Chiral gravity of the Solar system

From: Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: The Two Weak Links .
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2003-07-17 07:41:05 PST


Craig Markwardt wrote in message
...
(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.
You looks at the surface only.
Your reasoning have surface character.
If you penetrate into a methodology of measuring of quantities
of planetary masses more deep, you will experience stunning
disbelieving to these measurings.
It's brought to the surface a much wider controversy.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

================================================== ===================
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.

Thus you are the adherent of School of guessing on numbers.
Whether is it the Truth?


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.

It were the tests of your associative thinking.
Now with large confidence I can guess, that you prefer to deal
with restricted number of hypotheses and that you avoid to deal
with a logic induction for conclusions. :-(

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 a
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.


These responses are relevant to your comment.

It is impossible to choose *many* different combinations of ratios
by random which

- lie close to a whole number;
- obey to boundaries of measurement errors
of quantities of planetary masses;
- are continuous sequence of the least values
of the ratioes:
3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39... ;
- have PHYSICAL chiral SIMMETRY;
- have all indicated properties simultaneously.

================================================== ===============
It is impossible to choose *any* different combinations of ratios
by random which - have Unparalleled CLASS linear combinations
of triple nearest planetary system masses.
================================================== ===============

If you can deny my statements, please you should primely point other
concrete class of the ratios possessing even by part of the
properties,
indicated by me.


[Craig Markwardt:]
" 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. "

It is impossible to obey to boundaries of measurement errors
of quantities of planetary masses for all _756_ " of combinations
of ratios A/(B+C), (A+B)/C or (A+B)/(C+D) ". The majority of the
abstract ratioes, offered by you, are absolutely inappropriate for
the given problem because of indeterminacies of values of planetary
masses.
***
If you can deny my statements, please you should point out
concrete ratios for the IERS system(1992) data.
***

[Craig Markwardt:]
" 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. "

We view the concrete physical data for actual physical system,
which one is the Solar system. The abstract " random distribution
of planetary masses " , offered by you, are absolutely inappropriate
for the given problem because of indeterminacies of _real_ values
of planetary masses.

Where are indeterminacies of abstract " random distribution
of planetary masses " ?
What are clear or figurative or literal or obscure meaning for
terms _indeterminacies_ for abstract " random distribution
of planetary masses " ?

***
If you can deny my statements, please you should point out
concrete ratios for the IERS system(1992) data.


[Craig Markwardt:]
" That you found only eight of them suggests that you
could have found quite a few more, if you so chose."

So your conclusion is not relevant.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=86...nnrp1.deja.com


The masses of planets have ERRORS OF MEASUREMENTS of different
sorts
(till now we have not reliable methods of measurement of masses of
celestial bodies! The large physical mysticism is hidden here). The
absolute errors in masses of large planets exceed masses of small
planets. This fact requires to discard a majority of the ratioes
satisfying to a principle 1, as the ratioes not have of a physical
sense.
Under pressure of measuring errors, values of the ratioes
containing the planets, closest on masses, are most reliable from a
physical point of view.


Principles of a selection of the ratioes.

1. We select the ratioes have the least difference of values from
integers.

================================================== ===================
2. The masses of planets have ERRORS OF MEASUREMENTS of different
sorts
(till now we have not reliable methods of measurement of masses of
celestial bodies! The large physical mysticism is hidden here). The
absolute errors in masses of large planets exceed masses of small
planets. This fact requires to discard a majority of the ratioes
satisfying to a principle 1, as the ratioes not have of a physical
sense.
Under pressure of measuring errors, values of the ratioes
containing the planets, closest on masses, are most reliable from a
physical point of view.
================================================== ===================

3. If we shall sort out the ratioes satisfying to principles 1 and 2
in
ascending order of values of the ratioes, we receive the following
sequence of natural numbers:

3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39...

We shall see further, that only these terms (ratios) are main in
gravitational interaction between planets of the Solar system. (From a
mathematical point of view, the task circumscribing gravitational
interaction between planets of the Solar system is the nonlinear task
of
many bodies. The remaining ratioes are a causal corollary of the main
ratioes (the main (nonlinear) process).

The first terms of this sequence of natural numbers (excepting
number 7) correspond to the ratioes, selected by me:

Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
.. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5

Here is shown the graphics representation for the ratioes,
selected by me, from this sequence:
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:

MSA + MJU - 2 + 1; MUR + MNE - 4 + 3;
MVE + MTE - 6 + 5; MME + MMA - 8 + 7;
MJU - 1; MSA - 2; MNE - 3; MUR - 4;
MTE - 5; MVE - 6; MMA - 7; MME - 8;

.. 5
Direct gravitational correlation - ====;
33
Reverse gravitational correlation - ----------

================================================== =====================
= 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.
=
================================================== =====================







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.



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...g .google.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