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 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 23:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method |
| Message-ID | <e1498c1e-2776-4abd-b083-278686467d72@googlegroups.com> |
Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. Another method can be used instead in two steps: Calculate first GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities of nine solar planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20: r(m) v(m) GM=r*v^2 MER 57,910,000,000 47872.331186690100 1.327158270E+20 VEN 108,210,000,000 35020.928829168200 1.327158270E+20 EAR 149,600,000,000 29784.859929434700 1.327158270E+20 MAR 227,920,000,000 24130.712240913500 1.327158270E+20 JUP 778,570,000,000 13056.071691050500 1.327158270E+20 SAT 1,427,000,000,000 9643.826140121100 1.327158270E+20 URA 2,871,000,000,000 6798.995638532940 1.327158270E+20 NEP 4,497,100,000,000 5432.441851833260 1.327158270E+20 PLU 5,913,000,000,000 4737.589410729630 1.327158270E+20 The results for GM are identical due to an adjustment to the velocity of the planets I made to compensate for eccentricity. The second step is to divide GM by the gravitational constant G which was derived by Cavendish in the laboratory in 1798: M = 1.327167630E+20 / 6.674E-11 = 1.9885640E+30.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n74un6$k4e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545007 |
Dne 13/01/2016 v 08:00 Peter Riedt napsal(a): ...... > > r(m) v(m) GM=r*v^2 > MER 57,910,000,000 47872.331186690100 1.327158270E+20 > VEN 108,210,000,000 35020.928829168200 1.327158270E+20 > EAR 149,600,000,000 29784.859929434700 1.327158270E+20 > MAR 227,920,000,000 24130.712240913500 1.327158270E+20 > JUP 778,570,000,000 13056.071691050500 1.327158270E+20 > SAT 1,427,000,000,000 9643.826140121100 1.327158270E+20 > URA 2,871,000,000,000 6798.995638532940 1.327158270E+20 > NEP 4,497,100,000,000 5432.441851833260 1.327158270E+20 > PLU 5,913,000,000,000 4737.589410729630 1.327158270E+20 > > The results for GM are identical due to an adjustment to the velocity of the planets I made to compensate for eccentricity. > > The second step is to divide GM by the gravitational constant G which was derived by Cavendish in the laboratory in 1798: M = 1.327167630E+20 / 6.674E-11 = 1.9885640E+30. > Why do you omit involving the error propagation math rules, concerning absolute/relative accuracies of used physical constants and experimental data ? -- 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 | 2016-01-13 00:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17741057-1935-48ec-8a91-eb1917ab1ce4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545013 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 3:37:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 13/01/2016 v 08:00 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > > > The second step is to divide GM by the gravitational constant G which was derived by Cavendish in the laboratory in 1798: M = 1.327167630E+20 / 6.674E-11 = 1.9885640E+30. > > > > Why do you omit involving the error propagation math rules, > concerning absolute/relative accuracies > of used physical constants and experimental data ? > It is common practice to use the constant G with measured and observed values for objects in the solar system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 10:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n755hv$9kl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545015 |
On 01/13/2016 09:21 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 3:37:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 13/01/2016 v 08:00 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > >>> >>> The second step is to divide GM by the gravitational constant G >>> which was derived by Cavendish in the laboratory in 1798: M = >>> 1.327167630E+20 / 6.674E-11 = 1.9885640E+30. >>> >> >> Why do you omit involving the error propagation math rules, >> concerning absolute/relative accuracies of used physical constants >> and experimental data ? >> > It is common practice to use the constant G with measured and > observed values for objects in the solar system. > But your have answered a different question. Accuracy of constants and data inevitably affects accuracy of all dependent calculated quantities. If we have physical quantities with estimated mean values A, B, C and a, b, c are their respective estimated standard error deviations* then if C = A + B or C = A - B then c = sqrt ( a^2 + b^2 ) if C = A . B or C = A / B then c = C . sqrt((a/A)^2 + (b/B)^2)) So if A=100, a=3 B=200, b=4 then for C = A + B : ( 100 +/- 3 ) + ( 200 +/-4 ) = 300 +/- 5 for C = A . B : ( 100 +/- 3 ). ( 200 +/-4 ) = 20000 +/- cca 720 * the same is applicable to confidential intervals that are propotional to STD -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n75893$ibm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545017 |
On 01/13/2016 10:34 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > if C = A + B or C = A - B then c = sqrt ( a^2 + b^2 ) > if C = A . B or C = A / B then c = C . sqrt((a/A)^2 + (b/B)^2)) > If we have a physical constant A=1.23 and data B=4.56 then we cannot suppose better accuracy than A = 1.23 +/- 0.01 and B = 4.56 +/- 0.01 ( if we do not have any explicit accuracy data ) Therefore we cannot expect C = A . B = 1.23 * 4.56 = 5.6088 as c = 5.6088 . sqrt( (0.01/1.23)^2+(0.01/4.56)^2)= cca 0.047 As C = cca 5.6088 +/- 0.047, it should be published as C 5.61 +/- 0.05 But many of data and most of the constants do have published their accuracy estimation. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <91bc7d7f-63ef-4139-adf2-f58bcf67b389@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545020 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:21:03 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 01/13/2016 10:34 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > > > if C = A + B or C = A - B then c = sqrt ( a^2 + b^2 ) > > if C = A . B or C = A / B then c = C . sqrt((a/A)^2 + (b/B)^2)) > > > If we have a physical constant A=1.23 and data B=4.56 > then we cannot suppose better accuracy than > A = 1.23 +/- 0.01 and B = 4.56 +/- 0.01 > ( if we do not have any explicit accuracy data ) > > Therefore we cannot expect C = A . B = 1.23 * 4.56 = 5.6088 > as c = 5.6088 . sqrt( (0.01/1.23)^2+(0.01/4.56)^2)= cca 0.047 > > As C = cca 5.6088 +/- 0.047, it should be published as C 5.61 +/- 0.05 > > But many of data and most of the constants > do have published their accuracy estimation. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) I have not found an uncertainty factor by Codata for the mass of the sun. However as there is a big difference in the two values for the mass of the sun I have calculated in my post the merit of either method could be evaluated instead. BTW different sources give a different value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n77dv3$5vf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545205 |
Dne 14/01/2016 v 00:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > I have not found an uncertainty factor by Codata for the mass of the sun. However as there is a big difference in the two values for the mass of the sun I have calculated in my post the merit of either method could be evaluated instead. BTW different sources give a different value. > Statistic is exact math domain about non exact numbers. If you are fascinated by calculations, you should be fascinated by statistic as well. As one of the classics said - The ignorance in science is seldom as obviously manifested as in untamed precision of scientific calculations. Numbers related to physical quantities do not have much sense without estimation of their uncertainty. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 11:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfo9ugFc7fdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #545007 |
On 13/01/2016 6:00 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method > > The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula > > Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = > (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. > > This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. I'd have thought we had a pretty good handle on it. > > Another method can be used instead in two steps: > > Calculate first GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities of nine solar planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20: > > r(m) v(m) GM=r*v^2 > MER 57,910,000,000 47872.331186690100 1.327158270E+20 > VEN 108,210,000,000 35020.928829168200 1.327158270E+20 > EAR 149,600,000,000 29784.859929434700 1.327158270E+20 > MAR 227,920,000,000 24130.712240913500 1.327158270E+20 > JUP 778,570,000,000 13056.071691050500 1.327158270E+20 > SAT 1,427,000,000,000 9643.826140121100 1.327158270E+20 > URA 2,871,000,000,000 6798.995638532940 1.327158270E+20 > NEP 4,497,100,000,000 5432.441851833260 1.327158270E+20 > PLU 5,913,000,000,000 4737.589410729630 1.327158270E+20 > Remarkable - the orbit radii are all an exact multiple of 10,000,000 metres. Even that of the Earth, despite AU being an estimate. Who'd have believed it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 02:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n771di$138q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545229 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 13/01/2016 6:00 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method >> The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula >> Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = >> (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. >> This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. > I'd have thought we had a pretty good handle on it. >> Another method can be used instead in two steps: >> Calculate first GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities of nine solar planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1. 32716E+20: >> r(m) v(m) GM=r*v^2 >> MER 57,910,000,000 47872.331186690100 1.327158270E+20 >> VEN 108,210,000,000 35020.928829168200 1.327158270E+20 >> EAR 149,600,000,000 29784.859929434700 1.327158270E+20 >> MAR 227,920,000,000 24130.712240913500 1.327158270E+20 >> JUP 778,570,000,000 13056.071691050500 1.327158270E+20 >> SAT 1,427,000,000,000 9643.826140121100 1.327158270E+20 >> URA 2,871,000,000,000 6798.995638532940 1.327158270E+20 >> NEP 4,497,100,000,000 5432.441851833260 1.327158270E+20 >> PLU 5,913,000,000,000 4737.589410729630 1.327158270E+20 > Remarkable - the orbit radii are all an exact multiple of 10,000,000 > metres. Even that of the Earth, despite AU being an estimate. Who'd have > believed it. It was a very <em>special</em> "adjustment for eccentricity". > Sylvia. -- Australia???s highest temperature: On Jan. 16, 1889, the temperature at Cloncurry, Queensland, Australia, soared to 128 (degrees) F [53C+], the highest temperature ever recorded on the continent of Australia. [http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/january-16-was-the-hottest-day-in-australias-his tory-just-not-this-century/] -- "research" from "Steve Goddard" aka Tony Heller, c2014 Recent investigations have revealed that this temperature was measured in an improvised screen made from a beer crate and that it equated to 47-49 ?C under standard conditions. The highest temperature ever recorded at Cloncurry's current weather station [i.e. under WMO standards] is 46.9 ?C (116.4 ?F), well short of the 1889 temperature of 53.1 ?C. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloncurry,_Queensland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 18:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea6ec5e6-71f5-49b5-9c0d-bdfb553098b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545229 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 8:54:46 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/01/2016 6:00 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method > > > > The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula > > > > Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = > > (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. > > > > This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. > > I'd have thought we had a pretty good handle on it. > > > > > Another method can be used instead in two steps: > > > > Calculate first GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities of nine solar planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20: > > > > r(m) v(m) GM=r*v^2 > > MER 57,910,000,000 47872.331186690100 1.327158270E+20 > > VEN 108,210,000,000 35020.928829168200 1.327158270E+20 > > EAR 149,600,000,000 29784.859929434700 1.327158270E+20 > > MAR 227,920,000,000 24130.712240913500 1.327158270E+20 > > JUP 778,570,000,000 13056.071691050500 1.327158270E+20 > > SAT 1,427,000,000,000 9643.826140121100 1.327158270E+20 > > URA 2,871,000,000,000 6798.995638532940 1.327158270E+20 > > NEP 4,497,100,000,000 5432.441851833260 1.327158270E+20 > > PLU 5,913,000,000,000 4737.589410729630 1.327158270E+20 > > > > Remarkable - the orbit radii are all an exact multiple of 10,000,000 > metres. Even that of the Earth, despite AU being an estimate. Who'd have > believed it. > > Sylvia. The solar system is magic. I calculated the distances of the nine planets from the sun by one of 21 formulas that I used to define the causes of gravity. I also adjusted the orbital velocities. The differences from the standard velocities are small (from less than 1m to less than 46m). They are: v(adj) v(std) diff in m MER 47872.331187 47872.50 -0.16881330990 VEN 35020.928829 35021.40 -0.47117083178 EAR 29784.859929 29785.90 -1.04007056533 MAR 24130.712241 24130.90 -0.18775908649 JUP 13056.071691 13069.70 -13.62830894953 SAT 9643.826140 9672.40 -28.57385987890 URA 6798.995639 6835.20 -36.20436146706 NEP 5432.441852 5477.80 -45.35814816674 PLU 4737.589411 4749.00 -11.41058927037 The result of my adjustments is that GM is identical for the nine planets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 02:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n772jc$14es$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545236 |
Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 8:54:46 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/01/2016 6:00 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method >> > The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula >> > Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = >> > (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. >> > This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. >> I'd have thought we had a pretty good handle on it. >> > Another method can be used instead in two steps: >> > Calculate first GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities of nine solar planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1. 32716E+20: >> > r(m) v(m) GM=r*v^2 >> > MER 57,910,000,000 47872.331186690100 1.327158270E+20 >> > VEN 108,210,000,000 35020.928829168200 1.327158270E+20 >> > EAR 149,600,000,000 29784.859929434700 1.327158270E+20 >> > MAR 227,920,000,000 24130.712240913500 1.327158270E+20 >> > JUP 778,570,000,000 13056.071691050500 1.327158270E+20 >> > SAT 1,427,000,000,000 9643.826140121100 1.327158270E+20 >> > URA 2,871,000,000,000 6798.995638532940 1.327158270E+20 >> > NEP 4,497,100,000,000 5432.441851833260 1.327158270E+20 >> > PLU 5,913,000,000,000 4737.589410729630 1.327158270E+20 >> Remarkable - the orbit radii are all an exact multiple of 10,000,000 >> metres. Even that of the Earth, despite AU being an estimate. Who'd have >> believed it. >> Sylvia. > The solar system is magic. I calculated the distances of the nine planets from the sun by one of 21 formulas that I used to define the causes of gravity. I also adjusted the orbital velocities. The differences from the standard velocities are small (from less than 1m to less than 46m). They are: > v(adj) v(std) diff in m > MER 47872.331187 47872.50 -0.16881330990 > VEN 35020.928829 35021.40 -0.47117083178 > EAR 29784.859929 29785.90 -1.04007056533 > MAR 24130.712241 24130.90 -0.18775908649 > JUP 13056.071691 13069.70 -13.62830894953 > SAT 9643.826140 9672.40 -28.57385987890 > URA 6798.995639 6835.20 -36.20436146706 > NEP 5432.441852 5477.80 -45.35814816674 > PLU 4737.589411 4749.00 -11.41058927037 > The result of my adjustments is that GM is identical for the nine planets. Too bad. If you had used a regression not only would the value more likely be unbiased, but you could drag out a confidence interval on either G or M or both. More generally, if you drop the requirement that M be constant you might even get a ballpark on the local DM distribution. -- [Summer's] our accident season. It's when people get stranded. They break wheel nuts, blow tyres. We had a chap in here two days ago, he'd blown four tyres on his vehicle driving around in these temperatures. You can imagine if it's 49C in the shade, we're talking 77, 78, 80 degrees out in the sun. I mean, you're running rubber on [the road] -- tyres just can't cope with that sort of condition. -- Phil Turner, Manager Maree Hotel, 2 Jan 2014
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 10:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n77uk2$96e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545237 |
R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote: > Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: ... > Too bad. > If you had used a regression not only would the value more likely > be unbiased, but you could drag out a confidence interval on either G > or M or both. > More generally, if you drop the requirement that M be constant you > might even get a ballpark on the local DM distribution. Here's what you're aiming at: http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html DARK MATTER IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM ... the total mass of dark matter within the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun: for an orbital radius of 100 million km, we get a total of 2.3x1012 kg of dark matter within the Earth's orbit. -- [Turtle power:] Right, but hydrogen is not a source of energy - it only a storage system. [Not like oil at all!] -- Super Turtle, 1/13/2016 4:19 PM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 22:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b3256e31-21c3-4dc2-b14d-b2485a632c0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545307 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 2:51:54 AM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote: > R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote: > > Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > ... > > Too bad. > > If you had used a regression not only would the value more likely > > be unbiased, but you could drag out a confidence interval on either G > > or M or both. > > More generally, if you drop the requirement that M be constant you > > might even get a ballpark on the local DM distribution. > > Here's what you're aiming at: > > > http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html > > DARK MATTER IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM > ... the total mass of dark matter within the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun: > for an orbital radius of 100 million km, we get a total of 2.3x1012 kg of dark matter > within the Earth's orbit. > > > -- > [Turtle power:] > Right, but hydrogen is not a source of energy - it only a storage system. > [Not like oil at all!] > -- Super Turtle, 1/13/2016 4:19 PM From the same source: "Dark matter should have gravitational effects on the planets orbits and on space probes, but we are so far unable to detect them." Great, an unobservable, now it's not science anymore. "For objects farther out near the edge of the galaxy, the dark matter is actually the main thing keeping them in their orbits. This is more or less how dark matter was discovered by astronomer Vera Rubin and others: the orbital speeds of galactic stars and gas clouds don't match our expectations from the visible matter. In other words, a galaxy is much lower in density than the solar system, so the small dark matter density becomes much more important." Huh, galaxies as so much less dense, but there are so many more stars. No offense, just that all matter is ordinary. Dark matter is just to not have some notion of central draw of galaxy-scale objects, as of their formation or out view of them, instead of them not having any structural form not having to do with ordinary visible matter's ubiquitous constant attraction (or occlusion in fall models of gravity). The "discovery" of an effect that _is an effect on massy and energetic bodies_ simply is not necessarily other than an effect of the organization, configuration, and structure of these galaxy-scale bodies where it is observed. "Virtual particles" are not "particles", but energetic systems of effect in a particle theory, "dark matter" is not matter but "virtual and as of effect as a distribution of matter's effect on the gravitational field". So, variously, reference to dark matter is either accommodative, meaning a reference to its effect, and that it's not really "matter" but whatever else is that effect, or ignorant, like a Flintstone dinosaur, as in "the dark matter ate the dingo".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n77egc$6n2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545236 |
Dne 14/01/2016 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > The solar system is magic. I calculated the distances of the nine planets from the sun by one of 21 formulas that I used to define the causes of gravity. I also adjusted the orbital velocities. The differences from the standard velocities are small (from less than 1m to less than 46m). They are: > > v(adj) v(std) diff in m > MER 47872.331187 47872.50 -0.16881330990 > VEN 35020.928829 35021.40 -0.47117083178 > EAR 29784.859929 29785.90 -1.04007056533 > MAR 24130.712241 24130.90 -0.18775908649 > JUP 13056.071691 13069.70 -13.62830894953 > SAT 9643.826140 9672.40 -28.57385987890 > URA 6798.995639 6835.20 -36.20436146706 > NEP 5432.441852 5477.80 -45.35814816674 > PLU 4737.589411 4749.00 -11.41058927037 > > The result of my adjustments is that GM is identical for the nine planets. > What are confidential intervals of these values ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 08:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78a8c$165f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545236 |
On 1/13/2016 8:46 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> Sylvia. > > The solar system is magic. I calculated the distances of the nine planets from the > sun by one of 21 formulas that I used to define the causes of gravity. I also adjusted > the orbital velocities. The differences from the standard velocities are small (from > less than 1m to less than 46m). Peter, what are the units of velocity? > They are: > > v(adj) v(std) diff in m > MER 47872.331187 47872.50 -0.16881330990 > VEN 35020.928829 35021.40 -0.47117083178 > EAR 29784.859929 29785.90 -1.04007056533 > MAR 24130.712241 24130.90 -0.18775908649 > JUP 13056.071691 13069.70 -13.62830894953 > SAT 9643.826140 9672.40 -28.57385987890 > URA 6798.995639 6835.20 -36.20436146706 > NEP 5432.441852 5477.80 -45.35814816674 > PLU 4737.589411 4749.00 -11.41058927037 > > The result of my adjustments is that GM is identical for the nine planets. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n77ed4$6n2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545007 |
Dne 13/01/2016 v 08:00 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method > > The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula > > Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = > (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. > > This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. How then you can provide 10 valid digits of results, concerning deliberate rounding of pi to 3.14 and available accuracy estimation of G ? As a homework, you may calculate the error propagation from inputs to result. BTW, 149597870700 m is not estimation, but definition of AU. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n77fss$ach$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545285 |
Dne 14/01/2016 v 07:17 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 13/01/2016 v 08:00 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >> Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method >> >> The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula >> >> Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = >> (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. > You have not counted with the ellipticity of the orbit. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 00:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d9e1d87-5fdf-4db8-ac23-7a3e3ee617fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545285 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 2:17:46 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 13/01/2016 v 08:00 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > Calculating the mass of the sun by an improved method > > > > The usual method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula > > > > Msun = 4pi^2*(1 AU)^3/G*(1 Yr)^2 = > > (4*3.14^2/149597870700^3)/(6.674E-11*31558464^2) = 1.986449857E+30. > > > > This method is unreliable because the value of AU is an estimate. > > How then you can provide 10 valid digits of results, > concerning deliberate rounding of pi to 3.14 > and available accuracy estimation of G ? > > As a homework, you may calculate > the error propagation from inputs to result. > > BTW, 149597870700 m is not estimation, but definition of AU. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) > > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. The truncated value of pi was only used as a demonstration of the usual formula to calculate GM. My formula does not use pi neither does it use AU as an estimate or definition. My values of the distances and velocities are calculated from the standard values that may be estimates, definitions or measurements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 16:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n78d8e$cbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545301 |
On 01/14/2016 09:20 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > The truncated value of pi was only used as a demonstration of the usual formula to calculate GM. My formula does not use pi neither does it use AU as an estimate or definition. My values of the distances and velocities are calculated from the standard values that may be estimates, definitions or measurements. And as such, they are subject of proper error propagation management and estimation. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 16:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <43fcb685-9688-4d7f-91a3-18feaaea48e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545339 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:04:21 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 01/14/2016 09:20 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > The truncated value of pi was only used as a demonstration of the usual formula to calculate GM. My formula does not use pi neither does it use AU as an estimate or definition. My values of the distances and velocities are calculated from the standard values that may be estimates, definitions or measurements. > > And as such, they are subject > of proper error propagation management and estimation. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web