06 July 2007

6 July 2007

Observing LocationVP
Observational Period1000-1015 EDT
Atmospheric Conditions
Cloud CoverClear
very light haze
Temperature77°F
WindCalm
HumidityModerate
Feels LikeWarm

It feels warm and a little close so I suspect that there is more than a little haze up there.

TransparencyGood
SeeingII
Instruments Brunton 8x21 compact binocular w/Welco gold shade 14 welder's filter - Charlie
Observing PartyCharlie Ridgway

Target Sunspots
ConstellationGem
CategorySolar
Time
yyyymmdd.hhmm
20070706 EDT
Comments
Distance
Light Time
1.016673 AU
8ms
Angular Size31'30.8"
Altitude48.3°
Heliographic Latitude
(B0)
3.43°
Heliographic Longitude
(L0)
156.08°
Position Angle
(P)
-0.35°
Carrington rotation number
(CR)
2058

I only have the small binoculars with me again today and did not see 961 although Space Weather says it is still there. I suspect that it is shrinking and checked Active Region Explorer which shows that it could be either growing or shrinking.

 Groups SpotsR
North0 0 0
South0 0 0
Total0 0 0
R = (Groups * 10) + Spots)



I was straightening up a pile of books last night when I came across the essential atlas of astronomy which was initially published in Spanish as Atlas de Astronomia and translated into English by Barron’s. I bought it at one of those stores that caters to K-12 learners.

Looking through it I came across Bode’s Law, which I have always wondered about but never analyzed. How accurate is it?

I created a spreadsheet to answer that question and did some light research on the law.

It turns out that the law wasn’t developed by J. E. Boode (1717-1826) at all, he is just the one who made it popular and his name was applied to it. Johann Daniel Titius (1729-1796) actually came up with the idea that there was a relationship in the distances of the planets from the Sun and devised a “law” to explain that relationship and to predict an object at 2.8 au from the Sun, which is where Ceres was later found on 1Jan1801 by Giuseppe Piazzi.

Titius made a list of 4s down a page and next to them, starting with the second 4 made a list beginning with 3 and doubling that value on each subsequent line. He added the two adjacent values together and divided them by 10 giving a distance factor for where an object should be. The distance factor for the Earth was 1 or 1 au. At that time only the planets Mercury through Saturn were known and the “law” is close to the distance for those planets. But there was no known planet at distance 2.8 au, where the law said there should be one. The law predicted the location of Uranus, but placed Pluto where Neptune is.

Bode wrote a book in 1772 that referenced the “law” and used the law to show that Uranus was right where it should be when it was discovered by William Herschel in 1781. But there was still no planet between Mars and Jupiter. A society was formed to find the missing planet. Piazzi subsequently found the object but it was lost before anyone else could validate his claim. Carl Friedrich Gauss used a new technique to predict the position where the object would be found and it was recovered. (The new technique was able to predict the path using only a few prior sightings and didn’t care what shape the orbit was.)

Ceres was called a planet. Subsequently Pallas (1802), Juno (1804) and Vesta (1807) were discovered at roughly the same distance and they were termed asteroids so Ceres was demoted. Now with the IAU’s definition of a planet Ceres has been elevated to a position between that of an asteroid and a planet. It is now a dwarf planet, at least until the definition of a planet is revised in a few years.

The law became known as Bode’s law after it appeared in his book but is more properly called the Titius-Bode Law.

For my chart I have added the Asteroid Belt and Ceres to see how they fit in, and extended the chart out through Eris and the next, still unknown object. Objects in light yellow were unknown in Titius’ time and the one in pink is still unknown.

Object  Distance FactorPredicted Distance
kilometers
Acutual Mean Distance
kilometers
Prediction Error
Mercury400.459,840,00057,900,0003.24%
Venus430.7104,720,000108,000,000-3.13%
Eathr461.0149,600,000149,600,0000.00%
Mars4121.6239,360,000228,000,0004.75%
Asteroid Belt4242.8418,880,000448,800,000-7.14%
Ceres4242.8418,880,000413,900,0001.19%
Jupiter4485.2777,920,000778,000,000-0.01%
Saturn49610.01,496,000,0001,430,000,0004.41%
Uranus419219.62,932,160,0002,870,000,0002.12%
Neptune438438.85,804,480,0004,500,000,00022.47%
Pluto476877.211,549,120,0005,900,000,00048.91%
Eris4153615423,038,400,00010,200,000,00055.73%
?43072307.646,016,960,000  

Disclaimer
This is my personal record of my astronomical observations. It was written for my personal reference. The only reason it is in a blog is that a blog is a very convenient way to get the records formatted more or less uniformly and they will, hopefully, have greater longevity at Google where the servers are backed up than on my hard drive which never gets backed up. I occasionally include copyrighted material in my posts. I do this to make it convenient for me to access things I think I might want to refer to again. I think of this like making a photocopy of something I read that I put in a file where I can find it when I want it. As I understand copyright law, as explained in the DVD series Copyright Compliance by Chip Taylor Communications, this use is allowed under the Fair Use doctrine since I am not making any money on this blog, I don’t publicize the blog, and only occasionally post small excerpts of copyrighted works.


Disclosure
This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. We write for our own purposes. However, we may be influenced by our background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.

The owner(s) of this blog will never receive compensation in any way from this blog.

The owner(s) of this blog is not compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the blog owners. If we claim or appear to be experts on a certain topic or product or service area, we will only endorse products or services that we believe, based on our expertise, are worthy of such endorsement. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.

This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest.