We are weird? - No!

[KrupS]

Quote from the topic:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=30966&start=0 :

The 'we' in this thread title refers to our solar system.

An article in New Scientist : 14 May 2011 page 47 (paper copy)

It reviews the results of extra-solar planet finding, with over 200 planets so far discovered in a little under 200 star systems. The surprise finding is that nothing like our solar system has yet been discovered.

Our solar system is atypical. We have a system with small rocky planets close to the sun, and large gas giants further out. All are in almost circular orbits, moving in a well behaved, stately way, around the sun. And of course, we have Earth in the liquid water belt, also in a beautiful, stable, almost circular orbit.

Other stellar systems have all kinds of different systems. Giant planets orbiting very close to their parent star are common. Wildly eccentic and elliptical orbits. Planets massively bigger than Jupiter. Every indication of violent interactions between bodies within those systems.

At first glance it seems that all this is true. But consider the system Gliese 581. We write the order of the values of orbital radii: 0.030, 0.041, 0.073, 0.146, 0.220, 0.758. Multiply this numbers by 23.65. Obtain a series of numbers: 0,71, 0,97; 1.73, 3.45, 5.20, 17.9. What is it?

Comparable to the orbital radius of planets in the solar system:
0.71 ; 0.97 ; 1.73 ; 3.45 ; 5.20 ; --- ; 17.9
0.72 ; 1.00 ; 1.52 ; ---- ; 5.20 ; 9.54 ; 19.1
As you can see, there is an obvious similarity, which confirms that planetary systems are created for one scenario.
Although over five hundred planets discovered so far, but there are the only 7 systems are multyplanetary enough (more 3 planet) for reliable analysis. There are : Gliese 581, Gliese 876, 55Cancri, Upsilon Andromedae A system, My Arae, HD10180, Kepler-11. And all of them have made in accordance with an universal principle (but not Bode-Titius's "Law"). More over, systems of moons of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus have made in this way.
Note the following important fact. When comparing the solar system with a system Gliese 581 major satelites of the systems have coincided to each other. This is our general principle.
Let's draw up a comparative table of the six systems (left to right): Gliese 581, Solar, Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, Gliese 876. Orbital radius of the largest satelites take equal to 1. This celestial bodies are: Gliese 581 d, Jupiter, Titan, Titania, Ganymede, Gliese 876 e. Consider the part of systems lying below the orbits of primary satelite. Obtain the table:

[caveman1917]

The reason the latex doesn't work is probably because you have newlines in your code. The forum will convert it into an image url, which probably won't parse with newlines in it, so you need to write everything on a single line.

ETA test:

[KrupS]

Thank you for the correct registration table. I still have not figured out myself.

[caveman1917]

Thank you for the correct registration table. I still have not figured out myself.

Put the entire thing between [ tex] and [/ tex] on a single line, don't start a new line.
So do this

[ tex]\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}1 & 1 & 1& 1& 1 & 1 \\\hline0,664& & & & & \\\hline& & & 0,610& 0,627& 0,631 \\\hline& & 0,431& 0,438 & & \\\hline& & & & 0,394& 0,395 \\\hline0,331 & & & & & \\\hline& 0,293 & 0,309 & 0,297 & & \\\hline& & 0,241& & & \\\hline0,186 & 0,191 & 0,195 & 0,196 & & \\\hline& & 0,152 & & & \\\hline0,136 & 0,139 & & & & \\\end{array}[/ tex]

instead of this

[ tex]
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1 & 1 & 1& 1& 1 & 1 \\
\hline
0,664& & & & & \\
\hline
& & & 0,610& 0,627& 0,631 \\
\hline
& & 0,431& 0,438 & & \\
\hline
& & & & 0,394& 0,395 \\
\hline
0,331 & & & & & \\
\hline
& 0,293 & 0,309 & 0,297 & & \\
\hline
& & 0,241& & & \\
\hline
0,186 & 0,191 & 0,195 & 0,196 & & \\
\hline
& & 0,152 & & & \\
\hline
0,136 & 0,139 & & & & \\
\end{array}[ /tex]

(without the spaces inside the tex tags).

[KrupS]

Thank you. Everything turned out.

[Shaula]

Um looking at that table I see no universal laws. There are more exceptions (gaps) than there are similarities! The modal number of entries per line is one. That about sums up the strength of it.

[Githyanki]

Sure, there are over 200 ESP in 200 systems, but if we can't see terrestrial worlds and only find gas giants, then we are biased as we can only see the systems not like ours.

What about systems like 47 Ursa and E.Eridandi that have gas giants orbiting in places where they do in our system but we can't detect the Earth-like worlds.

I would like to see data on the orbits of these worlds and compare to how eccentric or close to their star is.

[amensae]

...we are biased as we can only see the systems not like ours.

Exactly. It will be some time yet before detection techniques are refined enough to eliminate the selection bias. Until then, it is difficult to come to any definitive conclusions about how "typical" (or not) our solar system is.

[KrupS]

Of course, galaxies (like our and so others) have a planetary systems in a literal sense similar to our solar system. Scientists carefully search for these exact copies of our system, hoping to get an answer to the question how the solar system had formed. However, they wrongly neglected systems ostensibly a completely different type.

However, in reality, these supposedly radically different systems are the most interesting. Take, for example, satellite systems of giant planets. Their weight, spatial dimensions, the periods of the bodies are different in a thousand times. This systems differ in chemical composition too. But all systems have a remarkable similarity in the structure. The relative positions of the planets and satellites are very similar, despite the vast difference in absolute values.

This similarity is caused by one simple mechanism for constructing a planetary and satellite systems. Realizing the cause of the similarities, we find the clue to deciphering the formation of planets.

I give you a more convenient form of comparative tables of planetary and satellite systems.



In celestial mechanics, there is no quantization. However, the relative positions of the planets (or moons) are very strange. Positions of the planets for some reason is not accidental. Planets tend to cluster around certain numerical values of orbital radii.

Celestial bodies, which have similar numerical values of the relative orbital radii (with respect to the orbital radius of the primary planet) , located in the same row.

[Shaula]

I repeat my last - what pattern?

Have you done any analysis that can bound the confidences on your conclusions? What level of statistical confidence can you assign them?

[holmes4]

Before any one trys to compare the solar system with any thing found by Kepler you must read up one the method being used. The mission has not been running long enough to find a planet in a 1 year orbit (this take upto 4 years) and the mission will not run long enough to find the likes of a planet in Jupiters orbit!.

Mark

[KrupS]

At first glance, the problem of "quantization" of the planetary orbits is easily solved. It is known that the Galilean satellites of Jupiter Ganymede, Europa and Io move so that the periods of treatment are as 4:2:1. The newly discovered planet e, b, c in exoplanetary system Gliese 876 move in the same way. But equality of the periods implies relations orbital radii (Kepler's third law). Thus, the equality of the relative orbital radii in systems of Jupiter and Gliese 876 is a consequence of 4:2:1 orbital resonance in these systems.

The solar system has many orbital resonances bb.blogspot.(http://quicom/2010/04/orbital-resonance.html). This phenomenon has not yet been explained theoretically. But the presence of orbital resonances for planets and moons in our planet system to suggest that orbital resonances exist in other planetary systems.

Here is a table of the relative resonant orbits:

The numbers in its cells are calculated by Kepler's third law:

where n-number of the column, m - row number.

Using the table, we can know whether the two planets are in a state of orbital resonance. Take, for example, Jupiter and Saturn, the orbital radii are equal, respectively, 5.20 and 9.54 astronomical unit. 5.20 / 9.5 = 0.545. This number is very close to the tabulated number of 0.543 at the intersection of the fifth row and second column. Hence the periods of Jupiter and Saturn are approximately 2:5 (approximate 2:5 orbital resonance).

Note that the number of rows 3,4,5,7 in a comparative table of six systems are very similar to the bold numbers in Table resonances. The numbers in row 9 of comparative tables are also close to the value:

for the resonance of 1 / 12.

[holmes4]

[QUOTE=KrupS;1904555]Of course, galaxies (like our and so others) have a planetary systems in a literal sense similar to our solar system. Scientists carefully search for these exact copies of our system, hoping to get an answer to the question how the solar system had formed. However, they wrongly neglected systems ostensibly a completely different type.
/QUOTE]

How do they look for exact copies of our own solar system?

How do they look selectively?

Kepler is currently looking at 100,000 stars at the same time.

Mark

[holmes4]

At first glance, the problem of "quantization" of the planetary orbits is easily solved. It is known that the Galilean satellites of Jupiter Ganymede, Europa and Io move so that the periods of treatment are as 4:2:1. The newly discovered planet e, b, c in exoplanetary system Gliese 876 move in the same way. But equality of the periods implies relations orbital radii (Kepler's third law). Thus, the equality of the relative orbital radii in systems of Jupiter and Gliese 876 is a consequence of 4:2:1 orbital resonance in these systems.

Please explain how Kepler's third law (or any of Kepler's laws) have anything to do with this.

Kepler 3rd law - The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit

Mark