Planetary Formation in Harmonics Theory

[RayTomes]

As a result of issues raised in this thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2681&p=29036 I am starting this new thread on planetary formation.

In the harmonics theory (see fohttp://ray.tomes.biz/maths.htmlr details) the universe is composed of standing wave structures which (because of non-linearities) develop harmonics which are also standing waves and therefore do the same. From this simple premise the entire structure of the Universe (with dominant scales at the Hubble scale, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, .... cells, atoms and nucleons) is predicted.

In this post I will deal with primarily the formation of planets on standing waves around the Sun. I do not specify whether the waves are gravitational or electromagnetic. They may be some combination of the two, but they definitely have light speed propagation.

At the planetary scale the dominant waves are also present in the Sun as oscillations to this day. The outer planets from Saturn on out are on the nodes of a standing wave with period 160 minutes, while Jupiter is on the node of a wave of 80 minutes. It is appropriate to mention that there is a 160 minute oscillation in the Sun. Let us do the calculations on the wave length:

160 minutes = 9600 seconds in which time light travels 2878 million kilometres or 19.2 astronomical units. So the nodes of such a wave are at 9.6 AU spacings. Compare that to the distances of the outer planets from the Sun:
Saturn 9.5 AU, Uranus 19.2 AU, Neptune 30.1 AU and Pluto 39.4 AU (yes I know it got demoted). You can see that theses planets fit such a wave very well. Jupiter is near half as far from the Sun as Saturn, at 5.2 AU.

The inner planets are on a much smaller wave, and their distances are less accurately fitting the waves. The Sun has a set of oscillations called the 5-minute oscillations. There are many different modes with range of period from about 3 ro 11 minutes, but most of the stronger oscillations are between 5 and 6 minutes. If we consider a 5.5 minute period, this will make standing waves from the Sun with wavelength given by 5.5 minutes = 330 seconds = 98.9 million km = 0.66 AU. Therefore the nodes of such a wave are at spacings of about 0.33, 0.66, 0.99 and 1.32 AU. However because there are many modes we have to allow some lack of goodness of fit here. But all the same, we find the inner planets at:
Mercury 0.39 AU, Venus 0.72 AU, Earth 1.00 AU, Mars 1.52 AU. We suspect that either the wave was a little slower when the planets formed, or they have moved away from the Sun (due to tidal action) or a bit of both.

The figures that I prefer for the waves that the planets are on are shown in this image:



You can see that the waves are related by integer ratios of 2 - 7 - 2 and an additional 3 below that also gives the peaks of the asteroid belt as a smaller wave.

Now this is the bit that should knock Jim's socks off.

According to the harmonics theory each wave develops harmonics and they develop further harmonics according to a set pattern explained on my web pages as mentioned above at http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html. If we examine the pattern below the outer planet and inner planet waves we find an interesting fact. Be aware that from any strong wave, the strongest harmonics generally go 2, 4, 12, ... and not 2, 4, 8 etc. So when we consider the element burning process of the Sun and look at the atomic weights (harmonics theory is interested in atomic weights not atomic numbers as standard theory is, because mass is proportional to energy is proportional to frequency - and cycles are measured by frequency) of isotopes we expect the sequence 1, 2, 4, 12 which is exactly what happens in stars. H1 combines to make D2 then He4 and finally C12 (the Sun isn't up to that last stage yet).

So we find that the Sun and outer planets are mainly made of H1, D2 and He4 with the 1 on the outside and the 4 nearer the cores. Now comes the fun part ...

What is the Atmosphere of the earth mainly? Answer N14.
What is the crust mainly? Answer O16 and Si28.
What is the core mainly? Answer Fe56.
Now we see here the sequence 14, 28 and 56 which is our friend 1, 2, 4 all multiplied by 14. This only applies to atomic weights (frequencies) and not to atomic numbers.

What is the ratio of the orbital spacings of the inner and outer planets? It is 28 If we take the Saturn wave, or 14 if we take the Jupiter wave. That means that the inner planets are on a wave that has a frequency that is 14 times the Jupiter wave (or 28 times the Saturn wave). At the same time, we find that the atomic weights of the common nuclei of both follow the same pattern of 1, 2, 4 expected by harmonics theory but at a frequency 14 times higher for the inner planets. The same frequency ratio as for the orbits.

You cannot get results like that with standard theory. It does not recognize the importance of the planets orbital sizes or their compositions. A does not explain why matter takes the path of combination from H1 to D2 to He4 to C12. These are just weird things that happen in standard physics. In harmonics theory those exact values are expected. As are the inner planets compositions based on their smaller orbits.

[junglelord]

It was Tesla, Bearden, Maxwell, and others who studied their work, that taught me the universal implications of standing waves. Like I said, I get it.

[webolife]

I've alluded to but am unable technically to reprint here, Robert Archer Smith's take on this same harmonic plan for the solar system. Much depends on the total relative mass of the system, so not all stars would have planetary systems exactly like ours... in fact it would be "surprising" to find our system is not mostly unique. However, RA Smith applied a simple rule of ratios of concentric circumscribed polygons (specifically hexagons and squares, he dubbed this "polytaxis") which when superimposed "resonate" with each other at the exact orbital positions of the planets and also with the peak of the M-J asteroid system. He relates the ratios in a novel way he refers to as Areal Mass Equivalence[AME], and uses this resulting pattern to predict the masses of all the planets based entirely upon their orbital radius, to be more precise, the semi-major axes of their orbits. This yields a closer correspondence than the pictures shown above, and Bode's Rule, as well as predicting a total approx 3pluto mass for the kuiper belt objects. Interestingly, and similar to Ray Tomes' notes, the pattern also applies to and manifests in the periodic table's atomic masses. There is no scenario that particularly fits a "creation" plan for the solar system, but several views on the maintenance of the system. "Gravitation-only" is unable to answer such questions as:
1. Why such a geometrically precise arrangement of planets as we see, ie the "harmony of the heavenly spheres"?
2. Why angular momentum is concentrated toward the periphery rather than center of the system?
3. Why sun/moon optical size and tidal connections are so essential and finely tuned?
4. Why solar "fusion" is not able to be recreated in a lab?
5. Many other questions brought up in TPODs and other articles, as well as in this forum.

[RayTomes]

I've alluded to but am unable technically to reprint here, Robert Archer Smith's take on this same harmonic plan for the solar system. Much depends on the total relative mass of the system, so not all stars would have planetary systems exactly like ours... in fact it would be "surprising" to find our system is not mostly unique./quote]
Agreed that the scale depends on the mass of the system, which is effectively the mass of the star. Other stars with similar mass may well have the same waves present, or at least closely related ones harmonically.

In the first other case of a star with multiple planets, PSR B1257+12, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12 the first 3 planets have distances almost exactly half of the distances of Mercury, Venus and Earth from the Sun. Later another planet was found at almost exactly half of Jupiter's distance.
Sun: Me 0.387, Ve 0.723, Ea 1.000, Ju 5.20
half: 0.194, 0.362, 0.500, 2.60
Pulsar: 0.19, 0.36, 0.46, 2.6
The similarity is so great that we have to see the underlying unity. Note that a pulsar has mass 1.4 times the Sun. It is tempting to see the distances as proportional to the mass squared as that would be nearly 2 times.

However, RA Smith applied a simple rule of ratios of concentric circumscribed polygons (specifically hexagons and squares, he dubbed this "polytaxis") which when superimposed "resonate" with each other at the exact orbital positions of the planets and also with the peak of the M-J asteroid system. He relates the ratios in a novel way he refers to as Areal Mass Equivalence[AME], and uses this resulting pattern to predict the masses of all the planets based entirely upon their orbital radius, to be more precise, the semi-major axes of their orbits. This yields a closer correspondence than the pictures shown above, and Bode's Rule, as well as predicting a total approx 3pluto mass for the kuiper belt objects. Interestingly, and similar to Ray Tomes' notes, the pattern also applies to and manifests in the periodic table's atomic masses. There is no scenario that particularly fits a "creation" plan for the solar system, but several views on the maintenance of the system. "Gravitation-only" is unable to answer such questions as:
1. Why such a geometrically precise arrangement of planets as we see, ie the "harmony of the heavenly spheres"?
2. Why angular momentum is concentrated toward the periphery rather than center of the system?
3. Why sun/moon optical size and tidal connections are so essential and finely tuned?
4. Why solar "fusion" is not able to be recreated in a lab?
5. Many other questions brought up in TPODs and other articles, as well as in this forum.

There is so much interesting stuff here that could be added. Just a few thoughts ...

As regards 2, the harmonics theory indicates that following stellar wave creation would eventually happen giant planet waves followed by terrestrial planet waves. I am not generally able to calculate planet and other large object masses, although there are some interesting ratios of planet masses to be found. Where mass relates to frequency then calculations can be done, so that includes atomic particles and atomic weights as well as the spectrum of galactic black hole masses that relate to the same waves as the outer planets. BHs have radii of event horizons that favour multiples and fractions of 160 light minutes.

As regards 4, I sometimes think that the process N14 --> Si28 --> Fe56 may well be going on inside the Earth still. It would explain the excess heat that comes out of the Earth. It is my belief that the ratio of atomic weights would shift slightly according to local energy concentrations. This would make it different on the Earth's surface (where we do all our measurements), inside the Earth, and inside the Sun. There are papers by Mario Nani in Aperion Journal that show that different substances vary in relative weight/mass with altitude (e.g. http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V04NO1PDF/V04n1nan.pdf). If that is so, then the relative change in isotope masses means that a different amount of energy is released to what is normally calculated as happening at the Earth's surface. This would explain the missing neutrinos and other things.

[junglelord]

Black holes do not exist, not on this forum.
Its your right to believe what you want but Stephen Crothers has this to say about
ric = 0
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

Which I think will make you see that the BH is a figment of imagination.

[jjohnson]

Ray: I went straight to your new thread and noted the planets' orbitals diagram from your web site's paper. I see that you haven't discriminated or decided whether the waves are gravitational or electromagnetic (EM) yet. I think that's prudent because the root source or character of gravity itself (like mass and charge) are still up in the air. Miles Mathis’s Unified Field theory is being worked out but his claim is that what we perceive as gravity is actually a unified field effect composed of two well-known forces coupled by the scaling constant G - i.e., gravity, which is attractive, and charge, or the E/M field or in Miles's terminology, the B-field (for 'bombardment'), which is repulsive. In my haste to familiarize myself with too many things in a short period of time I haven't sat down and concentrated on working out his math, but a few examples so far look plausible. That doesn't make them wrong or right, but it sparks my interest. Same with your approach.

Specifically what are you calling 'standing' waves? My field is acoustics and in that particular case a standing wave occurs when the path length of the waves from the source to the reflecting boundaries of the enclosure [a cavity or a room, for example] is an even multiple of wavelengths. This means that if you measure, at a given frequency, where the peak intensity occurs, it occurs in fixed positions with null points halfway between. In an open space, in a sound-wave-conducting medium, an acoustical wave does not have any reflections so a standing wave cannot occur. How about open space with gravity or EM waves? Are you assuming boundaries? If your waves propagate at c, the peaks start at the source and propagate at c, too, if there are no reflections which will add constructively and destructively in a way that creates the fixed-coordinate maxima and minima. These fixed resonant peaks seem unlikely in an unbounded universe. --But then, this isn't acoustics.


How are elliptical orbits sustained around, say, a star, if the favored orbital distance due to harmonics is generated spherically from the star? Why are there apparently no planets orbiting too far from the ecliptic in circular orbits that could be gravitationally and resonance-theory stable, but at steeply inclined orbits?

Well, good work! You've clearly touched my spark of curiosity! Keep up the dialog in the Forum. We are interested in seeing how and if these original ideas mesh with EU ideas, and if we need to evolve to incorporate them, and so on. And possibly vice versa. Thanks for your interest, sir.

Jim

[jjohnson]

JL: I was corresponding with Steve Crothers today on another subject, and he again pointed out there ain't no real thing as a BH (which dogma his proofs most elegantly show).
I don't care if people want to think that they exist or even mention them, since I think the general attitude at least here is that there is sufficient disproof of the math and revelations of ineptly borrowed math and suppositions and all that to indicate that they are mental constructs, and not that elegantly thought out, to boot.

To me, Black Holes are just fig newtons in my warped imagination!

[RayTomes]

Black holes do not exist, not on this forum.
...

Well there are things with very large masses in the centres of galaxies. The masses can be computed from the speed of the stuff orbiting the galactic core. The masses are generally of the order of 10^9 times the Sun, so they are big beasts. Whether or not they are BHs I cannot say for certain. However if the equations for BHs are used to compute their event horizon radii, then the answers that come out are quite fascinating. They tend to cluster around my friend the 160 (light) minute cycle. They like to be multiples and fractions of 74, 82 and 164 light minutes. The calculated BH radii cluster around the distances of the planets from the Sun. Of course that doesn't prove they are BHs but it shows that the BH radius calculation is meaningful.

[RayTomes]

Ray: I went straight to your new thread and noted the planets' orbitals diagram from your web site's paper. I see that you haven't discriminated or decided whether the waves are gravitational or electromagnetic (EM) yet. I think that's prudent because the root source or character of gravity itself (like mass and charge) are still up in the air.

I think ultimately there has to be a theory that combines the two in an accepted way, and expect that at large scales (at least) there may be some additional aspects to the waves so that we might not call them either e/m or gravitational.

Miles Mathis’s Unified Field theory is being worked out but his claim is that what we perceive as gravity is actually a unified field effect composed of two well-known forces coupled by the scaling constant G - i.e., gravity, which is attractive, and charge, or the E/M field or in Miles's terminology, the B-field (for 'bombardment'), which is repulsive. In my haste to familiarize myself with too many things in a short period of time I haven't sat down and concentrated on working out his math, but a few examples so far look plausible. That doesn't make them wrong or right, but it sparks my interest. Same with your approach.

I haven't had time to digest his stuff yet. Not sure when that will be. The amount of material is overwhelming, so not sure where to start. Suggestions welcome?

Specifically what are you calling 'standing' waves? My field is acoustics and in that particular case a standing wave occurs when the path length of the waves from the source to the reflecting boundaries of the enclosure [a cavity or a room, for example] is an even multiple of wavelengths. This means that if you measure, at a given frequency, where the peak intensity occurs, it occurs in fixed positions with null points halfway between. In an open space, in a sound-wave-conducting medium, an acoustical wave does not have any reflections so a standing wave cannot occur. How about open space with gravity or EM waves? Are you assuming boundaries? If your waves propagate at c, the peaks start at the source and propagate at c, too, if there are no reflections which will add constructively and destructively in a way that creates the fixed-coordinate maxima and minima. These fixed resonant peaks seem unlikely in an unbounded universe. --But then, this isn't acoustics.

Essentially there is no difference whether acoustics of e/m fields or whatever. There has to be some reason for waves to initially form at some size. It may be that there is a container, or the natural size of the body in vibration, or some characteristic wave size due to its formation (e.g. sea waves are related to depth and wind speed supposedly). I do not fully address this because I cannot say whether the Universe is finite or infinite. If it is finite, then the size of the Universe is the starting point. If it is infinite, then some characteristic of the medium and the energy concentration must be responsible for a starting wave length.

Once we have that all else follows. However we should understand that the waves that I refer to for galaxy and planet formation, and for atomic particles are not strictly speaking "contained". They are at most partly contained. To understand this, we can think of the next larger scale wave as making potential wells which have a wave structure too. That well size is the fundamental that harmonics will form from. If we have a well for each star, then there are standing waves og scale a few light years (the common wave lengths are 4.44, 5.9, 8.9, 9.6, 11.8 light years etc). Because of non-linearity, these waves will continue to form harmonics and those waves will too. This will make a further network of wells, but especially when harmonics of the order of 34560 are reached (as these ones are relatively stronger), and especially near the stars (as the non-linearity is greater nearer to the enrgy concentration), these harmonics will become very strong and visible. If we take waves of the order of 4.44 to 11.8 light years and calculate harmonics of the order of 34560 we get waves with period of the order of the 160 and 80 minute waves. So planetary waves form that are not fully contained by the stellar waves, but are constrained by them as they are harmonics of them.

How are elliptical orbits sustained around, say, a star, if the favored orbital distance due to harmonics is generated spherically from the star? Why are there apparently no planets orbiting too far from the ecliptic in circular orbits that could be gravitationally and resonance-theory stable, but at steeply inclined orbits?

I think the waves are most likely of the form called "spherical rotation" (do a search) which has an axis and a central plane. There are differences between the waves in the polar and equatorial regions. We have developed a mathematical model simulator for this but very much is still to be done.

Even the elliptical orbits do tend to fit with the wave pattern. For example, Pluto varies from about 30 to 50 AU with average 40 AU. All of these are on a 10 AU wave.

I have a concept which relates to some electrical phenomena I think. Basically I see that when a particular wave has too much energy then it tends to kick about on one of the related harmonic waves, trying to spread its energy out (the extreme concentration of energy leads to strong non-linearity). So in such cases rapid precession and maybe greater inclination may result. Although in the solar system the big inclinations are near the limits of where planets can form.

Well, good work! You've clearly touched my spark of curiosity! Keep up the dialog in the Forum. We are interested in seeing how and if these original ideas mesh with EU ideas, and if we need to evolve to incorporate them, and so on. And possibly vice versa. Thanks for your interest, sir.

Thanks. Yes, it can work both ways.

Yes, I do see connections with some EU ideas, but as you see there are some places where I am suspicious of EU ideas, notably in the solar system as far as planetary motion goes.

[RayTomes]

...
The figures that I prefer for the waves that the planets are on are shown in this image:


...

I forgot to mention that if you extend the Jupiter wave, you find additional clumps of smaller bodies in orbit about half way between each of the outer planets and also that distance beyond Pluto where there is the Kuiper belt with a very large number of bodies (additionally many bodies at Pluto's distance also).

So in summary, since I drew that diagram, many more objects have been found that fit the wave structure shown.

[junglelord]

Black holes do not exist, not on this forum.
...

Well there are things with very large masses in the centres of galaxies. The masses can be computed from the speed of the stuff orbiting the galactic core. The masses are generally of the order of 10^9 times the Sun, so they are big beasts. Whether or not they are BHs I cannot say for certain. However if the equations for BHs are used to compute their event horizon radii, then the answers that come out are quite fascinating. They tend to cluster around my friend the 160 (light) minute cycle. They like to be multiples and fractions of 74, 82 and 164 light minutes. The calculated BH radii cluster around the distances of the planets from the Sun. Of course that doesn't prove they are BHs but it shows that the BH radius calculation is meaningful.

I believe the center of the Milky Way is a a Phase Conjugate Pump. This is a fractal system and powers stars, is the process of human sight, etc.

The super bright plasmoid, known as Sagittarius A*, is the focal center of this system.
The rotational component is due to the focal point of the Phase Conjugate Pump.
The Faraday disc, called the Milky Way, is functional due to standing waves, from a galactic Phase Conjugate Pump Beam. The Standing Wave is a Phase Conjugate Non Linear Pump system.


Tesla's Impulse Magnifying Transmitter, the worlds first star machine, was a Phase Conjugate Pump.
The standing wave EM, longitudinal EM, is the way all (hence fractal) wireless EM is transmitted, both here on earth by Tesla and in the vacuum of space it is the ONLY way for the standing EM wave to propagate. There is only longitudinal EM in a vacuum.

[jjohnson]

Regarding 'black holes', Stephan Crothers shows where and how the earlier mathematicians got it wrong, so one of the basic cards in the House O' Kards supporting todays physics has been kicked out from underneath. The number that is the alleged radius has been misrepresented for decades, and is not physically what is claimed at all.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html
I'm glad someone does this type of homework for us - I sure couldn't.
For a little relief, of sorts, there is always http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

I remember how I felt in calculus class, after working hard on a homework problem, thinking I had gotten the concept right and the math seemed to work according to the rules, and yes, I knew I was sort of guessing a little here and there, only to hand it in and then find out "You got it wrong." I think that feeling is similar to what many of the mathematicians and physicists are worried about undergoing if even a few of the alternate ideas floating around today are correct. I can't help them with their feelings, but I wish they would channel their responses a little more constructively. As was said in The Godfather, "It ain't poisonal, Joey. It's just business."

[nick c]

hi RayTomes,

Your harmonics theory is interesting. It seems to me that you may be describing a resonant structure (planet placement) for the SS, but I don't see how this relates to planetary formation.
-What are these waves composed of?
-Do you assume that the Sun and it's family of planets formed from a primeval [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis]nebular cloud[/url2]?
-The planets exist within the Sun's plasmasphere, what role if any does plasma and electricity play in your theory?
-Does your theory apply to mini solar systems such as the satellite systems of the gas giants?
-How do other solar systems, planetary placements around other stars, fit into this scheme?
for instance the observation that "hot jupiters" are so common in many solar systems, of which [url2=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40255]Wasp 18[/url2] is a prime example.
-You have stated that there is a large mass (perhaps a BH) at the center of the galaxy. What is the indicator of the mass of the galactic center? Is it the result of the effect on the movement of the spiral arms and other parts of the galaxy and neighboring galaxies and assuming that the effect is a gravitational one? if so, this method is going to require the postulation of Dark Matter, as this is precisely the path that mainstream science has taken and that inevitably led to a DM explanation.

Nick

[webolife]

I have the same questions as Nick, but also would like to mention here for Ray, so he doesn't have to search it out elsewhere, my analogy of large scale structures like galaxies to a basketball... mathematically all the mass of a basketball is concentrated at its centroid, despite the obvious fact that no significant amount of matter resides there. Once Ray begins to separate the concepts of mass and matter, this may help him to see why it is not necessary for there to be a phantasmic BH at a galactic center... especially from EU standpoint, at an ACTIVE galactic core. The two vector/pressures involved, centropic [toward the centroid] and eccentric forces [involving such measurable quantities as angular momentum, potential and kinetic energy, inertia, etc.] balance galactic structures [JL likes to say "tensegrity"] beyond the scope of gravity-condensed-nebular hypotheses to explain without resorting to imaginary and contra-natural inventions like BHs and dark matter aand dark energy.

[junglelord]

Yes, the universal web is a tensegrity, again, another fractal.
I believe that tensegrity creates matter when angular momentum scanning the rotating magnetic field of the aether becomes encapsulates via tensegrity, the angular momentum, to create matter. Tension, in the form of standing EM waves, is continuous, stars and planets are discontinuous compression. Tensegrity.


Standing Harmonics, Tensegrity, Phase Conjugation, all go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.