Craig Markwardt wrote in message
...
[Snip, I did the comment in the previous message.]
(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
We always should use the total of quantity of a planetary mass
and its satellites at evaluation of the ratioes of the given type.
Since your ratios are completely arbitrary, your choice of masses is
irrelevant.
Since including values of masses of planets your different so-called
' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters ' "
are completely arbitrary " in different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES,
my " choice of 'Magic Ratios of UNPARALLELED CLASS linear combinations
of triples nearest planetary system masses ' is _always_ relevant."
================================================== ===================
Absolutely all classic conservation laws are obliged to own existence
by PHYSICAL SYMMETRY of a material WORLD.
================================================== ===================
I searched for the laws of GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICAL SYMMETRY in
the Solar System and I have found this one that I searched.
Please read the classical authors:
1. Richard Feynman "THE CHARACTER OF PHISICAL LAW";
A series of lectures recorded by the BBC at Cornell University USA;
Cox and Wynman LTD, London, 1965
"The fundamental physical laws have properties tightly connected with a
symmetry" Richard Feynman.
2. For the first time in the world the French mathematician and physicist
Henry Poincare has paid attention to a symmetry of the physical laws:
Henry Poinca
1. La Science et l'hypothhse (1903; Science and Hypothesis),
2. La Valeur de la science (1905; The Value of Science),
3. Science et mithode (1908; Science and Method), Paris,
Flammarion, 13 mille 1914, 14 mille 1918
These three writings can be found in:
The Foundations of Science,
containing Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science,
and Science and Method, trans. by George Bruce Halsted,
Lancaster(Pa), Science press, cop. 1946
4. Dernihres pensies (1913); This writing can be found in:
Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, trans. by John W. Bolduc,
New York, Dover, cop. 1963
I express a profound gratitude to Craig Markwardt for the indicating
of inexactness in my data tables.
Planetary system masses
" The more reliable values for Planetary system masses " a
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html
The ratio of the Sun mass
to the total of a planetary mass and her satellites
(IERS 1992, DE403 1995, DE-405. )
Table 1.
| Mass Ratio Exact Ratio
| considered value uncertainty
| Note 1. of the estimate
| ratio ± (Note 2.)
|
| Sun / (Jupiter system) = 1047.3486 0.0008
| Sun / (Saturn system) = 3497.898 0.018
| Sun / (Neptune system) = 19412.24 0.04
| Sun / (Uranus system) = 22902.98 0.03
| Sun / (Earth system) = 328900.56 0.02
| Sun / Venus = 408523.71 0.06
| Sun / (Mars system) = 3098708. 9.
| Sun / Mercury = 6023600. 250.
Let Mass value for Earth system = 1 , then:
Table 2.
| Planet Symbol used Mass value |
| system for each |
| planet system Earth system=1 |
| |
| Jupiter system MSju or 1 314.03162 |
| Saturn system MSsa or 2 94.02806 |
| Neptune system MSne or 3 16.94295 |
| Uranus system MSur or 4 14.36060 |
| Earth system MSea or 5 1.00000 |
| Venus MSve or 6 0.80510 |
| Mars system MSma or 7 0.10614 |
| Mercury MSme or 8 0.05460 |
Tables Notes.
Note 1.
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html ( DE405 )
Yoder, C.F. 1995. in Global Earth Physics, A Handbook of Physical Constants,
AGU Reference Shelf 1, American Geophysical Union, Tables 6,7,10.
Note 2.
http://horizons.jpl.nasa.gov/phys_props_planets.html
Standish, E.M. (1995) in Highlights of Astronomy (I. Appenzeller, ed.),
Table 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Note 3.
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/eph_info.html
" Ratio uncertainty " is interior precision for the JPL's DE405 theory.
Magic Ratios of UNPARALLELED CLASS
linear combinations of triples nearest planetary system masses
Table 3.
| Ratio Exact Ratio Rounded
| considered value uncertainty ratio
| of the estimate
| ratio for DE405
|
|(MSju + MSsa) / (MSur + MSne) = 13.03557 4.55D-05 13
| MSju / (MSur + MSne) = 10.03182 2.49D-05 10
| MSsa / (MSur + MSne) = 3.00375 2.06D-05 3
|(MSju + MSsa) / MSne = 24.08434 9.23D-05 24
| MSur / (MSea + MSve) = 7.95559 1.12D-05 8
|(MSne + MSur) / MSve = 38.88179 7.24D-05 39
|(MSea + MSve) / MSme = 33.059 1.38D-03 33
| MSve / (MSma + MSme) = 5.00858 8.10D-05 5
Chiral symmetry of ratios
When organised graphically, the ratios of linear combinations of
the planetary masses considered, reveal a chain of gravitational
correlations between triples of planets possessing chiral symmetry:
Graph 1.
10
I-----------|
I 13 |
I==============I
I | I
? 39 I | I
|-----------------I 33 |----------------I 24 | I
| |------------------I |-----------------I
| | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I
| | I====| | I====| | I====| | I====| | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - --------------------------------------------------------------
The following symbols here are used in this graphic:
MSsa + MSju - 2 + 1; MSur + MSne - 4 + 3;
MSve + MSea - 6 + 5; MSme + MSma - 8 + 7;
MSju - 1; MSsa - 2; MSne - 3; MSur - 4;
MSea - 5; MSve - 6; MSma - 7; MSme - 8;
5
Direct gravitational correlation - ====;
33
Reverse gravitational correlation - ----------
Note: Here it is necessary to understand exclusive importance of
the numbers Fibonacci for gravitational regularities inside
the Solar system in common case:
If you look at direct gravitational connections than you will see the
following numbers: 3, 5, 8, 13.
For the third hypothetical quad there should be now following numbers
accordingly: 21 and 34.
Please make the answer to a problem:
" Why the different CELESTIAL MECHANICAL THEORIES have
different so-called
' SYSTEMS of Astrodynamic FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS and Parameters '? "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Implicit in the above question is the presupposition that there are
different celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic
constants." What is the basis for this claim? Which theories? Which
constants?
It is unstable set of unstable "astrodynamic constants and parameters."
In a history of definition of astronomical constants
there were some stable versions. Here some of them:
- the Newcome's System, 1898
- IAU system, 1964
- IAU system, 1976
- DE102 system, 1977
- DE200 system, 1982
- IERS system, 1992
- DE403 system, 1995.
And so on...
[Snip for the comments in the following message.]
Sincerely
Aleksandr Timofeev