Thread: is the mass of Earth correct.

1. 200 years ago, Henry weight the mass of Earth in his exp.

Earth is so big and his exp is so simple. Can we trust this exp.

Jin Guangnian

2.

3. Please stop starting multiple threads on the same subject. Your arguments appear, at best, weak. Repeating them does not increase their quality.

4. i see the rest of the posts appear to sit in pseudoscience - enough reason to move this one too ?

5. I was doing some climate change equations and I found a serious problem in the given mass of the Earth and the derived gravitational constant. Using the given mass of the Sun I "dropped" the Earth into the Sun ignoring the crossways motion. The distance of "fall" came out to 180,000,000 km, but the actual distance is 150,000,000 km. Now 180 does not equal 150.

Now since the base for all of the masses is the experimentally derived mass of the Earth, and since the gravitational constant is derived from the mass and the radius, and since the product of the gravitational constant and the mass of the Earth is a provable constant, and since in the fall into the sun only the derived gravitational constant and the mass of the sun count, I had to conclude that the mass of the Earth was 22% greater and the gravitational constant was 19% less. Therefore in order to maintain the observed correctness of celestial movements, the masses of all the planets and their associated satelites are22% greater, the mass of the Sun remains unchanged, and the gravitational constant is 19% lower.

I found this from my second lesson in science, that the teacher is also a fallible student, and that one should never determine truth by accolades, and that results should always be crosschecked. The last is also used to find the constant in integral calculus.

6. Originally Posted by Brian Daed
Using the given mass of the Sun I "dropped" the Earth into the Sun ignoring the crossways motion. The distance of "fall" came out to 180,000,000 km, but the actual distance is 150,000,000 km. Now 180 does not equal 150.
this makes no sense. why do you 'determine' the distance ? the distance has to be a given up front. that is the 'height' that you dropped the earth from.

7. Originally Posted by Brian Daed
I had to conclude that the mass of the Earth was 22% greater and the gravitational constant was 19% less.
You didn't consider the possibility that you made a mistake? That is always my starting point.

However, as you don't give any details about what calculations you did, it isn't really possible to judge. As the basis of science is the disclosure, review and replication of results, I think we can ignore you conclusions for the present.

8. Originally Posted by Brian Daed
...Therefore in order to maintain the observed correctness of celestial movements, the masses of all the planets and their associated satelites are22% greater, the mass of the Sun remains unchanged, and the gravitational constant is 19% lower.

I found this from my second lesson in science, that the teacher is also a fallible student, and that one should never determine truth by accolades, and that results should always be crosschecked.
Yes, the teacher is a fallible student, but that is a facile, lazy and sloppy excuse for your "skepticism," for our knowledge of the gravitational constant's value does not derive from the word of a single teacher, nor was it determined by "accolades." You overlook the overwhelming experimental evidence accumulated over centuries. The swarm of satellites orbiting the earth follow trajectories that are predicted on the basis of the gravitational constant, just as one example. And I note that we made it to the moon and back several times, and no 20% error was noticed (and it certainly would have been). There have been many, many more and much more sensitive determinations of its value; you seem to be wholly ignorant of these other experiments. Dismissing that body of work on the basis of a quick calculation by a fallible you is silly.

9. The product of GMearth stays constant, and that is what draws the moon and the satelites. From that product everything else is derived. Any error in GMearth would be passed on into GMsun, and then into GMplanets. The equations for the observable motions of the planets would be unchanged as they would be the measure of GMplanets. I used the accepted value of G, the accepted mass of the Sun, and the known distance to find the acceleration towards the Sun. The mass of the Earth cancelled out. I then used the time of fall as 91.5 days to cross check, and came up with 180,000,000 kilometers.

As for my skeptism, on page 82 of Schaum's outline to College Physics I found a simple problem which if solved by the logic indicated returned consistently inconsistent results. No contradiction intended. I resolved the problem by an extended application of linear algebra into an unseen but feelable (when accelerating) 4th dimensional vector, and found Newton's missing force using Newton's own form of logic, which is the same logic as a navigator. The answer given in the book was contradictory, but the contradictions had a predictable pattern. It was an energy and power equation for accelerating a mass on a level surface over a period of 12 seconds. At 12 seconds the required energy was 12 times too high. So yes I am skeptical. However, that skeptism has allowed me to visualise the gravitational well as it really is. Actually there were two such problems, both with the same kind of error.

10. Standard crank

11. I think "Brain Dead" is five days late for the April 1st piss. Maybe that's part of the joke?

12. As for my skeptism, on page 82 of Schaum's outline to College Physics I found a simple problem which if solved by the logic indicated returned consistently inconsistent results.
The problems on simple machines?

I resolved the problem by an extended application of linear algebra into an unseen but feelable (when accelerating) 4th dimensional vector, and found Newton's missing force using Newton's own form of logic, which is the same logic as a navigator
Usually its the Galileo card, but Newton get's the same number of crank points.

It was an energy and power equation for accelerating a mass on a level surface over a period of 12 seconds. At 12 seconds the required energy was 12 times too high.
I'd say show the work, and we could find the simple math error, without invoking a 4th spatial dimension.

It seems to be pretty freely distributed, but since I don't know the copyright status, I'll just link you to the Schaum's pdf. http://www.puhsd.org/cms/lib6/CA0100...ge_Physics.pdf

13. Originally Posted by Brian Daed
As for my skeptism, on page 82 of Schaum's outline to College Physics I found a simple problem which if solved by the logic indicated returned consistently inconsistent results.
That's quite amusing. The basis for your skepticism is not a set of measurements at all; rather, it's the inconsistency of numbers you calculate when working out some homework exercises. There are several possibilities, not all of which you have considered:

1) You've uncovered a huge error that has gone unnoticed by everyone else for centuries.

3) The homework problems involve simplifying assumptions that introduce errors of the order of 20%.

Given that, as I've already pointed out (and which you have curiously chosen not to acknowledge, let alone address), a vast body of experimental data rules out option 1), it seems almost certain that your problem arises from some combination of 2) and 3) (and perhaps 4).

Here's one simple experiment that requires only a modest capital outlay to get a pretty accurate answer: http://www.setileague.org/articles/ham/masserth.pdf

Note that he is able to obtain agreement to the level of about 1 percent with relatively unsophisticated equipment. He does not see a 20% error.

You couild also, of course, replicate Cavendish's classic experiment (but it's tricky). Or Foucault's (which middle-schoolers can carry out to better than your 20%). And there are many others as well. These methods all agree with each other, but not with you. Where do you think the fault most likely lies?

If your post isn't an April Fool's joke, it is still amusing, while also a little sad. The confident arrogance of the ignorant seems altogether too common. Why anyone would immediately leap to the conclusion that data accumulated over centuries is wrong, on the basis of a few flaky calculations carried out in the absence of experimental data, is a wonder to behold. Cranks famously apply skepticism only very selectively.

14. Originally Posted by Brian Daed
I then used the time of fall as 91.5 days to cross check, and came up with 180,000,000 kilometers.

15. Originally Posted by tk421
If your post isn't an April Fool's joke, it is still amusing, while also a little sad. The confident arrogance of the ignorant seems altogether too common. Why anyone would immediately leap to the conclusion that data accumulated over centuries is wrong, on the basis of a few flaky calculations carried out in the absence of experimental data, is a wonder to behold. Cranks famously apply skepticism only very selectively.

You have shoved your shoe so hard in his/her rectum, that (s)he will fart shoe laces for the next three days.
Well done, sir, I can only dream of such eloquence.

16. Yes, it is correct. Unless you are referring to political correctness, in which case an argument could be made that the earth is relatively fat compared to smaller cosmic bodies.

17. Originally Posted by tk421
Here's one simple experiment that requires only a modest capital outlay to get a pretty accurate answer: http://www.setileague.org/articles/ham/masserth.pdf
Hmm. This seems a bit circular. They used G in their calculation of M, but G was originally calculated from Cavendish's experiment.

18. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by tk421
Here's one simple experiment that requires only a modest capital outlay to get a pretty accurate answer: http://www.setileague.org/articles/ham/masserth.pdf
Hmm. This seems a bit circular. They used G in their calculation of M, but G was originally calculated from Cavendish's experiment.
It would be circular if the value of G had been calculated only from Cavendish's experiment. Fortunately, there have been many independent measurements of G, with nary a hint of a 20% discrepancy. In fact, there is currently a bit of a to-do about G, but the argument is over disagreements denominated in a couple hundred parts per million, not tens of percent.

19. From New Scientist:
From nine months of data on the satellites in the GLONASS, GPS and Galileo groups, he calculated Earth's mass as "felt" by each one.

At a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December, he reported an average figure that was between 0.005 and 0.008 per cent greater than the value for Earth's mass established by the International Astronomical Union.
So I think we can conclude the mass of the Earth is known pretty accurately.

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement