Craig Markwardt wrote in message
...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:

[snip]
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.



Now there are two independent methods of measurements of values
of masses of planets of a Solar system basing on two in essence
various experimental techniques:

1. Classical methods of optimum selection of values of masses
of planets for large number of the fixed observations of positions
of planets for many hundreds years;

2. New or modern methods of an evaluation of value of a planetary
mass from measurements of interaction of a planet with artificial
space vehicles sent to a planet from the Earth.


Now International astronomical union officially authorizes values
of masses of planets on the basis of measurements of interaction of
a planet with artificial space vehicles sent to the appropriate planet
from the Earth, i.e. value of masses of planets on the basis of
measurements on a new methods.

***
What can you say about problems of 'The theoretical analysis
of differences of values of masses of a particular planet, which
are obtained as a result of application of in essence
distinguishing methods of
measurements?'

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0posting .goo

gle.com



[ references provided numerous times. ]

"Between the cup and the lip a morsel may slip."

Irrelevant " references provided numerous times. " ;-)
It's irrelevant to cite such outdated evidences. ;-)

1. Are scientists able to measure value of a pure gravitational
planetary mass now?

2. Are scientists able to measure value of a pure inert
planetary mass now?

3. What is difference between a pure inert planetary mass and
a pure gravitational planetary mass?

" Between the devil and the deep sea "


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. ]

What " evidence " I must " apparently " to provide for your
pleasure?

************************************************** ***************



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

Best regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev


----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email