(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message
...
Repeating your message five times is discourteous.

(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.

[ from another scattered message ]
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."

You make the erroneous presupposition that the masses in celestial
mechanics solutions are arbitrary. They are not. A different set of
masses would not provide a fit to the data, within the confidence
limits, and so therefore your comment is irrelevant.

================================================== ===================
Absolutely all classic conservation laws are obliged to own existence
by PHYSICAL SYMMETRY of a material WORLD.
================================================== ===================

Physical laws are human models of how nature behaves. Nature is not
obliged to obey any human preconception.


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?

The basis for for this claim is the existence of the several national
celestial mechanics theories with different "astrodynamic constants
and parameters."

You make the erroneous presupposition that the solutions that you
mention [ in various other scattered messages ] are different theories
of celestial mechanics, which they are not. They are different
*solutions* to the same theory of gravitation, with different sets of
observations. [ refs. 1-3 ] In general, as the amount of independent
observational data increases, the confidence limits on the parameters
-- such as the planetary masses -- will become tighter.



[ Timofeev: ]
Since " GR is a theory which explains the dynamics of masses under
gravitation ", the " almighty " GR is obliged to give theoretical
explanation for 'The empirical law connecting values of planetary
masses in the Solar system'.

Illogical conclusion. Ohm's law has nothing to say about the
formative composition or masses of resistors, and yet it is a useful
description of the behavior of current flow. GR has nothing to say
about the compositions or masses of planets, but it is a useful
description of the dynamical behaviors of masses under gravitation.

In this case I shall offer you other parable from a history physicists:

The referenced parable is irrelevant, because neither Balmer's nor
Bohr's theories of the atom explain the compositions, masses or
charges of the atomic constituents.



Furthermore, it is quite possible for one to find suggestive
numerological relations between groups of quantities, whether or not
the relation is real. In the case above, the number of combinations
of ratios A/(B+C), (A+B)/C or (A+B)/(C+D) is 756. Therefore it is not
surprising that of there could be a tens of ratios close to a whole
number (within +/- 0.05) even for a purely random distribution of
planetary masses. That you found only eight of them suggests that you
could have found quite a few more, if you so chose.

I notice your lack of response to my comment.

Response to your comment a
1) Uncommon or Unparalleled CLASS linear combinations
of triple nearest planetary system masses;
2) PHYSICAL SIMMETRY;
3) Fibonacci numbers

These responses are irrelevant to my comment. It is possible to
choose *many* different combinations of ratios by random which lie
close to a whole number. Since you deliberately chose which ratios
appear in your "theory," there is nothing self evident or
"unparalleled" about them.


The equivalence of inert mass and gravitational mass is physically
error guess on the basis of local measurings.

It is an assumption which has been tested extensively. See for
example Nordtvedt, *The Century of Space Science*, 2001, Kluwer,
Netherlands, p. 335-352. Tests of gravity do not require the
assumption of the equivalence principle. However, tests to date have
been consistent with the equivalence principle.


Extra-solar tests of GR rely on highly precise timing tests.

What other physical quantities you can precision measure in these
" Extra-solar tests of GR " except for " highly precise timing tests
"?

Irrelevant question. Highly precise timing tests are not
quantities. In pulsar timing, the orbit determination is sufficiently
accurate to provide tests of gravitational models *without* assuming
GR is correct.

You have
not presented a basis for your declaration that the tests are
"extremely speculative." You have not presented a quantitative or
technical argument refuting a set of results which is indeed highly
quantitative, careful and technical (for example, measurement of
Shapiro delay within a binary pulsar wystem to within 35 ns; or of
orbital decay predicted by gravitational radiation; see references).
Therefore I reject your claim.

I disagree with you, these so-called "measurings" have extremely
speculative character, since even in the Solar System we have
methodological problems in desired precision of gravitational
measurings.

This claim is unsubstantiated. As shown by decades of measurement
within the solar system, high precisions can be achieved. [ references
provided numerous times. ] Since your "empirical law" apparently has
nothing to say about the dynamics of planets, and the propagation of
radiation in the solar system, it is irrelevant to the discussion. [
I say apparently, because you have provided no evidence. ]


CM

References

1. Standish, E.M.: 1990, "The Observational Basis for JPL's DE200, the
planetary ephemeris of the Astronomical Almanac",
Astron. Astrophys., vol. 233, pp. 252-271.
2. Standish, E.M. 1995, "JPL Planetary and Lunary Ephemerides DE403/LE403"
Interoffice Memorandum, IOM 314.10-127
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/de403iom/de403iom.ps
2. Standish, E.M. 1998, "JPL Planetary and Lunary Ephemerides DE405/LE405"
Interoffice Memorandum, IOM 312.F - 98 - 048
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/de405iom/de405iom.ps