Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403228 > unrolled thread

Re: Calculating G

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Calculating G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 19:02 -0800
    Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 22:22 -0800
      Re: Calculating G Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-30 12:13 +0100
        Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-30 22:35 +1100
          Re: Calculating G Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-30 13:03 +0100
            Re: Calculating G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 04:11 -0800
          Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 14:32 -0800
            Re: Calculating G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 15:17 -0800
              Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 16:51 -0800
                Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 12:48 +1100
                  Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 19:31 -0800
                    Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 14:36 +1100
                      Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 23:15 -0800
                        Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 19:29 +1100
                          Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-31 01:18 -0800
                            Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 20:29 +1100
                              Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-31 19:06 -0800
                    Re: Calculating G Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 21:33 -0800
                Re: Calculating G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 19:41 -0800
                  Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 23:17 -0800

#403228 — Re: Calculating G

On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Calculating G
> 
> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first accurately determined in
> the laboratory by Henry Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
> G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
> 
> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
> 
> 	  gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G	
> Sun	 273.97	696,000,000	 1.99E+30	6.674E-11	
> ACa	 200.18	853,992,000	 2.19E+30	6.674E-11	
> ACb	 332.10	602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11	
> AC c	1695.00	 98,136,000	 2.45E+29	6.674E-11	
> 
> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec
> rstar = radius in m
> Mstar = mass in kg

SO how was g determined for each of these stars?

> G can also be derived from g, radius and mass of the planets by the formula
> G=gpl*rpl^2/mpl
> 
> 	  gpl	   rpl(m)	    mpl	    G	
> MER 	 3.71	 2,439,000	3.30E+23	6.674E-11	
> VEN 	 8.87	 6,051,602	4.87E+24	6.674E-11	
> EAR 	 9.80	 6,378,621	5.97E+24	6.674E-11	
> MAR 	 3.71	 3,397,360	6.42E+23	6.674E-11	
> JUP 	24.79	71,499,344	1.90E+27	6.674E-11	
> SAT 	10.44	60,273,223	5.68E+26	6.674E-11	
> URA 	 8.87	25,556,472	8.68E+25	6.674E-11	
> NEP 	11.15	24,765,365	1.02E+26	6.674E-11	
> PLU 	 0.62	 1,158,753	1.25E+22	6.674E-11	
>
> gpl = surface acceleration of a planet
> rpl = radius of a planet
> mpl = mass of a planet
> 
> The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and C and nine
> planets are identical with the Codata value of G=6.674E-11.

That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#403434

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > Calculating G
> > 
> > The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first accurately determined in
> > the laboratory by Henry Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
> > G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
> > 
> > G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
> > 
> > 	  gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G	
> > Sun	 273.97	696,000,000	 1.99E+30	6.674E-11	
> > ACa	 200.18	853,992,000	 2.19E+30	6.674E-11	
> > ACb	 332.10	602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11	
> > AC c	1695.00	 98,136,000	 2.45E+29	6.674E-11	
> > 
> > gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec
> > rstar = radius in m
> > Mstar = mass in kg
> 
> SO how was g determined for each of these stars?
> 
> > G can also be derived from g, radius and mass of the planets by the formula
> > G=gpl*rpl^2/mpl
> > 
> > 	  gpl	   rpl(m)	    mpl	    G	
> > MER 	 3.71	 2,439,000	3.30E+23	6.674E-11	
> > VEN 	 8.87	 6,051,602	4.87E+24	6.674E-11	
> > EAR 	 9.80	 6,378,621	5.97E+24	6.674E-11	
> > MAR 	 3.71	 3,397,360	6.42E+23	6.674E-11	
> > JUP 	24.79	71,499,344	1.90E+27	6.674E-11	
> > SAT 	10.44	60,273,223	5.68E+26	6.674E-11	
> > URA 	 8.87	25,556,472	8.68E+25	6.674E-11	
> > NEP 	11.15	24,765,365	1.02E+26	6.674E-11	
> > PLU 	 0.62	 1,158,753	1.25E+22	6.674E-11	
> >
> > gpl = surface acceleration of a planet
> > rpl = radius of a planet
> > mpl = mass of a planet
> > 
> > The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and C and nine
> > planets are identical with the Codata value of G=6.674E-11.
> 
> That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)

Alpha Centauri A B C have their g values on the Internet in the form log g. B and C are inaccurate. I calculated the correct values of A B C with my own equation and got a G value for them and the sun consistent with the value of Codata.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403452

Op 30-dec-2016 om 07:22 schreef Peter Riedt:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>
>>> Calculating G
>>>
>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first accurately determined in
>>> the laboratory by Henry Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
>>> G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
>>>
>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
>>>
>>> 	  gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G	
>>> Sun	 273.97	696,000,000	 1.99E+30	6.674E-11	
>>> ACa	 200.18	853,992,000	 2.19E+30	6.674E-11	
>>> ACb	 332.10	602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11	
>>> AC c	1695.00	 98,136,000	 2.45E+29	6.674E-11	
>>>
>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec
>>> rstar = radius in m
>>> Mstar = mass in kg
>>
>> SO how was g determined for each of these stars?
>>
>>> G can also be derived from g, radius and mass of the planets by the formula
>>> G=gpl*rpl^2/mpl
>>>
>>> 	  gpl	   rpl(m)	    mpl	    G	
>>> MER 	 3.71	 2,439,000	3.30E+23	6.674E-11	
>>> VEN 	 8.87	 6,051,602	4.87E+24	6.674E-11	
>>> EAR 	 9.80	 6,378,621	5.97E+24	6.674E-11	
>>> MAR 	 3.71	 3,397,360	6.42E+23	6.674E-11	
>>> JUP 	24.79	71,499,344	1.90E+27	6.674E-11	
>>> SAT 	10.44	60,273,223	5.68E+26	6.674E-11	
>>> URA 	 8.87	25,556,472	8.68E+25	6.674E-11	
>>> NEP 	11.15	24,765,365	1.02E+26	6.674E-11	
>>> PLU 	 0.62	 1,158,753	1.25E+22	6.674E-11	
>>>
>>> gpl = surface acceleration of a planet
>>> rpl = radius of a planet
>>> mpl = mass of a planet
>>>
>>> The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and C and nine
>>> planets are identical with the Codata value of G=6.674E-11.

And you went to visit these planets to measure the gpl-values, right.

>>
>> That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)
>
> Alpha Centauri A B C have their g values on the Internet in the form log g.

And the Internet went there to measure them, right.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403453

On 30/12/2016 10:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 30-dec-2016 om 07:22 schreef Peter Riedt:
>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Calculating G
>>>>
>>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first accurately
>>>> determined in
>>>> the laboratory by Henry Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
>>>> G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
>>>>
>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula
>>>> G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
>>>>
>>>>       gstar       rstar       Mstar        G
>>>> Sun     273.97    696,000,000     1.99E+30    6.674E-11
>>>> ACa     200.18    853,992,000     2.19E+30    6.674E-11
>>>> ACb     332.10    602,040,000     1.80E+30    6.674E-11
>>>> AC c    1695.00     98,136,000     2.45E+29    6.674E-11
>>>>
>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec
>>>> rstar = radius in m
>>>> Mstar = mass in kg
>>>
>>> SO how was g determined for each of these stars?
>>>
>>>> G can also be derived from g, radius and mass of the planets by the
>>>> formula
>>>> G=gpl*rpl^2/mpl
>>>>
>>>>       gpl       rpl(m)        mpl        G
>>>> MER      3.71     2,439,000    3.30E+23    6.674E-11
>>>> VEN      8.87     6,051,602    4.87E+24    6.674E-11
>>>> EAR      9.80     6,378,621    5.97E+24    6.674E-11
>>>> MAR      3.71     3,397,360    6.42E+23    6.674E-11
>>>> JUP     24.79    71,499,344    1.90E+27    6.674E-11
>>>> SAT     10.44    60,273,223    5.68E+26    6.674E-11
>>>> URA      8.87    25,556,472    8.68E+25    6.674E-11
>>>> NEP     11.15    24,765,365    1.02E+26    6.674E-11
>>>> PLU      0.62     1,158,753    1.25E+22    6.674E-11
>>>>
>>>> gpl = surface acceleration of a planet
>>>> rpl = radius of a planet
>>>> mpl = mass of a planet
>>>>
>>>> The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and C and nine
>>>> planets are identical with the Codata value of G=6.674E-11.
>
> And you went to visit these planets to measure the gpl-values, right.
>
>>>
>>> That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)
>>
>> Alpha Centauri A B C have their g values on the Internet in the form
>> log g.
>
> And the Internet went there to measure them, right.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Peter persists with these circular analyses despite the issue being 
raised with him repeatedly. He seems to be yet another poster with some 
disorder of the mind that muddles their thinking.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403455

Op 30-dec-2016 om 12:35 schreef Sylvia Else:
> On 30/12/2016 10:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 30-dec-2016 om 07:22 schreef Peter Riedt:
>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt

[snip]

>>>>> The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and
>>>>> C and nine planets are identical with the Codata value of
>>>>> G=6.674E-11.
>>
>> And you went to visit these planets to measure the gpl-values,
>> right.
>>
>>>>
>>>> That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)
>>>
>>> Alpha Centauri A B C have their g values on the Internet in the
>>> form log g.
>>
>> And the Internet went there to measure them, right.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Peter persists with these circular analyses despite the issue being
> raised with him repeatedly. He seems to be yet another poster with
> some disorder of the mind that muddles their thinking.

He's come to just the right clinic.
The only clinic in fact.
And it's not able to help either :-|

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403456

W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 13:04:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> Op 30-dec-2016 om 12:35 schreef Sylvia Else:
> > On 30/12/2016 10:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 30-dec-2016 om 07:22 schreef Peter Riedt:
> >>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >>>>> The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and
> >>>>> C and nine planets are identical with the Codata value of
> >>>>> G=6.674E-11.
> >>
> >> And you went to visit these planets to measure the gpl-values,
> >> right.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)
> >>>
> >>> Alpha Centauri A B C have their g values on the Internet in the
> >>> form log g.
> >>
> >> And the Internet went there to measure them, right.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Peter persists with these circular analyses despite the issue being
> > raised with him repeatedly. He seems to be yet another poster with
> > some disorder of the mind that muddles their thinking.
> 
> He's come to just the right clinic.
> The only clinic in fact.

Or, of course, retrograde abortion, the perfect solution

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403542

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 7:35:25 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/12/2016 10:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > Op 30-dec-2016 om 07:22 schreef Peter Riedt:
> >> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:06 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:31:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Calculating G
> >>>>
> >>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first accurately
> >>>> determined in
> >>>> the laboratory by Henry Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
> >>>> G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
> >>>>
> >>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula
> >>>> G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
> >>>>
> >>>>       gstar       rstar       Mstar        G
> >>>> Sun     273.97    696,000,000     1.99E+30    6.674E-11
> >>>> ACa     200.18    853,992,000     2.19E+30    6.674E-11
> >>>> ACb     332.10    602,040,000     1.80E+30    6.674E-11
> >>>> AC c    1695.00     98,136,000     2.45E+29    6.674E-11
> >>>>
> >>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec
> >>>> rstar = radius in m
> >>>> Mstar = mass in kg
> >>>
> >>> SO how was g determined for each of these stars?
> >>>
> >>>> G can also be derived from g, radius and mass of the planets by the
> >>>> formula
> >>>> G=gpl*rpl^2/mpl
> >>>>
> >>>>       gpl       rpl(m)        mpl        G
> >>>> MER      3.71     2,439,000    3.30E+23    6.674E-11
> >>>> VEN      8.87     6,051,602    4.87E+24    6.674E-11
> >>>> EAR      9.80     6,378,621    5.97E+24    6.674E-11
> >>>> MAR      3.71     3,397,360    6.42E+23    6.674E-11
> >>>> JUP     24.79    71,499,344    1.90E+27    6.674E-11
> >>>> SAT     10.44    60,273,223    5.68E+26    6.674E-11
> >>>> URA      8.87    25,556,472    8.68E+25    6.674E-11
> >>>> NEP     11.15    24,765,365    1.02E+26    6.674E-11
> >>>> PLU      0.62     1,158,753    1.25E+22    6.674E-11
> >>>>
> >>>> gpl = surface acceleration of a planet
> >>>> rpl = radius of a planet
> >>>> mpl = mass of a planet
> >>>>
> >>>> The calculated G numbers of the Sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and C and nine
> >>>> planets are identical with the Codata value of G=6.674E-11.
> >
> > And you went to visit these planets to measure the gpl-values, right.
> >
> >>>
> >>> That's probably because G was used to determine g :-)
> >>
> >> Alpha Centauri A B C have their g values on the Internet in the form
> >> log g.
> >
> > And the Internet went there to measure them, right.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> 
> Peter persists with these circular analyses despite the issue being 
> raised with him repeatedly. He seems to be yet another poster with some 
> disorder of the mind that muddles their thinking.
> 
> Sylvia.

If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try to be professional.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403547

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try to be
> professional.

Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this stupidity.
What do you expect others to say when you act like you misplaced your
logic chip?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403551

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:17:38 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >> If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try to be
> > professional.
> 
> Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this stupidity.
> What do you expect others to say when you act like you misplaced your
> logic chip?

You persist in ad hom. What is your agenda? I persist in using G to confirm relationships between elements of free fall objects in the solar system and to establish if G is the same in other star systems and the solar system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403554

On 31/12/2016 11:51 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:17:38 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel
> wrote:
>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt
>> wrote:
>>>> If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try
>>>> to be
>>> professional.
>>
>> Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this
>> stupidity. What do you expect others to say when you act like you
>> misplaced your logic chip?
>
> You persist in ad hom. What is your agenda? I persist in using G to
> confirm relationships between elements of free fall objects in the
> solar system

It's far from clear what you actually think you're achieving. Unless 
you're using a telescope to check the positions of the planets, all 
you're doing is checking that the predicted orbits of the planets are 
the same as the predicted orbits. Well, of course they are.

If a planet deviated from its predicted path, that would soon be 
noticed, but by people who look at them, not by you.

> and to establish if G is the same in other star systems
> and the solar system.
>

Which you won't be able to do by means of circular analyses.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403560

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 9:48:20 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 11:51 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:17:38 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt
> >> wrote:
> >>>> If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try
> >>>> to be
> >>> professional.
> >>
> >> Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this
> >> stupidity. What do you expect others to say when you act like you
> >> misplaced your logic chip?
> >
> > You persist in ad hom. What is your agenda? I persist in using G to
> > confirm relationships between elements of free fall objects in the
> > solar system
> 
> It's far from clear what you actually think you're achieving. Unless 
> you're using a telescope to check the positions of the planets, all 
> you're doing is checking that the predicted orbits of the planets are 
> the same as the predicted orbits. Well, of course they are.
> 
> If a planet deviated from its predicted path, that would soon be 
> noticed, but by people who look at them, not by you.
> 
> > and to establish if G is the same in other star systems
> > and the solar system.
> >
> 
> Which you won't be able to do by means of circular analyses.
> 
> Sylvia.

I failed to establish that G in the Alpha Centauri star systems is the same as in the solar system. If it is, please provide evidence. 

Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.

You can't have it both ways. It's called double standards, a favourite of politics.

Refer to my post 'Question about calculation of G'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403561

On 31/12/2016 2:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:

> Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
>

Which literature? Cite.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403574

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:36:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 2:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 
> > Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
> >
> 
> Which literature? Cite.
> 
> Sylvia.

The values I used were from the Internet. I found g for the Alpha Centauris not accurate. No problem as it is irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403583

On 31/12/2016 6:15 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:36:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 31/12/2016 2:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
>>>
>>
>> Which literature? Cite.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The values I used were from the Internet. I found g for the Alpha Centauris not accurate. No problem as it is irrelevant.
>

You do realise that the Internet is not peer reviewed? It is also not 
conventionally referred to as "the literature".

You may have found a site that contains some incorrect numbers, that's all.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403584

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 4:29:51 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 6:15 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:36:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 31/12/2016 2:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Which literature? Cite.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > The values I used were from the Internet. I found g for the Alpha Centauris not accurate. No problem as it is irrelevant.
> >
> 
> You do realise that the Internet is not peer reviewed? It is also not 
> conventionally referred to as "the literature".
> 
> You may have found a site that contains some incorrect numbers, that's all.
> 
> Sylvia.

The Internet gives references to the literature. It doesn't pull it out of the air. Many elements of stars however are presented as fact by consensus experts when in fact they are only assumptions. If the values I used for gstar, rstar and Mstar are wrong, do you know more correct ones?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403587

On 31/12/2016 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 4:29:51 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 31/12/2016 6:15 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:36:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 31/12/2016 2:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M
>>>>> of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which literature? Cite.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> The values I used were from the Internet. I found g for the Alpha
>>> Centauris not accurate. No problem as it is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> You do realise that the Internet is not peer reviewed? It is also
>> not conventionally referred to as "the literature".
>>
>> You may have found a site that contains some incorrect numbers,
>> that's all.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The Internet gives references to the literature. It doesn't pull it
> out of the air. Many elements of stars however are presented as fact
> by consensus experts when in fact they are only assumptions. If the
> values I used for gstar, rstar and Mstar are wrong, do you know more
> correct ones?
>

If you have references, given to you by the Internet, then cite them. 
Otherwise readers have no way to know where you're getting your numbers 
from.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403662

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 5:29:37 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 4:29:51 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 31/12/2016 6:15 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:36:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 31/12/2016 2:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M
> >>>>> of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Which literature? Cite.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> The values I used were from the Internet. I found g for the Alpha
> >>> Centauris not accurate. No problem as it is irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You do realise that the Internet is not peer reviewed? It is also
> >> not conventionally referred to as "the literature".
> >>
> >> You may have found a site that contains some incorrect numbers,
> >> that's all.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > The Internet gives references to the literature. It doesn't pull it
> > out of the air. Many elements of stars however are presented as fact
> > by consensus experts when in fact they are only assumptions. If the
> > values I used for gstar, rstar and Mstar are wrong, do you know more
> > correct ones?
> >
> 
> If you have references, given to you by the Internet, then cite them. 
> Otherwise readers have no way to know where you're getting your numbers 
> from.
> 
> Sylvia.

The nine elements of Alpha Centauri A B and C used by me in my calculations
and given below were reported by the researchers in Reports 1 to 5.

	log g	converted g in m/sec2
ACa	4.30	199.53
ACb	4.37	234.42
ACc	5.20	1584.89
	radius*sun	converted radius in m
ACa	1.227	853,992,000
ACb	0.865	602,040,000
ACc	0.141	98,136,000
	mass*sun	converted mass in kg
ACa	1.1	2.18741E+30
ACb	0.907	1.80361E+30
ACc	0.123	2.44592E+29

Alpha Centauri A and B

Rep 1. Thévenin, F.; Provost, J.; Morel, P.; Berthomieu, G.; Bouchy, F.; Carrier, F. (2002). "Asteroseismology and calibration of alpha Cen binary system".
Astronomy & Astrophysics. 392: L9. arXiv:astro¬ph/0206283 .
Bibcode:2002A&A...392L...9T. doi:10.1051/0004¬6361:20021074.

Rep 2. Kervella, P.; Thévenin, F.; Ségransan, D.; Berthomieu, G.; Lopez, B.; Morel, P.; Provost, J. (2003). "The diameters of α Centauri A and B". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 404 (3): 1087–1097. arXiv:astro¬ph/0303634.
Bibcode:2003A&A...404.1087K. doi:10.1051/0004¬6361:20030570.
ISSN 0004¬6361.

Rep 3. Gilli G.; Israelian G.; Ecuvillon A.; Santos NC.; Mayor M. (2006).
Abundances of Refractory Elements in the Atmospheres of Stars with
Extrasolar Planets. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 449 (2): 723–36.
arXiv:astro¬ph/0512219 . Bibcode:2006A&A...449..723G. doi:10.1051/0004¬
6361:20053850. libcode 2005astro.ph.12219G.

Alpha Centauri C

Rep 4. Ségransan, D.; Kervella, P.; Forveille, T.; Queloz, D. (2003), "First radius measurements of very low mass stars with the VLTI", Astronomy and Astrophysics, 
397 (3): L5–L8, arXiv:astro¬ph/0211647 , Bibcode:2003A&A...397L...5S,
doi:10.1051/0004¬6361:20021714

Rep 5. Demory, B.¬O.; Ségransan, D.; Forveille, T.; Queloz, D.; Beuzit, J.¬L.; Delfosse, X.;  Di Folco, E.; Kervella, P.; Le Bouquin, J.¬B. (October 2009), "Mass ¬radius relation of low and very low ¬mass stars revisited with the VLTI",
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 505 (1): 205–215, arXiv:0906.0602 , 
Bibcode:2009A&A...505..205D,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403571

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:31:21 PM UTC-10, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 9:48:20 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 31/12/2016 11:51 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:17:38 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try
> > >>>> to be
> > >>> professional.
> > >>
> > >> Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this
> > >> stupidity. What do you expect others to say when you act like you
> > >> misplaced your logic chip?
> > >
> > > You persist in ad hom. What is your agenda? I persist in using G to
> > > confirm relationships between elements of free fall objects in the
> > > solar system
> > 
> > It's far from clear what you actually think you're achieving. Unless 
> > you're using a telescope to check the positions of the planets, all 
> > you're doing is checking that the predicted orbits of the planets are 
> > the same as the predicted orbits. Well, of course they are.
> > 
> > If a planet deviated from its predicted path, that would soon be 
> > noticed, but by people who look at them, not by you.
> > 
> > > and to establish if G is the same in other star systems
> > > and the solar system.
> > >
> > 
> > Which you won't be able to do by means of circular analyses.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> I failed to establish that G in the Alpha Centauri star systems is the same as in the solar system. If it is, please provide evidence. 
> 
> Also I have established that the observed/calculated g and M of the AC stars are incorrect as reported in the literature.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. It's called double standards, a favourite of politics.
> 
> Refer to my post 'Question about calculation of G'.

The Proxima Centauri information on Wikipedia is not right. See my Table 3 for a comparison of local stars' gravities, it confirms what you wrote. Antares and Sirius are also imprecise. Wikipedia is not good enough to expect perfection.

http://fcontinuumgravity.blogspot.com/p/research-planning.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403562

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:52:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:17:38 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > > > If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try to be
> > > professional.
> > 
> > Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this stupidity.
> > What do you expect others to say when you act like you misplaced your
> > logic chip?
> 
> You persist in ad hom.

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am
persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

> What is your agenda?

“I’m allergic to stupidity.  I break out in sarcasm.” – Rebels Market

> I persist in using G to confirm relationships between elements of free fall
> objects in the solar system and to establish if G is the same in other star
> systems and the solar system.

Since those values were calculated by using G in the first place, it is stupid
to use those values to "confirm" G.  You are blind not to see this.

“We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403575

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:41:12 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:52:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:17:38 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > > > > If no good arguments then ad hom. It may be difficult but try to be
> > > > professional.
> > > 
> > > Your error has been explained to you, yet you persist with this stupidity.
> > > What do you expect others to say when you act like you misplaced your
> > > logic chip?
> > 
> > You persist in ad hom.
> 
> “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am
> persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> > What is your agenda?
> 
> “I’m allergic to stupidity.  I break out in sarcasm.” – Rebels Market
> 
> > I persist in using G to confirm relationships between elements of free fall
> > objects in the solar system and to establish if G is the same in other star
> > systems and the solar system.
> 
> Since those values were calculated by using G in the first place, it is stupid
> to use those values to "confirm" G.  You are blind not to see this.
> 
> “We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou

I can see that very well and also that the elements of stars are not well understood. No problem, it is irrelevant to my theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web