This is the story of a new kind of study of the mechanics of our Solar System.
My books cover is shown on page two. It was published on 5/3/2005.
We all feel that we have learned a lot about the Solar System. We learned about it in school and in the news and we are still learning about it every day. This topic was a hobby of mine for the last 40 years and it still is. I am not an astronomer and I am not one of those home-style amateur stargazers. I have just taken the data provided by the professionals and reworked it.
The book is for sale at many places on the Web, including Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Yahoo and the publisher, www.Authorhouse.com.
The book is unique, I think, because it is not the usual often repeated tour of the Solar System telling you again what the published data is that you will find for free all over the Internet. Also, I do not try to list all of the famous names of Astronomy telling who did what and when. There are many sources for that information if that is what you seek. I know the importance of giving credit for achievement and discovery so when it is germane, and I know the answer, I will provide it. This does not come up very often because my entire approach is different.
This project got started when I was busy trying to rethink the goals of the builders of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. The monument was a source of fascination for me since childhood. The more I thought about it the more I felt it had something to do with the Solar System so I then turned to the Solar System thinking that knowing more about the Solar System would assist me in understanding the Great Pyramid of Egypt. The one thing that I did learn about the Pyramid that started my groundwork was that the builders may have incorporated a variety of measurement methods and that one of them was our common measure of feet, inches and miles. Pi, I felt was all over the pyramid in its measurements. I wrote a book on the Great Pyramid and that Web Site is http://www.egpok.com
I have never liked to use the metric system for anything so I approached the Solar System by converting all the data that I intended to use from Kilometers to miles. I simply multiplied Km by .62137. It is accurate enough. This was new ground for me and it required a lot of trial and retrials to see what I could learn by using all of the data in miles instead of kilometers. My first new insight was that seconds and miles seemed to have a synergistic relationship, possibly put there by the people that created these measures. We will never know for sure who those people were or when they existed.
My favorite example is the relationship between the Earth and the Sun. We measure the Sun across the equator at 864,000 miles. The seconds in one Earth day are about 86,400. No doubt a coincidence! If we take the Sun’s diameter (864000*3.1416) we get a circumference of 2,714,342.4 miles. If we then take the Earth’s equatorial diameter of 7,926.6 miles and divide it into 2,714,342.4 we get 342.43 as our result. It took me a little while but I discovered that the square root of 342.43 is 18.505 and that turned out to be the exact mean orbital velocity of the Earth in miles per second as it revolves around the Sun. This is what I call a ratio of numbers. You can do the same calculations in meters and the end result will be the same but in meters it is meaningless. To me this was a rather significant, but unnecessary, confirmation of Sir Isaac Newton’s view of the Solar System as a kind of mechanical object. There have been those that disfavored the mechanical method and often Einstein is quoted possibly as one such person. I want to stress that I do not challenge the theories of any one in presenting my contentions, not Einstein or any academic. The point of my book is to show what I have learned taking advantage of the data published by the experts and how, when using miles instead of kilometers, the mechanics of the Solar System are revealed.
I am well aware that this is not a book for everyone. My main purpose in self publishing this book was that I knew there was not going to be a sufficient market to interest a regular publisher and my desire to get my story told for what ever value others may find in it. This book does offer potential challenges to established scientific conclusions.
Trial and error when pursued for many years can be an important tool of discovery. This is especially true when you have published results by experts by which to compare the result obtained by trial and error. When you hit upon what you feel is an important disclosure you can promptly check the published data against your result to see if it fits. That is what happened to me as I casually went through the published data looking for answers that I had no reason to believe existed. Earlier I mentioned the curious relationship between Earth’s mean equatorial diameter and the Sun’s circumference providing the orbital velocity of the Earth in average miles per second squared. This was a little too freaky to be a coincidence. I reasoned that there might well be some deeper relationship between the planets orbits and the velocity of the planet in that orbit. One of the published data on the radius of the Earth’s orbit, when changed to miles, provided for the Earth’s average orbit radius, meaning the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun as if the orbit was circular, at 92,961,440 miles. To see what I might learn I multiplied the 929,961,440 by Earth’s miles per second velocity squared, of 342.43, producing 31,832,785,899.2. That long number was not meaningful to me at the time. In search of more that might be buried there I then converted all of the planets published periods into miles per second average orbital velocities squared and then multiplied those velocities against the published mean orbit radius for each planet and surprisingly every planet produced a result similar to the Earth’s. This was, to me, the equivalent to a new determination of the minimum radius of the Solar System- that point in space where an object will revolve around the Sun at the average of 1 mile per second. Pressing the point for the likely symbolism that the originators may have intended I eventually, mathematically, determined the circumference of the minimum Solar System was probably 200,000,000,000 miles for a mean radius result of (200,000,000,000/6.2832) 31,830,914,183.8 miles that I call S#. An object with a mean orbit radius of more than my S# will revolve around the Sun at some fraction of 1 mile per second. When using my average S# you can divide ANY mean orbit radius into it and get the result for the velocity of the object in miles per second squared. If that is not precise mechanics then I am at a loss to suggest what is.
The book contains the details of the mathematics that were used to determine the results I quote here. Of course, one thing leads to another. While pondering this last use of the S# it eventually occurred to me that there was something wrong. The result, as accurate as it was, did not give any credence to the potential Mass of the planets as playing a part in the location of the planets of the velocity of the orbit. That seemed to be in conflict with what I expected the facts to be. As it turned out there was a mystery to me why large Jupiter would be where it is in the Solar System. If there was mutual attraction between objects of gravity Jupiter could have been closer due to attraction or possibly in an orbit at the extreme edge of the Solar System. There is no mystery for me anymore because this proves that the Mass of the orbiting object contributes nothing to the orbit size or the velocity of the orbit. A good point to note is that when using miles as a measure the velocity of the object is equivalent to the orbit period and with a little thought to the mean orbit radius. The result should not surprise any one because both Johannes Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton told us that the Mass of an object is demonstrated by its ability to orbit some other object in a specific period. Less orbit radius equals shorter orbit periods- or as I use it, faster mean orbit velocities.
I indulged myself somewhat in the book by discussing things about the Solar System about which very little is published or, alternatively, about which I think the current explanation is incorrect or incomplete. One example is the planet Venus. You can note that all of the planets revolve around the sun in counter clockwise orbits. (Not true for all of the planets satellites though). Also all of the planets except Venus and Uranus rotate counter clockwise, like the Sun does. Venus barely rotates once in its trip around the Sun. I believe that in the original version of the Solar System Venus and Uranus rotated like all of the other planets, counterclockwise. Venus is especially interesting to me because it is so hot lead would likely melt on its surface. Needless to say there is no water on Venus surface although mythology depicts Venus as a planet almost entirely covered with water and there is one NASA site proposing that at one time Venus had enough water to cover the entire planet to possibly 50 feet or so. I cite the site in my book. The current view is that Venus has a greenhouse effect as the cause of the extreme heat. This can occur when the heat and ultra violet waves penetrate the cloud layer and get trapped causing the heat we find on Venus. I contend that there may be some greenhouse contribution to the extreme heat, even though no calculations have been shown for it, but that the major cause is electromagnetic due to the retrograde rotation of the planet. I contend that Venus will someday resume normal counterclockwise rotation and much of the cloud layer will dissipate, some water will return to the surface and it is possible it will be very Earth like and a nice place to visit. I made this contention on a science forum discussion and was not given the benefit of serious attention. One reason was that there had not been published data on electromagnetic effects on Venus before my comment was made. The following is an excerpt from a news article of recent origin made long after my contentions as stated in my book.
“Evil twin' Venus astounds astronomers Thursday, 29 November 2007 Will Dunham Reuters
Venus probe may hint at our hellish fate. First X-ray image of Venus Lightning crackles in the atmosphere of Earth's 'evil twin' Venus, while the meager remnants of suspected bygone oceans continue to be whipped off the planet and lost to space, scientists say. They unveiled a series of findings from the European Space Agency's Venus Express mission to the planet closest to Earth not just in distance, but also in size.
The findings are published today in the journal Nature. A previous mission to Venus had detected hints that lightning was flashing through the planet's atmosphere. The instruments aboard Venus Express were able to unambiguously confirm the presence of lightning, the scientists say. They look like lightning bursts, very short discharges of electrical energy," says Professor Christopher Russell of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Oceans boiled off Long ago, Svedhem says, Venus was a much wetter place, probably with liquid water oceans like those on Earth and like those that scientists think once existed on Mars.
This finding does not prove I am right but it serves to pave the way in the right direction. I think, as I have argued in my book, that Venus on some occasion in the past was simply flipped over causing the counter clockwise rotation to be clockwise in relation to the Sun. That suggests that Venus rotation has been slowing down ever since due to the drag of the Sun’s gravitation and should be getting close to reversing its rotation in the future. Venus makes for a good story.
