so S&R i and those concerned:: if you are really interested and to seriously read, I checked my figures, and they are CORRECT. rechecked, google it please.
So, in the interest of accuracy, if you claim these are YOUR numbers, then please show your work. Otherwise, please show a citation.
Bode nos. are expressed in 1/10 AU. Astronomical units. No orbit is more than 5% off the bode/titius prediction. look at it please. if you have other numbers they are bogus.
So, you haven't define specifically what you intend the bode number to mean. Please do that. You own chart appears to simultaneously use AU and and 1/10th AU units. Is there a reason for that? Did you compare your numbers with NASA? I am just wanting to make sure that when you say any other numbers are bogus, you have a good solid foundation for saying so, particularly since you said no orbit was off more than 5% of predicted except for the two that were.
Which is it? Some or none?
Caedes, debunk the numbers yourself, do not use a spokesman please.
8 planets in a geometric progression sequence within 5% accuracy. a doubling 7 times , 2^8?
Quite an amusing position to take since you have yet to show any work or citations and can't count properly. It's 7 planets that come close, that two are way out of proportion.