is that if you plot the deviation of the fractions from the golden section of 1.618:1 as you approach unity, the ‘errors’ form a smoothly and exponentially growing sinusoidal curve oscillating either side of the exact value. Of course, going the other way, it looks like a decay curve – energy density decreasing as you get further from the sun. So whilst the inner planets obey the Fibonacci sequence closely, things get looser further out.”

TB, the following might be of interest to you:

Consider “generalised” Fibonacci series F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2) where F(n-1) and F(n-2) are ANY positive integers and construct K(n) = F(n)/F(n-1). Let n go to infinity and K(n) will become the Golden section 1.61803398….

It is my persuation that the approximate parts of Fibbonacci series that can be found in the periods of celestial objects in our solar system are related to the energy transfer systems between the same bodies. Furthermore, these energy transfer systems can be understood but before that can happen gravity has to be understood better IMO.

Hans: Yes! I have a very interesting gravity paper by a correspondent in the pipeline. It is currently being studied by a quantum physicist and one of the top people at the LHC at CERN.

It will rock the boat :)

Ian: “The Fibonnaci sequence rocks!!”

Yes!! And it rolls and does the twist too. :)

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/fib-spiral.jpeg

TB: What it means is that the organisation of the solar system is analogous to the growth of plants, which also follow the fibonacci series.

In the case of the solar system I would look for a natural fluid analogy: a vortex.

I don´t know if this is known or noticed but it probably is.

Use the following values for inner planetary orbits:

Mercury 0.2408 years

Venus 0.6152

earth 1.0000

The synodic period between Mercury and Venus is 0.39567

The synodic period between earth and Venus is1.5987

The sequence: 0.39567; 0.6152; 1.0000; 1.5987 is very close to a geomentric serie with a quotient of the Golden Section 1.6180339.

0.381966; 0.618034; 1.0000; 1.618034

If these relations aren´t just coincidences a number of interesting questions emerge. One is that the series don´t point to any object as a separate cause of the creation of this remarkable relation. An intrigate interaction between all the bodies has to be at hand. Observe that any value above can be considered as 1.0000 if normalized in another way. To assign 1.000 to earth´s orbital period above is just an arbitary choice.

Hans, exactly. Thats why my fibonacci statement above works out. The orbit’s radii are related to the periods by Kepler’s third law. If you take Mercury’s orbital distance as equal to one, all sorts of interesting relationships involving root two and phi start to become clear.

You don’t need to agree with the late Allan Bennett’s teliology to appreciate the geometry.

http://www.solargeometry.com/geometry.htm

The fibonacci series is the Solar System in motion to the apex….

Helix means spiral but it also relates to helios, the Sun.

Tallbloke, that link to the late Alan Bennett’s website opens another astounding gem!

It still boggles me how close correlations to resonant harmonies can exist in both periods (time) and semimajor axes (space) since Kepler showed that time^2 is proportional to distance^3.

But for Uranus Neptune and Pluto there are amazingly simple ratios that work.

Distance 2:3:4 (~20AU : ~30AU ~40AU)

Period 1:2:3 (84 : 2 x 84 :3 x 84)

That, and the Plutinos ( a mass of planetoids at Pluto’s distance) all tell me that Pluto is definitely a major planet and ought not to be demoted.

And that is pure resonances. No astrology :)

More on Fibonacci:

Vuk says:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/the-sun-dances-the-soho-two-step/#comment-20933

2,3,5,8,13,21,34

Simple law of nature. Here you can see the first 40 numbers in the Fibonacci sequence, plotted on the logarithmic scale

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fs.gif

Not forgetting Fibonacci triangles either:

Ninderthana says: May 1, 2012 at 9:24 am

“We are essentially claiming the same thing. The level of activity in the solar cycle is controlled by the planets while the Moons tidal affects on the Earth’s climate are linked to these planetary change because the lunar orbit is coupled to the planetary motions. This is a thesis that I have

been pushing since about 2006.”

Agree, and I have known it since I proved that sunspots are generated by celestial bodies in the solar system 25 years ago without knowing that it had been proven about 100 years ago (My work is unpublished).

“Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do

They Affect Climate?

Ian R. G. Wilson”

I will read your article with great interest. The answer is both IMO. LOD varies in a number of frequency ranges and and it might be THE key factor to investigate to start to understand how extraterrestrial factors affects energy transfer betwen celestial bodies. LOD correlations have been central to my own research for years and the important time series to investigate do exist. But time is getting short and there are many things to do.

tallbloke says: May 1, 2012 at 11:04 am

“Hans, exactly. Thats why my fibonacci statement above works out. The orbit’s radii are related to the periods by Kepler’s third law. If you take Mercury’s orbital distance as equal to one, all sorts of interesting relationships involving root two and phi start to become clear.”

I cannot help laughing since I wondered who would comment that the Mercury orbital period is the first one in the times series discussed. Excentricity does matter when discussing energy transfer between planets. Also notice that Mercury´s orbit is close to the suns equatorial plane as most inner moons in a similar way are to the equatorial plane of the giant planets. It is not enough to tell that this fact is a result of an “equatorial bulge” which is the standard “explanation”.

The interesting question still is why do physical processes produce “numerology”? the only answer I can come up with is that the action of gravity is not completely understood.

All you lot going on about the Fibonacci serieses; you’re all just a bunch of Fibbers! :) :D ;)

Nature doesn’t deal kindly with random “bumps”; they get ground down into something smoother.