Is Uranus underestimated?

My continuing work on the Solar System Mechanics.

This is one part of a series of articles I have been writing about the mechanics of the Solar System. This article, as well as all the others, is of my original copy write and deal with my own original discoveries of the detailed mathematics of the Solar System. In one article I made the contention that Sir Isaac Newton’s formula when weighing the mass of the Su was actually measuring the mass of the entire Solar System meaning the value was the total mass of everything in orbit around the Sun. That article relied on my use of Miles-Mass to get the measure of a planets mass without reliance upon Newton’s formulas to compare values. The result was, as I contended, was to show that my Miles-Mass method provided a lot less mass value for the Sun and the planets when compared to the published results using Newton’s formula. There was no contention that Newton’s formula was in error.

That article is titled, Isaac Newton, was he slightly mistaken?

One of my pet mysteries related to the planet Uranus when compared to planet Neptune. Uranus is larger than Neptune but Neptune weighs in heavier than Uranus. I thought there might be a problem related to the unique rotation and tilt of Uranus that was giving us a false value for its mass. In other words, were we simply underestimating the real mass of Uranus due to its unique characteristics? I went over each of the planets details and concluded that I could not demonstrate that Uranus was more massive than thought and that was my simplistic conclusion supporting the published data. More detailed evaluation is called for when time permits. That article is entitled, Planet Uranus, is it underestimated? It can be found at www.AmericonChronicle.com.

This brings us up to date on the purpose of this particular article. It is important to me that my methods received acceptance when I do my work and the mathematics are proven to be perfectly accurate. While working up the differences between Uranus and Neptune I relied on a method of getting the orbital velocity of satellites revolving around planets that relied upon the Miles-Mass value for the individual planet divided by the mean orbit radius of the satellite. I compared the orbit of Uranus Titania, and the orbit velocity, to what the orbital velocity would be if Titania were in the same orbit around Neptune and this confirmed that the faster orbit velocity around Neptune confirmed that Neptune was indeed more massive than Uranus. I had done that kind of orbit comparison before so I knew in advance is was a workable way to get a relative comparison of the mass of the planets.

The one thing that was new to me was my discovery that there was a perfectly uniform use of Mile-Mass values that could be compared on a planet-to-planet basis like clockwork. The background methods are an included part of my work of many years standing. I had simply never tried this particular approach before I made the comparisons I made between Uranus and Neptune. The relevance of this discovery for the uniform values of Miles-Mass is not just more demonstrated proof of the detailed mechanics of the Solar System, but also as very important confirmation of my Miles-Mass values in the mathematics.

In other articles and in my book, Surfing the Solar System, I detail the means by which I arrive at the MM values for the Sun and the planets. I have also discussed the method in some of my earlier articles. For this article I will carry it one step farther. With regard to comparisons between Uranus and Neptune I was using the satellite Titania of Uranus for the workup.  I will return to that limited comparison first.

Neptune MM value is 1,663,774.0 miles

Uranus   MM value is 1,372,202,7 miles = 1.212484

Titania mean orbit radius is 270,930.4 miles around Uranus.

U 1372202.7 / 270930.4 = 5.0647 and ^(1/2) = 2.25 mps velocity of orbit.

N 1663774.0 / 270930.4 = 6.1409 and ^(1/2) = 2.48 mps velocity of orbit.

We have confirmed that Neptune appears more massive the Uranus.

Note the square root 1.212484, of N/U, is 1.1022 x 2.25 = 2.48 mps.

This was a break through for me in the comparison of planet masses.

This shows that we can obtain the orbital velocity of an object around one planet by simply using the MM values and the known mean orbit velocity of an object orbiting another planet. This, to me, is amazing confirmation of the fine line mechanics of the Solar system as well as the value of the Miles-Mass method. To put the method to the ultimate test I will run it for all of the planets using the satellite Titania for all of the comparisons. Note I have never arrived at a miles mass value for Mercury and Venus because they have no satellites. For them I use the published mass ratio as compared to the Earth as my MM ratio.

My Earth MM value is 97,022. So 97022 times .0558 for Mercury and .8150 times 97022 for Venus will serve as my MM conversions.

All other MM values are founded upon the actual satellite periods.

The following chart will put satellite Titania in orbit around all planets.

Planet=======Miles-Mass===/=Titania===Vmps=== ^(1/2)

Mercury=====5413.83=======/=270930.4=. 0199===. 14106

Venus=======7907.29=======/=270930.4=. 02918===. 17083

Earth========97022========/=270930.4=. 3581===. 59842

Mars========10319=========/=270930.4=. 03808==. 19516

Jupiter=======30378021======/=270930.4=112.125= 10.589

Saturn=======9117035.8======/=270930.4=33.650== 5.80

Uranus=======1372202.7======/=270930.4=5.0647== 2.250

Neptune======1663774.04=====/=270930.4=6.1409== 2.478

It was not possible for me to run out the entire sequence above due to the margin requirements. The next step is to compare the Miles-Mass for Uranus divided by each planet to get a value to check against the known velocities to see if I can duplicate the result I got for Neptune.

Planets==========Ratio======^(1/2)===from above== mpsv

U MM / Mercury=== 253.462====15.92==X=. 14106===== 2.2456

U MM / Venus==== 173.5366===13.173==X=. 17083===== 2.2499

U MM / Earth===== 14.1432====3.7607==X=. 59842===== 2.250

U MM / Mars====== 132.978====11.531=X=. 19516====== 2.250

U MM / Jupiter==== .04517=====. 21253=X= 10.589====== 2.250

U MM / Saturn===== .1505=====. 38794==X= 5.80======= 2.250

U MM / Uranus===== 1======== 1======X= 2.250====== 2.250

U MM / Neptune====. 82475====. 90815==X= 2.478====== 2.250

The last chart shows that the ratio of acceleration for each planet that is exerted on the satellite is directly proportional to the Miles-Mass of each planet, precisely. The two that do not measure precisely are Mercury and Venus and you will recall I used the published ratio for each derived from Newton’s and not my own MM created result. Even with that difference the final results are essentially 100% uniform. To me, this is amazing. It demonstrates my MM values are very useful and very accurate. There is nothing unique about Titania; it was just a satellite I picked at random from the many in orbit around Uranus. This method will work for all of the satellites because the satellite mass does not contribute to the formula at all.

© James J. Wood, Sr.

www.surfingthesolarsystem.com

www.thesolarsimplicity.com

www.egpok.com           A book on the Great Pyramid.