The Ooparts Collection

Home

20th Century Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History

Eyewitness Accounts

There Were Giants In The Earth in Those Days

Mega Fauna

Those Sophisticated "Cave Men"

Search for Noah's Ark

DNA, The Ultimate Oopart

The Bone Yards

Underwater Cities, Monuments?

Ancient Atomic Knowledge?

Salvation. What Must You Do To Be Saved?

Search

Links

Guestbook

PAGE 11

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, Psalms 8:3

The Solar System: The Ultimate Oopart 2; Astronomical Enigma

One of the most confounding enigma’s that we have encountered and examined thus far has been recognized for more than 300 years although it is largely unknown even among astronomers.

This enigma involves the orbits of the planets of our solar system. As is the case with the mysteries of DNA, it is perhaps more difficult to see that an enigma or mystery exists at all but once it is understood, it becomes one of the most astounding "ooparts" to be found on these pages or anywhere else. Simply put, the orbits of the planets in our solar system are non-random; they have apparently been deliberately placed in their respective orbits.

The basic prevailing “scientific” theory for the formation of the universe is the big bang theory; that matter was once compacted in a very dense small particle that exploded and eventually coalesced into the stars and planets that we see today.

With respect to the planets orbiting the sun, including earth, the assumption is that these newly formed planets were captured by the sun and that they occupy random elliptical orbits around it.

However, such is not the case. Before we examine this enigma, let’s set it up. "Non-randomness" can imply design. It very often does. For instance, if a group of huge boulders are found at the bottom of a mountain, in an arbitrary dispersion, one might suppose that they may have been carried there by some natural process. However; what if each of the boulders were found to be exactly 1 mile apart—to the millimeter?

It’s certainly possible that two of those huge stones could co-incidentally be exactly 1 mile apart but what if three of the stones were exactly that distance apart?

This is the problem (for materialists, evolutionists etc.) that not just two—but all the planets of this solar system and as far as we can determine--even other solar systems seem to adhere to a mathematical formula which predicts exactly where they will be in relation to the sun. A relationship that no one has ever been able to solve from the viewpoint of a natural phenomenon. The odds of this kind of astronomical relationship being pure coincidence are of course---astronomical :0).

The Titius-Bode Law:

Johann Titius, a German astronomer, discovered a numerical relationship describing the relative distances of the then-known planets from the sun. Another German astronomer, Johann Bode, popularized the relationship and, as is often the way of science, became associated with it. It is often called Bode's law; occasionally, Titius-Bode law.

The semimajor axes of the orbits of the planets follow the relationship: a = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2n where a is the semimajor axis is astronomical units (AU) and the exponent, n, takes values minus infinity, 1,2,3, ...

This was strictly a numerological relationship and, to this day, has resisted a compelling physical rationale. The value for n=3, 2.8 AU, corresponds to the location of the asteroid belt, and gives mild support for the hypothesis that the asteroids come from a failed or exploded planet.

The first test of the law occurred a few years later (1781) when William Herschel discovered Uranus --- at the distance predicted by the relationship. Neptune, the next planet to be discovered, is much closer to the Sun than predicted by the law. Pluto occupies the n=8 position instead. Another oddity is that the first term in the relationship is minus infinity rather than, say, zero.

This suggests that the underlying physical law is somewhat different than the current form.

Recently, the first planets outside our Solar System have been discovered orbiting pulsars (the central stars of which are neutron stars). It appears that these planets also obey the Titius-Bode law. Some other solar systems don't seem to follow this "law", but only some of the planets in these systems have been discovered. It is interesting that this simple relationship has been known for over 300 years but still defies physical proof (or disproof.

Source: Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy

G.E. Curtis' Contribution to the Enigma

Mr. G.E. Curtis has recently rediscovered the phenomena and his adjustments to the formula indicate how closely it predicts the orbits of the planets of our system.

Conclusions reached by Mr. G. E. S. Curtis in regard to the Equation: Summary

1) The major orbits of the Solar System are contained within, and interrelated by, the main equation.

2) The ratio b/a and of course B/A is equal to the orbit of Venus but is also determined by the orbit of Venus. This is not simply an approximation, it is accurate to five decimal places, and unique.

This ratio pervades the whole Solar System.

3) The equations are bi-directional, an inner orbit could be calculated from an outer orbit.

4) The orbits can be calculated from Pythagoras.

5) The orbits can be calculated with the use of trigonometry.

6) The implied triangles are all similar, and similar to a triangle constructed from Venus/Earth mean orbits.

7) Orbits can be calculated by adding and subtracting constants.

8) Equations allow orbital distances to be interchanged with orbital periods.

9) Any orbit can be calculated from any other, and all the orbits can be calculated from any two.

10) The orbits can be calculated by a number of different routes from any datum orbits. Deviations from Nortons data will vary very slightly depending on the route taken.

Taking all the above facts into consideration, it is difficult to maintain the notion that the Solar System originated solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles.

The percentage variation column indicates that the prediction of the planets orbits versus the actual orbits are virtually identical. This should not be the case if the big bang theory is correct and there is no physical law or gravity related theory which would explain this non-random planetary alignment.

Table demonstrating how closely the real orbits conform to the mathematical pattern described in text.

PLANET

Actual
Orbit in AU

Calculated
Orbit in AU

Percentage
Deviation

MERCURY

0.3870987

Datum

Zero

VENUS

0.7233322

0.723331002

-0.00017

EARTH

Unity

Unity

Zero

MARS

1.5236915

1.5239159

+0.0147

JUPITER

5.2028039

5.195539524

-0.14

SATURN

9.5388437

9.3020245

2.5

URANUS

19.181871

19.18321601

+0.007

NEPTUNE

30.057924

30.02787608

-0.1

PLUTO

39.439

39.41830763

-0.0525

One scientist who had examined Mr. Curtis’ work wrote the following letter seeking help from another Astronomer at a well know university. Here is an excerpt from that letter:

Peter, I hope you can help me with this problem:

SOME RELATIONSHIPS CONNECTING THE SEMI-MAJOR AXES OF PLANETARY ORBITS.

Introduction

Although I have attempted to simplify the mathematical treatment of the analysis that follows, this work appears to be entirely attributable to Mr G. Curtis, who first discussed the matter with me a few months ago. He claims to have limited mathematical background but, he has been able to obtain a number of unexpected relationships between the lengths of the semi-major axes of the planets' elliptical orbits.

As far as I am able to judge, the relationships do not derive from any fundamental mathematical theory (eg Kepler's laws) and yet, in the main, they so closely reflect the truth that I am reluctant to dismiss the results as a consequence of pure chance. Unfortunately, my own knowledge of astronomy is so sparse that I am not able to judge the merits of these findings, so I am seeking the views of a more authoritative and reliable source.

…. Comment

Some aspects of the above investigation are not completely precise but, even allowing for such deficiencies, I find many of the results so surprising and apparently without any mathematical explanation. If there is some 'well-known' theory which accounts for such strange results, I would be grateful to receive details of it but, in any case, an informed second opinion would be welcomed by both Eric and myself.

Many thanks for your help,

Regards..

Source: An Astronomical Enigma

See Also: Mr. Curtis' Theory About the Tower of Babel Which he says led to his discovery of the Astro enigma

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Next>>>