Re: The Two Weak Links . [Archive]

View Full Version : Re: The Two Weak Links .

Craig Markwardt

July 5th 03, 05:45 AM

Repeating your message five times is discourteous.

(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> We always should use the total of quantity of a planetary mass
> and its satellites at evaluation of the ratioes of the given type.

Since your ratios are completely arbitrary, your choice of masses is
irrelevant.

> Please make the answer to a problem:
> " Why the different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES have
> different so-called
> ' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters '? "
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Implicit in the above question is the presupposition that there are
different celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic
constants." What is the basis for this claim? Which theories? Which
constants?

(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:

> Craig Markwardt > wrote in message
> >...
> > GR is a theory which explains the dynamics of masses under
> > gravitation.
>
> Since " GR is a theory which explains the dynamics of masses under
> gravitation ", the " almighty " GR is obliged to give theoretical
> explanation for 'The empirical law connecting values of planetary
> masses in the Solar system'.

Illogical conclusion. Ohm's law has nothing to say about the
formative composition or masses of resistors, and yet it is a useful
description of the behavior of current flow. GR has nothing to say
about the compositions or masses of planets, but it is a useful
description of the dynamical behaviors of masses under gravitation.

> > Furthermore, it is quite possible for one to find suggestive
> > numerological relations between groups of quantities, whether or not
> > the relation is real. In the case above, the number of combinations
> > of ratios A/(B+C), (A+B)/C or (A+B)/(C+D) is 756. Therefore it is not
> > surprising that of there could be a tens of ratios close to a whole
> > number (within +/- 0.05) even for a purely random distribution of
> > planetary masses. That you found only eight of them suggests that you
> > could have found quite a few more, if you so chose.

I notice your lack of response to my comment.

> The equivalence of inert mass and gravitational mass is physically
> error guess on the basis of local measurings.

It is an assumption which has been tested extensively. See for
example Nordtvedt, *The Century of Space Science*, 2001, Kluwer,
Netherlands, p. 335-352. Tests of gravity do not require the
assumption of the equivalence principle. However, tests to date have
been consistent with the equivalence principle.

> > Extra-solar tests of GR rely on highly precise timing tests.
>
> What other physical quantities you can precision measure in these
> " Extra-solar tests of GR " except for " highly precise timing tests
> "?

Irrelevant question. Highly precise timing tests are not
quantities. In pulsar timing, the orbit determination is sufficiently
accurate to provide tests of gravitational models *without* assuming
GR is correct.

> > You have
> > not presented a basis for your declaration that the tests are
> > "extremely speculative." You have not presented a quantitative or
> > technical argument refuting a set of results which is indeed highly
> > quantitative, careful and technical (for example, measurement of
> > Shapiro delay within a binary pulsar wystem to within 35 ns; or of
> > orbital decay predicted by gravitational radiation; see references).
> > Therefore I reject your claim.
>
> I disagree with you, these so-called "measurings" have extremely
> speculative character, since even in the Solar System we have
> methodological problems in desired precision of gravitational
> measurings.

This claim is unsubstantiated. As shown by decades of measurement
within the solar system, high precisions can be achieved. [ references
provided numerous times. ] Since your "empirical law" apparently has
nothing to say about the dynamics of planets, and the propagation of
radiation in the solar system, it is irrelevant to the discussion. [
I say apparently, because you have provided no evidence. ]

CM

Charles Cagle

July 5th 03, 10:55 PM

In article >, Donna C
> wrote:

> Charles Cagle > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
> >
> > A correct model of gravity is already known.
> > Charles Cagle
> >
>
> Charles - are you doing gravity stuff now too?

Shows what you know. I've always been doing gravity - a number of
years back I unified electromagnetism and gravity and found a
previously unsuspected property of gravity which is a charge separation
effect. A strong gravitational field will cause elementary charged
particles to overlap in momentum space.

> Did you give up on your atomic model?

Of course not.

> I remember asking you to show how
> hydrogen exists in your atomic model and how you could
> possibly calculate the experimentally observed spectrum of
> hydrogen. I never saw your calculation. Did you ever bother
> to do the calculation?
>
> --Donna C

Nope.

Charles Cagle

Sam Wormley

July 6th 03, 01:56 AM

Charles Cagle wrote:
>
>
> Shows what you know. I've always been doing gravity - a number of
> years back I unified electromagnetism and gravity and found a
> previously unsuspected property of gravity which is a charge separation
> effect. A strong gravitational field will cause elementary charged
> particles to overlap in momentum space.
>

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf

Sam Wormley

July 6th 03, 01:56 AM

Charles Cagle

July 7th 03, 07:52 AM

In article >, Gordon D. Pusch
> wrote:

> (Donna C) writes:
>
> > Charles Cagle > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> In article >, Donna C
> >> > wrote:
> [...]
> >>> I remember asking you to show how
> >>> hydrogen exists in your atomic model and how you could
> >>> possibly calculate the experimentally observed spectrum of
> >>> hydrogen. I never saw your calculation. Did you ever bother
> >>> to do the calculation?
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > I'm sure you are unable to provide such a calculation because your
> > model is not capable of showing that hydrogen is stable. That really
> > is a serious flaw you have.
>
> Like most crackpots, Cagle doesn't believe in doing calculations or
> making quantitative predictions --- he falsely believes his rambling verbose
> qualitative "Just So Stories" trump any falsifiable quantitative prediction.
> Basically, he's nothing but a shaman; too bad for him he has no tribe to
> hoodwink...
>
>
> -- Gordon D. Pusch

It seems to me that you always think that there's safety in numbers,
Pusch, and are ready to leap on the bandwagon. You really don't know
what I believe in, dimwit, so why do you make such false statements
indicating that you do? Oh, now I remember. You have a tendency to
prevaricate a lot.

I'm neither a shaman nor am I trying to hoodwink people. It is small
and trite of you to try and project your own characteristics onto
others. You try to give the false impression that quantitative
predictions are equivalent to an understanding of underlying physics.
One can make accurate quantitative predictions of the orbits of planets
and still not have an understanding of the nature of gravity. You can
make extremely accurate statistical based predictions dealing with
quanta because you're dealing with large numbers of processes, or
quanta but when it comes down to dealing with the discrete processes or
events and relationships between quanta you're in the dark. There's
more than one road to take and I've merely decided that I wanted one
that gave me more than accurate calculations. I wanted to understand
structure, dynamics, processes and relationships. You obviously are
satisfied with less. I don't think that is something that you should
put on a patrician air about but rather I find it amusing that you do
when in fact is should be a cause for shame to be satisfied living in
ignorance.

There are no rambling just so stories associated with my modeling. For
you to claim that there are is more of your dishonesty. Instead I have
a model that not only provides a meaningful analysis of the nature of
charge but using the model for charge it becomes trivial to achieve an
understanding of the nature of gravity. With all of your calculations
it turns out that you cannot even predict an aspect of gravity (the
charge separation effect) which I discovered by using simple axioms
related to motion, deductive logic and Maxwell's equations.

You believe in continuous structures and in the concept of a field that
is infinitely differentiable and I doubt that you can even tell me what
might be wrong with basing your physics on such a belief which is
really more of a religious conviction than a 'scientific' finding.

You may very well be a highly educated person, Pusch, but no amount of
education can make up for the lack of wisdom that you frequently
display.

Charles Cagle

Aleksandr Timofeev

July 9th 03, 05:13 PM

Craig Markwardt > wrote in message
>...
> Repeating your message five times is discourteous.
>
> (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> > We always should use the total of quantity of a planetary mass
> > and its satellites at evaluation of the ratioes of the given type.
>
> Since your ratios are completely arbitrary, your choice of masses is
> irrelevant.
>
>
> > Please make the answer to a problem:
> > " Why the different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES have
> > different so-called
> > ' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters '? "
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Implicit in the above question is the presupposition that there are
> different celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic
> constants." What is the basis for this claim?

The basis for for this claim is the existence of the several national
celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic constants
and parameters."

> Which theories? Which constants?

Please explain differences of quantities of masses of planets
in the different celestial mechanics theories 1980 and 1995.

> (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
>
> > Craig Markwardt > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > GR is a theory which explains the dynamics of masses under
> > > gravitation.
> >
> > Since " GR is a theory which explains the dynamics of masses under
> > gravitation ", the " almighty " GR is obliged to give theoretical
> > explanation for 'The empirical law connecting values of planetary
> > masses in the Solar system'.
>
> Illogical conclusion. Ohm's law has nothing to say about the
> formative composition or masses of resistors, and yet it is a useful
> description of the behavior of current flow. GR has nothing to say
> about the compositions or masses of planets, but it is a useful
> description of the dynamical behaviors of masses under gravitation.

In this case I shall offer you other parable from a history physicists:

================================================== ================
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0204110453.6e1764ef%40posting .google.com

From: (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Date: 11 Apr 2002 05:53:29 -0700

================================================== ================
Parable First told by V. B. Braginsky.
================================================== ================

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Balmer.html

Below I have made a quotations of
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

" Johann Jakob Balmer

Born: 1 May 1825 in Lausen, Basel-Land, Switzerland
Died: 12 March 1898 in Basel, Switzerland

Balmer taught in Basel all his life.
From 1859 until his death in 1898 Balmer was a school teacher
of mathematics at a secondary school for girls in the city.
From 1865 until 1890 he was also a university lecturer in mathematics
at the University of Basel where his main field of interest was
geometry.

However, despite being a mathematics teacher and lecturer all his
life, Balmer is best remembered for his work on spectral series
and his formula, given in 1885, for the wavelengths of the spectral
lines of the hydrogen atom.
This was set out in one of only two papers which he wrote on
spectra of the elements, the second being in 1897.

The major contribution which Balmer made, however, depended much
more on his mathematical skills than on his understanding of physics,
for his produced a formula which gave the wavelengths of the observed
lines produced by the hydrogen atom
without giving any physical explanation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Previous attempts had looked for formulas of quite different types
and had failed to come up with anything which matched the experimental
evidence. Putting m = 7 gave Balmer a predicted value for the next
line and indeed a colleague at the University of Basel was able to
tell Balmer that this line had been observed and the wavelength agreed
with a high level of accuracy with the one Balmer's formula predicted.

In his paper of 1885 Balmer suggested that giving n other small
integer values would give the wavelengths of other series produced
by the hydrogen atom. Indeed this prediction turned out to be correct
and these series of lines were later observed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++
The reason why the formula holds was not understood in Balmer's lifetime
and had to wait until the theoretical work of Niels Bohr in 1913.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++

Balmer's formula led to more general formulas for the spectral lines
of other atoms. Others who, basing their ideas on those of Balmer,
were able to achieve such results included Rydberg, Kayser and Runge. "

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Bohr_Niels.html

Below I have made a quotations of
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

Niels Henrik David Bohr

"On 24 July 1912, Bohr left Rutherford's group in Manchester and
returned to Copenhagen to continue to develop his new theory of
the atom, completing the work in 1913. The same year he published
three papers of fundamental importance on the theory of the atom.
The first paper was on the hydrogen atom, the next two on the
structure of atoms heavier than hydrogen. "

V. B. Braginsky has made a following inference:

"The reason why the Balmer's formula holds was not understood
in Balmer's lifetime and had to wait until the theoretical work
of Niels Bohr in 1913.

Niels Bohr has won the Nobel prize, unfortunately Johann Balmer
the Nobel prize has not won, though he had all legal grounds for
this purpose."

================================================== ================
End of Parable First told by V. B. Braginsky.
================================================== ================

>
> > > Furthermore, it is quite possible for one to find suggestive
> > > numerological relations between groups of quantities, whether or not
> > > the relation is real. In the case above, the number of combinations
> > > of ratios A/(B+C), (A+B)/C or (A+B)/(C+D) is 756. Therefore it is not
> > > surprising that of there could be a tens of ratios close to a whole
> > > number (within +/- 0.05) even for a purely random distribution of
> > > planetary masses. That you found only eight of them suggests that you
> > > could have found quite a few more, if you so chose.
>
> I notice your lack of response to my comment.

Response to your comment are:
1) Uncommon or Unparalleled CLASS linear combinations
of triple nearest planetary system masses;
2) PHYSICAL SIMMETRY;
3) Fibonacci numbers

================================================== ==================
I express a profound gratitude to Craig Markwardt for the indicating
of inexactness in my data tables.
================================================== ==================

Chiral symmetry of ratios

When organised graphically, the ratios of linear combinations of
the planetary masses considered, reveal a chain of gravitational
correlations between triples of planets possessing chiral symmetry:

10
I<----------->|
I 13 |
I<==============>I
I | I
? 39 I | I
|<----------------->I 33 |<---------------->I 24 | I
| |<------------------>I |<----------------->I
| | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I
| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - -------------------------------------------------------------->

The following symbols here are used in this graphic:

MSsa + MSju <-> 2 + 1; MSur + MSne <-> 4 + 3;
MSve + MSea <-> 6 + 5; MSme + MSma <-> 8 + 7;
MSju <-> 1; MSsa <-> 2; MSne <-> 3; MSur <-> 4;
MSea <-> 5; MSve <-> 6; MSma <-> 7; MSme <-> 8;

5
Direct gravitational correlation - <====>;
33
Reverse gravitational correlation - <---------->

Note: Here it is necessary to understand exclusive importance of
the numbers Fibonacci for gravitational regularities inside
the Solar system in common case:

If you look at direct gravitational connections than you will see the
following numbers: 3, 5, 8, 13.
For the third hypothetical quad there should be now following numbers
accordingly: 21 and 34.

[Snip for the comments in the following message.]

Aleksandr Timofeev

July 10th 03, 12:06 PM

Craig Markwardt > wrote in message >...

[Snip for the comments in the following message.]

> > Please make the answer to a problem:
> > " Why the different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES have
> > different so-called
> > ' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters '? "
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Implicit in the above question is the presupposition that there are
>different celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic
>constants." What is the basis for this claim?

There are some systems of astronomical constants.
At usage of miscellaneous constants all of them should be
coordinated among themselves and are coordinated with other
data of a problem.
The astronomical constants reflect spatial and time
configurations of actual celestial bodies. The constants are
defined on the basis of observations. Because of inexactness
of measurings always there are indeterminacies in the retrieved
values. There are also dependences between errors of constants.
Some variants are mutual of co-ordinated values can approximately
equally obey to the observational data. The miscellaneous systems
of astronomical constants differ, as a rule, composition
of initial observational data.
The incoordination of accepted values of constants can
introduce in new errors to result of investigations.

>Which theories?

In a history of definition of astronomical constants
there were some stable versions. Here some of them:

- the Newcome's System, 1898
- IAU system, 1964
- IAU system, 1976
- DE102 system, 1977
- DE200 system, 1982
- IERS system, 1992
- DE403 system, 1995.

>Which constants?

As an example of exact usage of system of astronomical
constants it is possible to give a following situation.
With the help of an DE200 ephemeris the rectangular coordinates
of planets expressed in astronomical units are evaluated.
Then the values of coordinates are translated in kilometers.
Thus for an astronomical unit 149597870.66 kms are possesing
the value, which one differs from value accepted in the IERS
system. And it is correct, as just this value was used at making
ephemerises in system DE200.

And so on with other values of so called " astronomical
constants " from " stable versions" .
" In a history of definition of _astronomical constants_
there were numerous of systems of stable versions... "

================================================== ===========
The gravitational astronomy or different celestial mechanics
theories are an amazing example

of guessing on numbers, i.e. numerology >;^)
================================================== ===========

[Snip for the comments in the following message.]

Craig Markwardt

July 13th 03, 11:33 PM

(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:

> Craig Markwardt > wrote in message
> >...
> > Repeating your message five times is discourteous.
> >
> > (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> > > We always should use the total of quantity of a planetary mass
> > > and its satellites at evaluation of the ratioes of the given type.
> >
> > Since your ratios are completely arbitrary, your choice of masses is
> > irrelevant.
> >
[ from another scattered message ]
> Since including values of masses of planets your different so-called
> ' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters ' "
> are completely arbitrary " in different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES,
> my " choice of 'Magic Ratios of UNPARALLELED CLASS linear combinations
> of triples nearest planetary system masses ' is _always_ relevant."

You make the erroneous presupposition that the masses in celestial
mechanics solutions are arbitrary. They are not. A different set of
masses would not provide a fit to the data, within the confidence
limits, and so therefore your comment is irrelevant.

> ================================================== ===================
> Absolutely all classic conservation laws are obliged to own existence
> by PHYSICAL SYMMETRY of a material WORLD.
> ================================================== ===================

Physical laws are human models of how nature behaves. Nature is not
obliged to obey any human preconception.

> > > Please make the answer to a problem:
> > > " Why the different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES have
> > > different so-called
> > > ' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters '? "
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Implicit in the above question is the presupposition that there are
> > different celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic
> > constants." What is the basis for this claim?
>
> The basis for for this claim is the existence of the several national
> celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic constants
> and parameters."

You make the erroneous presupposition that the solutions that you
mention [ in various other scattered messages ] are different theories
of celestial mechanics, which they are not. They are different
*solutions* to the same theory of gravitation, with different sets of
observations. [ refs. 1-3 ] In general, as the amount of independent
observational data increases, the confidence limits on the parameters
-- such as the planetary masses -- will become tighter.

> > [ Timofeev: ]
> > > Since " GR is a theory which explains the dynamics of masses under
> > > gravitation ", the " almighty " GR is obliged to give theoretical
> > > explanation for 'The empirical law connecting values of planetary
> > > masses in the Solar system'.
> >
> > Illogical conclusion. Ohm's law has nothing to say about the
> > formative composition or masses of resistors, and yet it is a useful
> > description of the behavior of current flow. GR has nothing to say
> > about the compositions or masses of planets, but it is a useful
> > description of the dynamical behaviors of masses under gravitation.
>
> In this case I shall offer you other parable from a history physicists:

The referenced parable is irrelevant, because neither Balmer's nor
Bohr's theories of the atom explain the compositions, masses or
charges of the atomic constituents.

> > > > Furthermore, it is quite possible for one to find suggestive
> > > > numerological relations between groups of quantities, whether or not
> > > > the relation is real. In the case above, the number of combinations
> > > > of ratios A/(B+C), (A+B)/C or (A+B)/(C+D) is 756. Therefore it is not
> > > > surprising that of there could be a tens of ratios close to a whole
> > > > number (within +/- 0.05) even for a purely random distribution of
> > > > planetary masses. That you found only eight of them suggests that you
> > > > could have found quite a few more, if you so chose.
> >
> > I notice your lack of response to my comment.
>
> Response to your comment are:
> 1) Uncommon or Unparalleled CLASS linear combinations
> of triple nearest planetary system masses;
> 2) PHYSICAL SIMMETRY;
> 3) Fibonacci numbers

These responses are irrelevant to my comment. It is possible to
choose *many* different combinations of ratios by random which lie
close to a whole number. Since you deliberately chose which ratios
appear in your "theory," there is nothing self evident or
"unparalleled" about them.

> The equivalence of inert mass and gravitational mass is physically
> error guess on the basis of local measurings.

It is an assumption which has been tested extensively. See for
example Nordtvedt, *The Century of Space Science*, 2001, Kluwer,
Netherlands, p. 335-352. Tests of gravity do not require the
assumption of the equivalence principle. However, tests to date have
been consistent with the equivalence principle.

> > Extra-solar tests of GR rely on highly precise timing tests.
>
> What other physical quantities you can precision measure in these
> " Extra-solar tests of GR " except for " highly precise timing tests
> "?

Irrelevant question. Highly precise timing tests are not
quantities. In pulsar timing, the orbit determination is sufficiently
accurate to provide tests of gravitational models *without* assuming
GR is correct.

> > You have
> > not presented a basis for your declaration that the tests are
> > "extremely speculative." You have not presented a quantitative or
> > technical argument refuting a set of results which is indeed highly
> > quantitative, careful and technical (for example, measurement of
> > Shapiro delay within a binary pulsar wystem to within 35 ns; or of
> > orbital decay predicted by gravitational radiation; see references).
> > Therefore I reject your claim.
>
> I disagree with you, these so-called "measurings" have extremely
> speculative character, since even in the Solar System we have
> methodological problems in desired precision of gravitational
> measurings.

This claim is unsubstantiated. As shown by decades of measurement
within the solar system, high precisions can be achieved. [ references
provided numerous times. ] Since your "empirical law" apparently has
nothing to say about the dynamics of planets, and the propagation of
radiation in the solar system, it is irrelevant to the discussion. [
I say apparently, because you have provided no evidence. ]

CM

References

1. Standish, E.M.: 1990, "The Observational Basis for JPL's DE200, the
planetary ephemeris of the Astronomical Almanac",
Astron. Astrophys., vol. 233, pp. 252-271.
2. Standish, E.M. 1995, "JPL Planetary and Lunary Ephemerides DE403/LE403"
Interoffice Memorandum, IOM 314.10-127
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/de403iom/de403iom.ps
2. Standish, E.M. 1998, "JPL Planetary and Lunary Ephemerides DE405/LE405"
Interoffice Memorandum, IOM 312.F - 98 - 048
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/de405iom/de405iom.ps

[email protected]

July 25th 03, 09:20 AM

Craig Markwardt > wrote in message
>...
> (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
>
[snip]
> > > Therefore I reject your claim.
> >
> > I disagree with you, these so-called "measurings" have extremely
> > speculative character, since even in the Solar System we have
> > methodological problems in desired precision of gravitational
> > measurings.
>
> This claim is unsubstantiated. As shown by decades of measurement
> within the solar system, high precisions can be achieved.

Now there are two independent methods of measurements of values
of masses of planets of a Solar system basing on two in essence
various experimental techniques:

1. Classical methods of optimum selection of values of masses
of planets for large number of the fixed observations of positions
of planets for many hundreds years;

2. New or modern methods of an evaluation of value of a planetary
mass from measurements of interaction of a planet with artificial
space vehicles sent to a planet from the Earth.

Now International astronomical union officially authorizes values
of masses of planets on the basis of measurements of interaction of
a planet with artificial space vehicles sent to the appropriate planet
from the Earth, i.e. value of masses of planets on the basis of
measurements on a new methods.

***
What can you say about problems of 'The theoretical analysis
of differences of values of masses of a particular planet, which
are obtained as a result of application of in essence
distinguishing methods of
measurements?'

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0202160723.3cfa902f%40posting .goo

gle.com

> [ references provided numerous times. ]

"Between the cup and the lip a morsel may slip."

Irrelevant " references provided numerous times. " ;-)
It's irrelevant to cite such outdated evidences. >;-)

1. Are scientists able to measure value of a pure gravitational
planetary mass now?

2. Are scientists able to measure value of a pure inert
planetary mass now?

3. What is difference between a pure inert planetary mass and
a pure gravitational planetary mass?

" Between the devil and the deep sea "

> Since your "empirical law" apparently has
> nothing to say about the dynamics of planets, and the propagation of
> radiation in the solar system, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

************************************************** ***************

> [ I say apparently, because you have provided no evidence. ]

What " evidence " I must " apparently " to provide for your
pleasure?

************************************************** ***************

>
>
> CM
>
> References
>
> 1. Standish, E.M.: 1990, "The Observational Basis for JPL's DE200,
the
> planetary ephemeris of the Astronomical Almanac",
> Astron. Astrophys., vol. 233, pp. 252-271.
> 2. Standish, E.M. 1995, "JPL Planetary and Lunary Ephemerides
DE403/LE403"
> Interoffice Memorandum, IOM 314.10-127
> http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/de403iom/de403iom.ps
> 2. Standish, E.M. 1998, "JPL Planetary and Lunary Ephemerides
DE405/LE405"
> Interoffice Memorandum, IOM 312.F - 98 - 048
> http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/de405iom/de405iom.ps

Best regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev

----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email