Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #545007 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-12 23:00 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-14 19:53 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-12 23:00 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 08:37 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-13 00:21 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:34 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 11:20 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-13 15:11 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:10 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 11:54 +1100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-14 02:33 +0000
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-13 18:46 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-14 02:53 +0000
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-14 10:51 +0000
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 22:39 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:19 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 08:10 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:17 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:43 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 00:20 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 16:04 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 16:34 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 07:35 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 07:46 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 00:14 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 11:11 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 04:53 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 11:17 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 21:15 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 15:43 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 18:25 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 19:22 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 07:56 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-16 19:41 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 23:15 -0500
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-17 06:03 +0000
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 00:06 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 10:28 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 10:43 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 19:51 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 19:54 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 18:32 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 20:40 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 22:10 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 08:06 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 04:37 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 08:05 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:18 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-18 12:22 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 08:28 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:26 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-19 16:19 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:39 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-19 17:18 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:23 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-19 19:33 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:10 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 08:25 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 11:33 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 16:45 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 19:00 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 17:20 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:18 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-21 09:20 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:38 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:44 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-21 16:58 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-21 17:40 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-21 20:11 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:06 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:39 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-21 17:01 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:38 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 20:36 -0500
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:37 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-22 13:44 +0000
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:55 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:49 -0500
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-23 13:27 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-23 21:56 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 20:46 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-22 16:09 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 18:21 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-22 17:45 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 22:30 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-22 23:13 -0800
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 08:32 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:08 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 11:56 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 08:04 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-17 18:56 +0000
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 10:26 +0100
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:49 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 18:58 -0600
Re: Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 19:53 -0800
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 07:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7a3qo$5m1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545523 |
Dne 15/01/2016 v 01:34 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > ............(If I measure a string nine times and the measurement is nine times the same, uncertainty is zero). > What you say is not true, as you do not consider uncertainty of the measuring tool. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 07:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7a4f6$5m1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545570 |
Dne 15/01/2016 v 07:35 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 15/01/2016 v 01:34 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > >> >> ............(If I measure a string nine times and the measurement is nine times the same, uncertainty is zero). >> > > What you say is not true, > as you do not consider uncertainty of the measuring tool. > As there are 3 sources of uncertainty Resolution Random errors Systematic errors Random errors may be hidden in low enough resolution to be revealed, but resolution and systematic errors based uncertainty remain. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 00:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01a896ff-b235-4d4e-bd55-278ce2fac9bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545573 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:46:36 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 15/01/2016 v 07:35 Poutnik napsal(a): > > Dne 15/01/2016 v 01:34 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > > >> > >> ............(If I measure a string nine times and the measurement is nine times the same, uncertainty is zero). > >> > > > > What you say is not true, > > as you do not consider uncertainty of the measuring tool. > > > As there are 3 sources of uncertainty > Resolution > Random errors > Systematic errors > > Random errors may be hidden in low enough resolution to be revealed, > but resolution and systematic errors based uncertainty remain. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) > > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. Thanks. Which of the three error do you think I committed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 11:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7ageu$a46$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545582 |
On 01/15/2016 09:14 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:46:36 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 15/01/2016 v 07:35 Poutnik napsal(a): >>> Dne 15/01/2016 v 01:34 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >>> >>>> >>>> ............(If I measure a string nine times and the measurement is nine times the same, uncertainty is zero). >>>> >>> >>> What you say is not true, >>> as you do not consider uncertainty of the measuring tool. >>> >> As there are 3 sources of uncertainty >> Resolution >> Random errors >> Systematic errors >> >> Random errors may be hidden in low enough resolution to be revealed, >> but resolution and systematic errors based uncertainty remain. >> > Thanks. Which of the three error do you think I committed? > Those errors are not about what you committed, but about nature of processes of measurement and data processing. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50a0255d-a9b2-4c94-9945-79eac27517d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545586 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:11:18 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 01/15/2016 09:14 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:46:36 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 15/01/2016 v 07:35 Poutnik napsal(a): > >>> Dne 15/01/2016 v 01:34 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > >>> > >>>> > >>>> ............(If I measure a string nine times and the measurement is nine times the same, uncertainty is zero). > >>>> > >>> > >>> What you say is not true, > >>> as you do not consider uncertainty of the measuring tool. > >>> > >> As there are 3 sources of uncertainty > >> Resolution > >> Random errors > >> Systematic errors > >> > >> Random errors may be hidden in low enough resolution to be revealed, > >> but resolution and systematic errors based uncertainty remain. > >> > > Thanks. Which of the three error do you think I committed? > > > Those errors are not about what you committed, > but about nature of processes of measurement and data processing. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) A better method of any systematic error in my calculations is to invite my friends in this NG to point them out. Why are they silent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 11:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7b9ir$70r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545595 |
On 1/15/2016 6:53 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > A better method of any systematic error in my calculations is to invite my > friends in this NG to point them out. Why are they silent? Peter, what you're asking people to do is to teach you what people who take a freshman physics course learn, and to teach it to you on a newsgroup. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 21:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7bjsg$oa0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545595 |
Dne 15/01/2016 v 13:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > A better method of any systematic error in my calculations is to invite my friends in this NG to point them out. Why are they silent? > You still do not get it. Those errors are not mistakes. The mistake is not counting with those errors. Do you need to invite others to calculate error propagation ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 15:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a83abb8d-edd5-49a5-8496-f1dcd9c426a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545655 |
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 4:15:52 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 15/01/2016 v 13:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > > > A better method of any systematic error in my calculations is to invite my friends in this NG to point them out. Why are they silent? > > > You still do not get it. > > Those errors are not mistakes. > The mistake is not counting with those errors. > > Do you need to invite others to calculate error propagation ? > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 18:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <PoWdndj6-5FqEATLnZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #545716 |
On 1/15/16 5:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g.
> why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong.
We leave it to you to determine your errors, Peter.
Selected Astronomical Constants, 2016
> http://asa.usno.navy.mil/static/files/2016/Astronomical_Constants_2016.txt
> | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------|
> |1.5|Body Constants: | | | |
> | | Solar mass parameter# | GMS = 1.32712442099D20 | m^3/s^2 (TCB) | +/- 1D10 |
> | | | = 1.32712440041D20 | m^3/s^2 (TDB) | +/- 1D10 |
> | | Equatorial radius for Earth | a_E = a_e = 6378136.6 | m (TT) | +/- 0.1 |
> | | Dynamical form-factor for the Earth | J_2 = 0.0010826359 | | +/- 1D-10 |
> | | Long-term variation in J_2 | \dot{J_2} = -3.0D-09 | per cy | +/- 6D-10 |
> | | Geocentric gravitational constant | GME = 3.986004418D14 | m^3/s^2 (TCB) | +/- 8D05 |
> | | | = 3.986004415D14 | m^3/s^2 (TT) | +/- 8D05 |
> | | | = 3.986004356D14 | m^3/s^2 (TDB) | +/- 8D05 |
> | | Potential of the geoid | W_0 = 6.26368560D07 | m^2/s^2 | +/- 0.5 |
> | | Nominal mean angular vel.of Earth rotation| omega = 7.292115D-05 | rad/s (TT) | |
> | | Mass Ratio: Moon to Earth | M_M / M_E = 1.23000371D-02 | | +/- 4D-10 |
> | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------|
> | | Ratio of the Mass of the Sun to the Mass of the Body* | | |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Mercury | M_S / M_Me = 6.0236D06 | | +/- 3D02 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Venus | M_S / M_Ve = 4.08523719D05 | | +/- 8D-03 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Mars | M_S / M_Ma = 3.09870359D06 | | +/- 2D-02 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Jupiter | M_S / M_J = 1.047348644D03 | | +/- 1.7D-05 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Saturn | M_S / M_Sa = 3.4979018D03 | | +/- 1D-04 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Uranus | M_S / M_U = 2.290298D04 | | +/- 3D-02 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to Neptune | M_S / M_N = 1.941226D04 | | +/- 3D-02 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to (134340) Pluto | M_S / M_P = 1.36566D08 | | +/- 2.8D04 |
> | | Mass Ratio: Sun to (136199) Eris | M_S / M_Eris = 1.191D08 | | +/- 1.4D06 |
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <PoWdndT6-5HPBgTLnZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #545716 |
On 1/15/16 5:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong. We leave it to you to determine your errors, Peter. Selected Astronomical Constants, 2016 > http://asa.usno.navy.mil/static/files/2016/Astronomical_Constants_2016.pdf -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 07:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7cpd9$4pv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545716 |
Dne 16/01/2016 v 00:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong. > Such a claim is evidence of metrological ignorance. Any physical quantity, measured or calculated from measured data, have their its random, resolution and systemic errors. IF your ones have none, it is not related to physics, as only abstract math expressions can have unlimited precision and accuracy. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 19:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ff7c7255-eb76-4714-9604-e10de786a8c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545804 |
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:56:17 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/01/2016 v 00:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > > > > No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong. > > > Such a claim is evidence of metrological ignorance. > > Any physical quantity, measured or calculated from measured data, > have their its random, resolution and systemic errors. > > IF your ones have none, > it is not related to physics, > as only abstract math expressions > can have unlimited precision and accuracy. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) > > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. That is a general statement. Nobody has identified any real deficiency of my calculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 23:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ezEmy.117891$O41.99651@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #546000 |
On 01/16/2016 10:41 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:56:17 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 16/01/2016 v 00:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong.
>>>
>> Such a claim is evidence of metrological ignorance.
>>
>> Any physical quantity, measured or calculated from measured data,
>> have their its random, resolution and systemic errors.
>>
>> IF your ones have none,
>> it is not related to physics,
>> as only abstract math expressions
>> can have unlimited precision and accuracy.
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
>>
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>
> That is a general statement. Nobody has identified any real deficiency of my calculations.
>
Not so. You've already been called out for not using proper error
propagating mathematic estimates. You are pretending numbers mean
something that in truth are garbage.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 06:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1enrmc-i7d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #546000 |
Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:56:17 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 16/01/2016 v 00:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >> >> > >> > No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong. >> > >> Such a claim is evidence of metrological ignorance. >> >> Any physical quantity, measured or calculated from measured data, >> have their its random, resolution and systemic errors. >> >> IF your ones have none, >> it is not related to physics, >> as only abstract math expressions >> can have unlimited precision and accuracy. >> >> -- >> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) >> >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > That is a general statement. Nobody has identified any real deficiency of my calculations. For starters, pi with 3 digits and results with more than 3 digits. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 00:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4dcd34d-6a73-4809-ad5d-2481787a8c25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546026 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:31:06 PM UTC+8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:56:17 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/01/2016 v 00:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > >> > >> > > >> > No. I measured the string nine times using four formulas and 18 factors and got the same answer. There is no uncertainty in my calculation of GM in terms of random error, resolution or systemic error. However I invite all to attack my method with logical arguments e.g. why my method or the result of 1.327158270E+20 is wrong. > >> > > >> Such a claim is evidence of metrological ignorance. > >> > >> Any physical quantity, measured or calculated from measured data, > >> have their its random, resolution and systemic errors. > >> > >> IF your ones have none, > >> it is not related to physics, > >> as only abstract math expressions > >> can have unlimited precision and accuracy. > >> > >> -- > >> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) > >> > >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > > > That is a general statement. Nobody has identified any real deficiency of my calculations. > > For starters, pi with 3 digits and results with more than 3 digits. > > > -- > Jim Pennino I have used pi with 8 digits in my follow up post 'The mass of the sun II'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7fmmn$p2o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #546039 |
Dne 17/01/2016 v 09:06 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > I have used pi with 8 digits in my follow up post 'The mass of the sun II' > How much is G . pi, considering error of G and propagation propagation rules ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3210cf2e-53dc-4cd9-aae1-4d0ed6b43b9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546045 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 5:28:30 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 17/01/2016 v 09:06 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > > > > I have used pi with 8 digits in my follow up post 'The mass of the sun II' > > > > How much is G . pi, > considering error of G > and propagation propagation rules ? > My formulas are GM=vr2 and M=GM/G. No pi. Pi is used in the formula used by others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 19:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7gnli$ot0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #546087 |
Dne 17/01/2016 v 19:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 5:28:30 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 17/01/2016 v 09:06 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >> >>> >>> I have used pi with 8 digits in my follow up post 'The mass of the sun II' >>> >> >> How much is G . pi, >> considering error of G >> and propagation propagation rules ? >> > My formulas are GM=vr2 and M=GM/G. No pi. Pi is used in the formula used by others. > it was example. Replace pi by anything else. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 19:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7gns9$ot0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #546087 |
Dne 17/01/2016 v 19:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 5:28:30 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 17/01/2016 v 09:06 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >> >>> >>> I have used pi with 8 digits in my follow up post 'The mass of the sun II' >>> >> >> How much is G . pi, >> considering error of G >> and propagation propagation rules ? >> > My formulas are GM=vr2 and M=GM/G. No pi. Pi is used in the formula used by others. > How much is GM / G considering errors of GM and G and error propagation rules ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 18:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <421e2210-2be4-4eda-8e2e-f7d5eb49c591@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546093 |
On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:54:41 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 17/01/2016 v 19:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 5:28:30 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 17/01/2016 v 09:06 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > >> > >>> > >>> I have used pi with 8 digits in my follow up post 'The mass of the sun II' > >>> > >> > >> How much is G . pi, > >> considering error of G > >> and propagation propagation rules ? > >> > > My formulas are GM=vr2 and M=GM/G. No pi. Pi is used in the formula used by others. > > > How much is GM / G > considering errors of GM and G > and error propagation rules ? > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Statistical error rules are not important in this context. The purpose of my post is to show that the sun is the engine that drives the planets according to the same rule. Maybe too difficult to grasp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web