Planetary system rotation

[insane_alien]

i was planning to attach a sheet showing the exact same thing but for some reason the forum said i dodn't have permission to upload a .xls file.

[elas]

you have a logarithmically distributed data set, sorting it on a logarithmic plot will result in a straigt line. this is something any statistician could tell you.

 

it would be the same if you plotted lake sizes in the same way, or anything that follows benfords law.

 

also, looking at that chart again you seem to have made a few ommisions. you have 49 disvisions on the x axis(and the 49-th contains data) but only 43 data points.

 

as it is a graph of size versus position in the data set that means you've took data out, what happened to that?

 

The wikipedia explanation of Benford's Law includes the following:

 

This distribution of first digits arises whenever a set of values has logarithms that are distributed uniformly, as is approximately the case with many measurements of real-world values.

 

So why did I have to fill in two gaps with predictions to obtain the approximate case? or could it be that Benford's Law enables the making of the predictions?

 

Thanks for pointing out the gaps; at a glance, a quick check reveals that removing the gaps reduces the margins of error; but I will need to do a complete revision of the graph table to be sure of that.

Edited September 19, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

because your data set is limited to 7 systems.

 

hardly the most comprehensive data set ever, and you didn't HAVE to put in predictions. and infact, you SHOULDn't have put in predictions.

 

i would estimate that if you had data on 100 or more planetary systems then the data would be a better fit to a straight line.

 

but again, this doesn't mean anything other than you sorted your dataset the way you sorted it. it has no physical significance at all.

[elas]

because your data set is limited to 7 systems.

 

hardly the most comprehensive data set ever, and you didn't HAVE to put in predictions. and infact, you SHOULDn't have put in predictions.

 

i would estimate that if you had data on 100 or more planetary systems then the data would be a better fit to a straight line.

 

but again, this doesn't mean anything other than you sorted your dataset the way you sorted it. it has no physical significance at all.

 

I have used all the known planetary systems with three or more planets.

[insane_alien]

I have used all the known planetary systems with three or more planets.

 

 

that may be, but it is still a paltry dataset. more data would be needed before you could even think about making predictions as well.

 

just because that is all the ones we have discovered, does not mean that those are the only ones out there.

 

also, i count 10 systems with 3 or more.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/planetary_systems/

Edited September 19, 2010 by insane_alien

[elas]

that may be, but it is still a paltry dataset. more data would be needed before you could even think about making predictions as well.

 

just because that is all the ones we have discovered, does not mean that those are the only ones out there.

 

also, i count 10 systems with 3 or more.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/planetary_systems/

 

Your ref. is to the table I used, on checking I can find only 9 systems with 3 or more planets, perhaps you are including epsilon Eridani with 3 quotes in the table, but no data is given for the two asteroid belts.

 

I take the view that the best use should be made of the available data in seeking to find a pointer to possible solutions, only time will tell if that is right or wrong. But note that this is one (rare) instance where astronomers using the Titius-Bode rule would make the same prediction as I make; the difference being that there is no end to Titius-Bode sequence of predictions, whereas I show that the predicted planet is the outermost planet.

 

It should also be noted that Titius-Bode originated from one planetary system (i.e. the solar system); by comparison having nine planetary systems to work with is an absolute luxury.

Edited September 20, 2010 by elas