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 | 16 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n80f7k$1tm3$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547250 |
On 1/22/2016 12:49 PM, benj wrote: >> You must know that adding you to my killfile list takes two clicks, >> which is far less than the effort you spend to create a new identity. >> But waste your time any way you want. > > Boinker it's always far more pleasant to remain ignorant and shout "kill > der pig" with the crowd than to actually think. Enjoy your pleasant life. Ben, I certainly am not calling on you to kill the troll. Read the troll all you want. I'm round-filing him. It's your time to spend, and you've got PLENTY of it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 20:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7u0ou$q3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #547175 |
Dne 22/01/2016 v 14:44 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/21/2016 7:36 PM, benj wrote: >>> You should follow your own advice and admit your ignorance! Ain't gonna >>> happen. Right? Science is just like religion based on dogmas that >>> certainly have not been proven. >> >> Science doesn't offer proof, and in fact it's quite clear in stating > > Idiot. Is Math not science? Math gives proofs. The whole World (and > Science) has to be based on Math and Logics, both of which excels by > spitting out theorems and proofs. Math is not science, it stands alone, even if it is basis of near all scientific models. While math does know proofs, science generally does not. Even mathematically consistent scientific theories cannot be proven to be right. They can be only refuted as wrong by experimental contraexamples, or for now their predictions confirmed, if in agreement. Such confirmations only increase the probability they are right, but never achieve certainty and can be anytime challenged by new observations or measurements. -- 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 | 2016-01-22 16:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16b4beb7-d1de-4be6-9604-41f765fa3b2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547282 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 3:46:16 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 22/01/2016 v 14:44 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 1/21/2016 7:36 PM, benj wrote: > >>> You should follow your own advice and admit your ignorance! Ain't gonna > >>> happen. Right? Science is just like religion based on dogmas that > >>> certainly have not been proven. > >> > >> Science doesn't offer proof, and in fact it's quite clear in stating > > > > Idiot. Is Math not science? Math gives proofs. The whole World (and > > Science) has to be based on Math and Logics, both of which excels by > > spitting out theorems and proofs. > > Math is not science, it stands alone, > even if it is basis of near all scientific models. > > While math does know proofs, > science generally does not. > > Even mathematically consistent scientific theories > cannot be proven to be right. > > They can be only refuted as wrong by experimental contraexamples, > or for now their predictions confirmed, if in agreement. > > Such confirmations only increase the probability they are right, > but never achieve certainty > and can be anytime challenged by new observations or measurements. > Or challenged by correct thinking and logic and rejecting dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 18:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m5CdnZieX6QcWj_LnZ2dnUU7-V8AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #547341 |
On 1/22/16 6:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Or challenged by correct thinking and logic and rejecting dogma. Dogma doesn't work in science. Ideas and theory must be tested by the hard data of observation and experiment. General relativity and the quantum mechanics has met those requirements, are continually tested and so far serve as fruitful tools of physics. -- 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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 17:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f8f0771-dd1f-4767-8d2c-84bcdd77ffd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547346 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 1/22/16 6:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Or challenged by correct thinking and logic and rejecting dogma. > > > Dogma doesn't work in science. Ideas and theory must be tested by the > hard data of observation and experiment. General relativity and the > quantum mechanics has met those requirements, are continually tested > and so far serve as fruitful tools of physics. > Those theories are only supported by fanciful symbols not by real mathematics. Its akin to the esoteric mumbo jumbo of a priesthood that wants to pull the wool over our eyes. > > 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 | 2016-01-22 22:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lrmdnVqdw7t_nD7LnZ2dnUU7-XsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #547376 |
On 1/22/16 7:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >On 1/22/16 6:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> > >Or challenged by correct thinking and logic and rejecting dogma. >> > >> > >> > Dogma doesn't work in science. Ideas and theory must be tested by the >> > hard data of observation and experiment. General relativity and the >> > quantum mechanics has met those requirements, are continually tested >> > and so far serve as fruitful tools of physics. >> > > Those theories are only supported by fanciful symbols not by real mathematics. Nope, Peter--those theories are not contradicted by the hard data of observation and experiment. -- 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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36ea0059-8f5f-4a77-b7c3-754ba2419d92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547397 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:30:28 PM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 1/22/16 7:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> >On 1/22/16 6:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> > >Or challenged by correct thinking and logic and rejecting dogma. > >> > > >> > > >> > Dogma doesn't work in science. Ideas and theory must be tested by the > >> > hard data of observation and experiment. General relativity and the > >> > quantum mechanics has met those requirements, are continually tested > >> > and so far serve as fruitful tools of physics. > >> > > > Those theories are only supported by fanciful symbols not by real mathematics. > > > Nope, Peter--those theories are not contradicted by the hard data of > observation and experiment. > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Your opinion against mine. I let you win.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 08:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VIadnbn8q_xoEz7LnZ2dnUU7-QcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #547414 |
On 1/23/16 1:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > I let you win Thank you. -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 12:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n80fik$1tm3$12@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547341 |
On 1/22/2016 6:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Or challenged by correct thinking and logic and rejecting dogma. You can't tell which is correct thinking, Peter, without experiment. Rejecting someone else's thinking just for the sake of rejecting it is not the same as rejecting dogma. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 11:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7ohoj$12nn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546729 |
On 1/20/2016 10:25 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:10:35 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/19/2016 7:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:39:13 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/19/2016 6:19 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 11:27:02 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:22 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> GR appointed spacetime the king of gravity not the sun. Kepler and >>>>>>> Newton knew the planets circled the sun and by what rule but they >>>>>>> didn't know the mechanism of gravity. I do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter, what do you think is responsible for the distortion of spacetime >>>>>> where the earth is, according to GR? The sun. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think you really understand what relativity says. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I do not understand GR and do not need to. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm fine with you deciding not to try to understand GR. I think, though, >>>> that you should think twice -- maybe three times -- before you make any >>>> statement about what GR says, like "GR appointed spacetime the king of >>>> gravity not the sun." >>>> >>>> is that fair? You don't say anything about a subject you know nothing about? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> I don't need to understand GR to understand that 'spacetime' is vastly different from 'the sun'. >>> >> >> But you misunderstand GR when you say that "GR appointed spacetime the >> king of gravity not the sun." >> >> Do we have an agreement that you should not talk about what GR says if >> you don't know what GR says? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > If I say I do not understand GR it means I do not accept its premises and postulates. > In addition, Peter, you do not understand what GR actually says, and you should stop pretending that you do. So, it being something you don't know about, you should refrain from commenting on what it says, when you don't actually know. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 08:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7i2l9$1li$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #546181 |
Dne 18/01/2016 v 03:32 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > 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 ? >> > > 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. > Statistical error rules are important in every context, where are processed not exact values especially when final results seem to ignore it. The same rule is nothing new. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8o4tmc-11i.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #546039 |
Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > 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' That's a start. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7fmjd$p2o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #546000 |
Dne 17/01/2016 v 04:41 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > That is a general statement. Nobody has identified any real deficiency of my calculations. The real deficiency is the below. If any constant like G or experimental data like orbiting period or orbit parameters have their relative error, then any calculation using them via multiplication and division have relative error of result worse then the worst relative error from the input data and constants. As G is known with 5 digit accuracy, result using it cannot be better. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7b7v8$2np$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545523 |
On 1/14/2016 6:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Yes. I have used 18 different elements of the orbits of nine plants to calculate > nine times the value of GM. If the results had been different only for a single > planet, uncertainty would have been the case. All however were identical, proving > statistically that all 9 calculations did have a certainty of 100%. (If I measure > a string nine times and the measurement is nine times the same, uncertainty is zero). No, Peter, this is wrong. Did you ever take a freshman physics course to learn the sources of uncertainty and how to quantify them? Your idea of how to determine uncertainty is just not right. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 18:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <u9CdnZzp6N3Q2QXLnZ2dnUU7-b3OydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #545007 |
On 1/13/16 1:00 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method > Why don't you just put a solar satellite up with radio transmitted coordinates to precisely determine its orbit. GM_sun = rv^2 where the r and the v can be measured very precisely. -- 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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a767e4e1-021e-475f-9bce-20049c063cc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545525 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:58:57 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 1/13/16 1:00 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method > > > > Why don't you just put a solar satellite up with radio transmitted > coordinates to precisely determine its orbit. > > GM_sun = rv^2 > > where the r and the v can be measured very precisely. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Not necessary. My calculations by my four formulas sufficiently prove the harmony of the solar system.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web