Those involved in planetary science have long known that Newton’s view of the universe was that of isolated “billiard balls” occasionally perturbing each other and causing chaos. Yet, what is observed is clockwork stability. Clockwork stability, however, requires a feedback mechanism to control orbital spacing and, presently, that mechanism does not exist.
The Sun contains a whopping 99.9% of all the mass in the solar system and its influence is, literally, that of a god. So, in a practical sense, all motion begins with the rotation of the all-mighty Sun; i.e., (rotating gear shaft powering the planetary gears).
Planetary orbits, themselves, are comprised of uniform centrifugal radiative emanations from the Sun–the very same pressures responsible for the Hydrostatic Equilibrium that prevents the Sun from collapsing in on itself.
The Sun’s hydrostatic equilibrium point is its photospheric circumference–where the centrifugal radiative emanations spiraling outwards are matched by the forces of gravity spiraling inwards as in the above illustration.
Kepler’s laws of planetary motion goes on to remind us “that the force of the central gravity (the Sun) must be balanced by the centrifugal force of the orbiting planet.” But, what Kepler didn’t say is that the forces that manifest the photospheric circumference recreate themselves at uniform intervals of [10^7 X AU X 18.59267746]. The Earth, for instance, is at 1-AU, so [10,000,000 X 1-AU X 18.59267746 = 185,926,447.6-miles] which is the precise length of the Earth’s major axis. The same is true for all the planets. The only thing that changes is the number of AU.
The 10,000,000 dollar question is: Why 18.59267746?
I’ll try to answer that question in a moment, but first, some context; The theoretical speed with which the planets orbit the Sun is said to be a fine balance between the escape velocity that applies for their distance from the Sun and the speed below which an orbit would decay and the planets crash into the Sun. However, in the overall scheme of things, planetary mass and escape velocity are not even part of the equation.
Energy budgets the same for all planetary orbits
The so-called relative energy necessary to sustain an orbit is listed in the right-hand column of the above table–and as you’ll notice–they are all the same. I’ll get back to that in a minute, but first, the analytical values; the first column lists the planetary distances calculated in the previous table. Orbit time (in the next column) is simply the orbital period broken down into seconds. Then, the distance figures are divided by the time figures to calculate orbital velocities and listed in the middle column. Relative distances (in terms of AUs) are in the next column with their square roots listed next door. Finally, the column on the far right lists the energy budgets which are derived by multiplying the square root of the distance by velocity. The square root of distance is used because the effect of gravity diminishes with the square of the distance.
What does it mean?
The so-called energy budgets have been described to me as the quantity or volume of relative energy-units contained within the orbit’s perimeter (think pressure). The term relative is used because density dissipates with distance (AU). The farther the distance from the Sun the lesser the density and less density means less energy. Therefore, a larger volume is necessary to amass the budgeted amount of energy.
Here’s what I think is the bottom line; You’ll notice that Mercury and Neptune both have, relatively, the same energy budget—solely based on the square roots of their AUs X their velocities. The fact that Neptune is 30-times more massive is not even a consideration.
The implication is that expanding forces spiraling out from the Sun have an inverse relationship with gravitational (or compressive) forces spiraling in towards the Sun–meaning that both forces are impacted equally by the square of the distance. The result is an equilibrium vortex center (or homogeneous state) which negates planetary-mass altogether—implying there is no resistance to acceleration so the body is weightless, and therefore, its mass is zero. With each planet having zero mass, the relative energy requirement is the same (18.59267746).
10^7 is a relative unit of energy (RUE).
Your comments may be sent to email@example.com
Ronald G. Messick