# Solar Harmonics & Planetary Orbits

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:03:48 GMT
From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
Organization: KC Computer Services
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics
Subject: Solar Harmonics & Planetary Orbits

Current research concerning the study of the nature of the sun, and particularly in regard to fluctuations in the sun's output have provided an increasingly new wealth of data. Such projects include the Gong Project, and other similar ones.

As an example, it has been found that there are strong solar oscillations of period 160 minutes and many between 5 and 6 minutes. If you calculate the internodal distance of these periods as electromagnetic waves (half the wavelength) the answers turn out to be 9.6 and 0.33 astronomical units respectively.

This is a simple calculation:

160 minutes * 60 seconds/minute * 299792 km/second / 149.6*10^6 km/a.u
[period]--- * [convert to secs] * c --> wavelength [convert to a.u.]

Note: An Astronomical Unit (a.u.) is defined as being the average distance from the earth to the sun, and is equivalent to 92.9 million miles, or 149.6 million kilometers.

Because the internodal distance is half the wave, we divide the above result by 2 to arrive at an internodal distance of 9.6 astronomic units for the 160 minute periodic fluctuations, and 0.22 astronomic units for the shorter fluctuations.

Very strong indirect evidence for such long electromagnetic waves is that the outer planets (Saturn to Pluto) are near multiples of 9.75 au from the sun and the inner ones (Mercury to Mars) at multiples of 0.35 au. from the sun. It seems that the distances or periods have changed slightly since the solar system formed but that the planets did form at the nodes of standing electromagnetic waves which have the same periods as solar oscillations. This is quite remarkable, and needs to be highlighted:

## The Outer Planets & the 9.75 a.u. nodes

Planet Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto
n 1 2 3 4
n*9.75 au 9.75 19.5 29.25 39.0
Actual distance 9.5 19.2 30.1 39.4

Can it be disputed that these 4 outer planets are at near multiples of 9.75 a.u. from the sun?

## The Inner Planets & the 0.35 a.u. nodes

Planet Mercury Venus Earth Mars
n 1 2 3 4
n*0.35 au 0.35 0.70 1.05 1.40
Actual distance 0.39 0.72 1.00 1.52

Can it either be disputed that the distribution of the inner planets are near multiples of 0.35 a.u.? (not quite so near because there are many solar oscillations in the 5 to 6 minute range and so there is quite a lot of modulation of the waves).

For further information

-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
Web Reference: http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm

# Further to this Thread ...

Subject: Planet distances and Solar oscillations
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 01:52:16 GMT
From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)

In sci.physics lbsys@aol.com wrote:

>So some questions to Ray:

> Did you perform a probability analysis of the patterns being a random distribution?
> What's the result of it, and what's the result, if you include the other planet(s)?

I have now done an analysis using all 9 planets distances (in a.u.) which uses a standard technique for searching for values which are either multiples or factors of the numbers. Listed below in order are the 4 most dominant values which fit the data best and the exact multiplier/divisors. They are 10.065au, 5.012au, 0.7335au 0.3759au. A value fits best if the sum of the differences of the multiplier/divisors from the nearest integers is minimised.

[note: use a non-proportional font such as courier]

## All Planets & the dominant data values

###### *104.97

Now let us convert these distances from au to light minutes
and calculate the wave periods assuming that they are internodal distances (i.e. half wavelengths).

## Conversion from a.u to Wave Period

Distance in a.u. 10.065 5.012 .7335 .3759 (Units)
Light time equivalent 83.71 41.68 6.100 3.126 (light minutes)
Wave period 167.42 83.36 12.200 6.252 (minutes)

It is quite clear that the four figures are actually two pairs,
each pair having a near 1:2 ratio.

It is interesting now to compare these figures to the solar oscillation periods of 160.0 and 5.5+/-0.5 minutes (the range is because there are multiple values mostly in this range). Let us look at these figures on a log scale:

1------2------4--#*--8---*-16-----32-----64-*--126-*#-256 minutes

Note: * denotes period, while # denotes solar oscillations

If the planetary distances are assumed to be essentially random then the four periods derived are also random and the probability of the two solar oscillations matching as well as they each do to one of the periods is about p=.029 which is a modest degree of significance.

It is noticeable that the solar oscillations are both faster than the periods implied by the planetary distances (~5.5 vs 6.2 and 160 vs 167 minutes). If the wave theory of planetary formation is accepted then this difference tells us that either the solar oscillation periods or the planetary distances have altered by 5 to 10% since the planets formed. The most likely change would be in the solar oscillation periods as the sun's temperature would have altered in the last 5 billion years.

It is interesting also that the inner planets (except mars) are at very near exact fractions of the outer planet 10au "wave" and the outer planets are still near multiples of the inner planet 0.37au "wave". I have previously found that the asteroids also favour multiples of this wave.

This is much more satisfying than the usual Bode's law
because it gives a good reason why the planets form exactly where they do.

-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
Web Reference: http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm

# Further to this Thread ...

From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: prfbrown@magna.com.au (Mountain Man)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:18:37 GMT
Subject: solar oscillations and planetary distances

You wil remember that the outer planets fitted the 160 minute oscillation better than the inner planets fit the 5 minute one. I had not appreciated that the inner planets orbits have significantly changed since formation due to tidal action.

According to this paper the distances were actually in better agreement when the planets were formed.

bp887@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Angel Garcia) wrote:

> The following data represents the published distance at accretion time,
> (some 3 gigayears ago ???, say) are:

## Distances at accretion time

###### 1.32

Thanks for these figures.
I am surprised that Mars distance would have changed by more than the Earth's distance. That seems wrong to me.

> (see TETET-96): such estimated distances follow from 'measurements
> interpretation' in the Phobos Chart (1978, 1981)
> AND currently (1996) from new insights in the Cosmogonic
> theory of Dr. Lahoz. This theory is related to Hydrodynamics
> of the aboriginal solar nebula and (so far) has nothing to do
> with 'oscillations of the present status of the sun'.

Sure, I understand that.

It is my suggestion that the planets formed at distances related to the wavelengths of solar oscillations. If we accept the above figures, then they fit quite well to multiples of 0.32 au which is the internodal distance of an e/m wave of period 5.3 minutes. That is in good agreement with the present 5 minute solar oscillations which have most of their energy between 5 and 6 minutes and average 5.5 minutes.

Previously the fit of the outer planets with the solar 160 minute ocsillation was good but the inner planets did not fit the 5 minute oscillation so well. The fact that the inner planets orbit sizes have significantly changed explains the difference.

-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
Web Reference: http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm