A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The mass of the sun



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 7th 16, 09:09 AM posted to sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The mass of the sun

Dne 07/02/2016 v 10:07 Poutnik napsal(a):
Dne 07/02/2016 v 09:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):


The semi major axis of the nine planets given in terms of AU's
and converted to km are shown in the following table which also
gives the difference in % from the adjusted distances which I
have used in my calculations of GM. The problem with the value
of AU (149.600.000km) is its variation over the period of a year.
This variation is also imported into the semi major axis of every
planet and produces an additional distortion to their own eccentricities.
My two step method avoids this problem. I am also quite
happy about the error factor in G.


AU does not vary.
AU = 149 597 870 700 m exactly, by definition.

Earth orbit semi major axis vary very little
and over very long time.

Definitely not during the year.

P.S. You may confuse AU with actual Sun Earth distance
during the year. That does vary.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
  #22  
Old February 7th 16, 10:30 AM posted to sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The mass of the sun

Dne 07/02/2016 v 09:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):


The semi major axis of the nine planets given in terms of AU's and converted to km are shown in the following table which also gives the difference in % from the adjusted distances which I have used in my calculations of GM. The problem with the value of AU (149.600.000km) is its variation over the period of a year. This variation is also imported into the semi major axis of every planet and produces an additional distortion to their own eccentricities. My two step method avoids this problem. I am also quite happy about the error factor in G.

G.M products for Earth and Sun you can found here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...onal_parameter

I doubt you can get with accuracy anywhere near.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
  #23  
Old February 7th 16, 10:46 AM posted to sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The mass of the sun

Dne 07/02/2016 v 11:30 Poutnik napsal(a):
Dne 07/02/2016 v 09:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):


The semi major axis of the nine planets given in terms of AU's and converted to km are shown in the following table which also gives the difference in % from the adjusted distances which I have used in my calculations of GM. The problem with the value of AU (149.600.000km) is its variation over the period of a year. This variation is also imported into the semi major axis of every planet and produces an additional distortion to their own eccentricities. My two step method avoids this problem. I am also quite happy about the error factor in G.

G.M products for Earth and Sun you can found here

heliocentric gravitational constant

GMsun = 1.32712440018 x 10^20 (± 8 x 10^9) m3 s-2

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

  #24  
Old February 8th 16, 02:15 AM posted to sci.astro
Peter Riedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default The mass of the sun

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 5:07:28 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 07/02/2016 v 09:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):


The semi major axis of the nine planets given in terms of AU's
and converted to km are shown in the following table which also
gives the difference in % from the adjusted distances which I
have used in my calculations of GM. The problem with the value
of AU (149.600.000km) is its variation over the period of a year.
This variation is also imported into the semi major axis of every
planet and produces an additional distortion to their own eccentricities.
My two step method avoids this problem. I am also quite
happy about the error factor in G.


AU does not vary.
AU = 149 597 870 700 m exactly, by definition.

Earth orbit semi major axis vary very little
and over very long time.

Definitely not during the year.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.


My point. Au is by definition. My adjusted semi major radii produce nine exact results for GM.
  #25  
Old February 8th 16, 07:48 AM posted to sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The mass of the sun

Dne 08/02/2016 v 03:15 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

My point. Au is by definition. My adjusted semi major radii produce nine exact results for GM.


Exact output requires exact input, what is not the case
either for distances, either for velocities.

Where did you get exact velocities and distancies ?

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
#29 mass distribution of Sloan Great Wall matches the mass [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 May 13th 08 09:57 AM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs att brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 05 08:54 AM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs att brian a m stuckless Policy 0 October 16th 05 08:54 AM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs attache brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 15th 05 12:22 PM
Causation - A problem with negative mass. Negastive mass implies imaginary mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 1st 05 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.