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

Groups > sci.physics > #545797 > unrolled thread

The mass of the sun II

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 21:43 -0800
    Re: The mass of the sun II Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 07:46 +0100
      Re: The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-16 01:24 -0800
    Re: The mass of the sun II R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-16 09:10 +0000
    Re: The mass of the sun II Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 10:51 -0600
      Re: The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-16 15:21 -0800
        Re: The mass of the sun II Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:13 -0600
    Re: The mass of the sun II Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 11:15 -0600
      Re: The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-16 15:25 -0800
        Re: The mass of the sun II Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:16 -0600
          Re: The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 00:24 -0800
            Re: The mass of the sun II Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 12:08 -0600
              Re: The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 10:25 -0800
                Re: The mass of the sun II Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 12:36 -0600
                  Re: The mass of the sun II Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 10:51 -0800

#545797 — The mass of the sun II

The mass of the sun II

The standard method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula
M = 4(3.14159265359)^2*(149597870700)^3/((6.674E-11)(365*24*60*60)^2) with a result of 1.98846548016881E+30 using the standard value of AU of 149,597,870,700 m.

But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
The consequence is that the mass of the sun varies by this method of calculation by 10.56% from aphelion to perihelion. It is a major systemic error.

A better method can be used instead in two steps: 

First calculate GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities 
of nine solar planets which have been adjusted for the eccentric orbits of the nine planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20.

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.

The calculations of the nine planets in detail are:
			
                     r(adj)	    v(adj)	     GM=r*v^2	
MER 	   57,910,000,000	47872.33119	1.3271582700E+20
VEN 	  108,210,000,000	35020.92883	1.3271582700E+20
EAR 	  149,600,000,000	29784.85993	1.3271582700E+20
MAR 	  227,920,000,000	24130.71224	1.3271582700E+20
JUP 	  778,570,000,000	13056.07169	1.3271582700E+20
SAT 	1,427,000,000,000	 9643.82614	1.3271582700E+20
URA 	2,871,000,000,000	6798.995639	1.3271582700E+20
NEP 	4,497,100,000,000	5432.441852	1.3271582700E+20
PLU 	5,913,000,000,000	4737.589411	1.3271582700E+20
			
The differences from the standard velocities are small (from less than 1m/sec to less than 46m/sec). They are:
		
	 vm(std)	   v(adj)	    diff in m
MER 	47872.50	47872.331187	 -0.16881330990
VEN 	35021.40	35020.928829	 -0.47117083178
EAR 	29785.90	29784.859929	 -1.04007056533
MAR 	24130.90	24130.712241	 -0.18775908649
JUP 	13069.70	13056.071691	-13.62830894953
SAT 	 9672.40	 9643.826140	-28.57385987890
URA 	 6835.20	 6798.995639	-36.20436146706
NEP 	 5477.80	 5432.441852	-45.35814816674
PLU 	 4749.00	 4737.589411	-11.41058927037

			
The differences between the standard and adjusted distances are small; 
they range from -0.0073 to 0.112%. They are:
			
	      r(std)	       r(adj)	 diff in %
MER 	   57,909,175,000	   57,910,000,000	 0.0014246
VEN 	  108,208,930,000	  108,210,000,000	 0.0009888
EAR 	  149,597,890,000	  149,600,000,000	 0.0014104
MAR 	  227,936,640,000	  227,920,000,000	-0.0073003
JUP 	  778,412,010,000	  778,570,000,000	 0.0202964
SAT 	1,426,725,400,000	1,427,000,000,000	 0.0192469
URA 	2,870,972,200,000	2,871,000,000,000	 0.0009683
NEP 	4,498,252,900,000	4,497,100,000,000	-0.0256300
PLU 	5,906,380,000,000	5,913,000,000,000	 0.1120822
			
			

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#545803

Dne 16/01/2016 v 06:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> The mass of the sun II
> 
> The standard method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula
> M = 4(3.14159265359)^2*(149597870700)^3/((6.674E-11)(365*24*60*60)^2) with a result of 1.98846548016881E+30 using the standard value of AU of 149,597,870,700 m.

1/ Valid for the main ellipse half axis equal to AU
2/ 365 days is not Earth orbit period
3/ How can low accuracy of G provide result with accuracy of 15 digits ?
4/ IT is much better to use symbolic algebraic notations then inaccurate
numbers.

> 
> But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.

AU does not change. It is DEFINED as 149,597,870,700 m
Therefor Earth Sun distance oscillates around 1 AU
and the main ellipse half axis is greater than 1  AU.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#545808

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:46:51 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/01/2016 v 06:43 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > The mass of the sun II
> > 
> > The standard method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula
> > M = 4(3.14159265359)^2*(149597870700)^3/((6.674E-11)(365*24*60*60)^2) with a result of 1.98846548016881E+30 using the standard value of AU of 149,597,870,700 m.
> 
> 1/ Valid for the main ellipse half axis equal to AU
> 2/ 365 days is not Earth orbit period
> 3/ How can low accuracy of G provide result with accuracy of 15 digits ?
> 4/ IT is much better to use symbolic algebraic notations then inaccurate
> numbers.
> 
> > 
> > But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> > to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
> 
> AU does not change. It is DEFINED as 149,597,870,700 m
> Therefor Earth Sun distance oscillates around 1 AU
> and the main ellipse half axis is greater than 1  AU.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Your points 1 to 4 apply to the incorrect formula not my calculations. You are correct, AU is a definition and as such it cannot be used to calculate M correctly.

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

#545807

Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The mass of the sun II
> The standard method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula
> M = 4(3.14159265359)^2*(149597870700)^3/((6.674E-11)(365*24*60*60)^2) with 
a result of 1.98846548016881E+30 using the standard value of AU of 149,597,870,700 m.
> But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
> The consequence is that the mass of the sun varies by this method of 
calculation by 10.56% from aphelion to perihelion. It is a major systemic error.
> A better method can be used instead in two steps: 
> First calculate GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities 
> of nine solar planets which have been adjusted for the eccentric orbits of the nine planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20.

You may need to consider more adjustments.

The giant planets affect the orbital periods of the inner planets. It's a pretty
big effect -- equivalent to adjusting the mass of the sun by 1/3 of Jupiter's mass.
I.e. unless taken into account the solar mass can only be accurate to ~4 sig figures.


>...

-- 
-- http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=188031DB-1
The time series graph (below) shows that, when averaged across the nation, 
annual temperatures have fluctuated from year to year over the period 1948-
2014. The linear trend indicates that annual temperatures averaged across 
the nation have warmed by 1.6?C over the past 67 years.
<http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/188031DB-BA85-4FB5-9923-46076E0E4C56/
CTVB_annual_2014_temp_graph_e.jpg>

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

#545835

On 1/15/16 11:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The mass of the sun II
>
> The standard method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula
> M = 4(3.14159265359)^2*(149597870700)^3/((6.674E-11)(365*24*60*60)^2) with a result of 1.98846548016881E+30 using the standard value of AU of 149,597,870,700 m.
>
> But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
> The consequence is that the mass of the sun varies by this method of calculation by 10.56% from aphelion to perihelion. It is a major systemic error.
>
> A better method can be used instead in two steps:
>
> First calculate GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities
> of nine solar planets which have been adjusted for the eccentric orbits of the nine planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20.
>
> 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.
>
> The calculations of the nine planets in detail are:
> 			
>                       r(adj)	    v(adj)	     GM=r*v^2	
> MER 	   57,910,000,000	47872.33119	1.3271582700E+20
> VEN 	  108,210,000,000	35020.92883	1.3271582700E+20
> EAR 	  149,600,000,000	29784.85993	1.3271582700E+20
> MAR 	  227,920,000,000	24130.71224	1.3271582700E+20
> JUP 	  778,570,000,000	13056.07169	1.3271582700E+20
> SAT 	1,427,000,000,000	 9643.82614	1.3271582700E+20
> URA 	2,871,000,000,000	6798.995639	1.3271582700E+20
> NEP 	4,497,100,000,000	5432.441852	1.3271582700E+20
> PLU 	5,913,000,000,000	4737.589411	1.3271582700E+20
> 			


   You have some augmentations and errors to deal with, Peter.

   Sun
   GMS = 1.32712442099E20 m^3/s^2 (TCB) +/- 1E10
       = 1.32712440041E20 m^3/s^2 (TDB) +/- 1E10

   TCB - Barycentric Coordinate Time
   TDB - Barycentric Dynamical Time

   Ref:
> 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]

#545931

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 12:51:18 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/15/16 11:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The mass of the sun II
> >
> > The standard method to calculate the mass of the sun is by the formula
> > M = 4(3.14159265359)^2*(149597870700)^3/((6.674E-11)(365*24*60*60)^2) with a result of 1.98846548016881E+30 using the standard value of AU of 149,597,870,700 m.
> >
> > But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> > to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
> > The consequence is that the mass of the sun varies by this method of calculation by 10.56% from aphelion to perihelion. It is a major systemic error.
> >
> > A better method can be used instead in two steps:
> >
> > First calculate GM by the formula GM = r*v^2 using the distances and velocities
> > of nine solar planets which have been adjusted for the eccentric orbits of the nine planets. The result for GM in each instance is 1.32716E+20.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The calculations of the nine planets in detail are:
> > 			
> >                       r(adj)	    v(adj)	     GM=r*v^2	
> > MER 	   57,910,000,000	47872.33119	1.3271582700E+20
> > VEN 	  108,210,000,000	35020.92883	1.3271582700E+20
> > EAR 	  149,600,000,000	29784.85993	1.3271582700E+20
> > MAR 	  227,920,000,000	24130.71224	1.3271582700E+20
> > JUP 	  778,570,000,000	13056.07169	1.3271582700E+20
> > SAT 	1,427,000,000,000	 9643.82614	1.3271582700E+20
> > URA 	2,871,000,000,000	6798.995639	1.3271582700E+20
> > NEP 	4,497,100,000,000	5432.441852	1.3271582700E+20
> > PLU 	5,913,000,000,000	4737.589411	1.3271582700E+20
> > 			
> 
> 
>    You have some augmentations and errors to deal with, Peter.
> 
>    Sun
>    GMS = 1.32712442099E20 m^3/s^2 (TCB) +/- 1E10
>        = 1.32712440041E20 m^3/s^2 (TDB) +/- 1E10
> 
>    TCB - Barycentric Coordinate Time
>    TDB - Barycentric Dynamical Time
> 
>    Ref:
> > 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.

Sam, irrelevant. The big picture is, my formula GM=rv2 reveals that the sun drives all planets by a single mechanism. Details in my theory about gravity. Vision needed; not pedantries.

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

#545947

On 1/16/16 5:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Sam, irrelevant. The big picture is, my formula [actually Isaac
> Newton's] GM=rv2 reveals that the sun drives all planets by a single
> mechanism [gravitation]. Details in my theory about gravity. Vision
> needed; not pedantries.
>

   Peter, your methodology would not be acceptable to any researcher.

   Sun (based on observational data)
   GMS = 1.32712442099E20 m^3/s^2 (TCB) +/- 1E10
       = 1.32712440041E20 m^3/s^2 (TDB) +/- 1E10

   TCB - Barycentric Coordinate Time
   TDB - Barycentric Dynamical Time

   Ref:
> 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]

#545840

On 1/15/16 11:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.

   The Astronomical Unit (AU) doesn't change -- it is defined as
   149,597,870,700 m.  What is continually varying is the distance
   between sun and earth (or earth's barycenter).

   Definition of AU
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#Development_of_unit_definition


-- 

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]

#545934

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:15:34 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/15/16 11:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> > to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
> 
>    The Astronomical Unit (AU) doesn't change -- it is defined as
>    149,597,870,700 m.  What is continually varying is the distance
>    between sun and earth (or earth's barycenter).

Sam, yes and the mass of the sun changes accordingly?

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

#545950

On 1/16/16 5:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:15:34 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 1/15/16 11:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
>>> to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
>>
>>     The Astronomical Unit (AU) doesn't change -- it is defined as
>>     149,597,870,700 m.  What is continually varying is the distance
>>     between sun and earth (or earth's barycenter).
>
> Sam, yes and the mass of the sun changes accordingly?
>

   How is the mass of the sun changing, Peter? Has a change been measured
   over the last hundred years.



-- 

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]

#546041

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:17:02 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/16/16 5:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:15:34 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 1/15/16 11:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> But in the course of a year AU changes from 147,100,176,000 m in January
> >>> to 152,103,775,000 m in July because the orbit of the earth is not circular.
> >>
> >>     The Astronomical Unit (AU) doesn't change -- it is defined as
> >>     149,597,870,700 m.  What is continually varying is the distance
> >>     between sun and earth (or earth's barycenter).
> >
> > Sam, yes and the mass of the sun changes accordingly?
> >
> 
>    How is the mass of the sun changing, Peter? Has a change been measured
>    over the last hundred years.
> 
> 
My post finishes with ? The mass is not changing but the calculation by a 'defined constant' can only be true if the mass of the sun changes according to the barycentric distance. M as calculated by your source may be true twice in a year but false on the other 363 days.

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

#546077

On 1/17/16 2:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:17:02 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>     How is the mass of the sun changing, Peter? Has a change been measured
>>     over the last hundred years.
>>
>>

> My post finishes with ? The mass is not changing but the calculation
> by a 'defined constant' can only be true if the mass of the sun
> changes according to the barycentric distance. M as calculated by
> your source may be true twice in a year but false on the other 363
> days.
>

   Then your work should go in the Trash. Be discarded. Not viable.


-- 

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]

#546080

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:08:31 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/17/16 2:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:17:02 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >>     How is the mass of the sun changing, Peter? Has a change been measured
> >>     over the last hundred years.
> >>
> >>
> 
> > My post finishes with ? The mass is not changing but the calculation
> > by a 'defined constant' can only be true if the mass of the sun
> > changes according to the barycentric distance. M as calculated by
> > your source may be true twice in a year but false on the other 363
> > days.
> >
> 
>    Then your work should go in the Trash. Be discarded. Not viable.
> 
> 
Your reply doesn't make sense.

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

#546083

On 1/17/16 12:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:08:31 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 1/17/16 2:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:17:02 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      How is the mass of the sun changing, Peter? Has a change been measured
>>>>      over the last hundred years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> My post finishes with ? The mass is not changing but the calculation
>>> by a 'defined constant' can only be true if the mass of the sun
>>> changes according to the barycentric distance. M as calculated by
>>> your source may be true twice in a year but false on the other 363
>>> days.
>>>
>>
>>     Then your work should go in the Trash. Be discarded. Not viable.
>>
>>
> Your reply doesn't make sense.
>

   The mass of the sun is independent of the barycentric distance, and
   does not change and a function, thereof. Your idea is observationally
   wrong, and must be discarded.



-- 

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]

#546091

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:36:32 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/17/16 12:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:08:31 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 1/17/16 2:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:17:02 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>      How is the mass of the sun changing, Peter? Has a change been measured
> >>>>      over the last hundred years.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>> My post finishes with ? The mass is not changing but the calculation
> >>> by a 'defined constant' can only be true if the mass of the sun
> >>> changes according to the barycentric distance. M as calculated by
> >>> your source may be true twice in a year but false on the other 363
> >>> days.
> >>>
> >>
> >>     Then your work should go in the Trash. Be discarded. Not viable.
> >>
> >>
> > Your reply doesn't make sense.
> >
> 
>    The mass of the sun is independent of the barycentric distance, and
>    does not change and a function, thereof. Your idea is observationally
>    wrong, and must be discarded.
> 
> 
Agree with part of your first sentence: The mass of the sun is independent of the barycentric distance, and does not change. But the calculation of the mass of the sun by the two barycentric methods is erroneous.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web