Planet's Inert Mass and Gravitational Charge
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear friend, if you are tired, you can throw to read this paper
further. If you are not tired, you can find out as somebody can
measure value of a gravitational charge (mass) of a planet, if
he will have desire to make such measurement. I shall be grateful
to you, if you will specify methodological and physical errors in
the methods circumscribed by me below.
*****************************************************************
Principle of indeterminacy for a classical celestial mechanics.
Two independent methods of measurement of values of masses
of planets of the Solar system.
*****************************************************************
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.
***
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.
***
===================================================================
Classical methods
===================================================================
The following concepts are put in the basis of a classical methods
of measurement of values of masses of planets:
Principle of equivalence or equality between inert and gravitational
masses for each separate planet (celestial body) and in any Principle of
equivalence or equality between inert and gravitational masses for each
separate planet (celestial body) and in any pair combinations of planets;
A system-wide or general-system inertial system of a reference.
Particular the celestial - mechanical theory of motion of planets.
Everyone a standard (specific model) celestial - mechanical theory of
motion of planets has the unique title;
Common for all system the set (optimized by variational methods)
of values of masses of planets and other astronomical constants for
large number of the fixed observations of positions of planets for
many hundreds years;
Let's name a classical methods of measurement of values of masses
of planets - as a system-wide or general-system method of measurement
of values of masses of planets.
===================================================================
Measurement of value of a gravitational charge (mass) of a planet
===================================================================
The following concepts are put in the basis of a modern methods of
measurement of value of a planetary mass:
Principle of equivalence or equality between inert and gravitational
masses for a particular planet (celestial body) and for a particular
artificial space vehicle.
The researchers neglect gravitational interactions of any other
combinations of planets with the given planet;
Rather close to a planet the segment of a trajectory of motion
of an artificial space vehicle gets out for measurements, with the
purpose of elimination of gravitational influence of other planets or
celestial bodies;
The value of mass of a space vehicle is known with a high precision
from measurements carried out on the Earth;
A local inertial system of a reference. If the space vehicle becomes
an artificial planetary satellite, the frame of reference connected with
center of planetary masses with a very high precision can be considered
as inertial for theoretical description of motion of a space vehicle,
since the space vehicle has neglectful a small of mass in comparison with
a planetary mass. Since the given inertial system is in rest concerning
center of masses of the given planet, this circumstance allows to exclude
an inertial planetary mass from the celestial - mechanical theory, which
describes motion of space vehicle in the given inertial system.
Thus given method allows to separate (separation of variables) a
gravitational planetary mass from an inert planetary mass and to
calculate value of a pure gravitational planetary mass irrespective
of an inert planetary mass.
For a trial body, which the artificial planetary satellite is, such
separation of variables is not possible since satellite is in motion
in relation to center of masses of a system, therefore in this case,
naturally, we are forced to neglect distinction between gravitational
and inert masses of satellite.In this case this assumption has not
critical character, since the satellite has insignificant mass, and
as the corollary distinction between gravitational and inert masses
of a satellite is insignificant;
Particular the celestial - mechanical theory of motion of an
artificial space vehicle around of a particular planet;
The value of a pure gravitational planetary mass is calculated on the
basis of measurements of parameters of motion of artificial space vehicles
around a particular planet.
Let's name a modern methods of measurement of value of a planetary
mass - as a local method of measurement of value of a planetary mass
or method of measurement of value of a pure gravitational planetary mass,
if the trial body is a satellite.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CONCLUSIONS:
1. A crude estimate of a deviation from a principle of equivalence.
The comparison of values of masses of a particular planet obtained by
two considered independent methods allows roughly to estimate
deviations from a principle of equivalence or principle of equality
between inert and gravitational masses for each separate planet
(celestial body). The roughness of an estimation is connected to the
empirical corrections in appropriate celestial - mechanical theory of
motion, which was used in calculations of values of values of masses.
The empirical corrections (depending extremely from intuition of the
developers of the theories) are inevitable evil connected with
imperfection of mechanical model considered system, influence of the
not taken into account and unknown real phenomena as between system
constituents, and acting on system from the outside.
2. The more obvious presentation for deviations from a principle
of equivalence between inert and gravitational masses for planets of
a Solar system can be received from my law of connection between masses
of planets of a Solar system, if in the formulas to substitute the
appropriate values of values of masses of planets authorized by
International astronomical union separately for each of two epoch:
1970 and 1994, each of these epoch used in essence various methods of
measurement of masses.
3. The system-wide or general-system approach to measurement of
values of masses of planets predominated in a classical methods of
measurement of values of masses of planets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This method gave a mixture of value of inert mass and gravitational
mass of a particular celestial body in one value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The "local" method of measurement of value of a planetary mass or
method of measurement of value of a pure gravitational planetary
mass is used now, when the trial body is a planetary satellite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientists are able to measure value of a pure gravitational
planetary mass now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a problem for you.
Who knows a method of measurement of value of a pure inert planetary
mass now?
It is naturally, that the Principle of equivalence is forbidden
for using.
Douglas Eagleson
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
You appear to be claiming that the necessity, of going to Mars
to weigh the satillite as a means to inferring the mass of Mars,
implies a rather poor state of affairs.
I agree, the inference of the mass from it's orbital location
is desirable, but not possible after all. A form of this
state of affairs, is the lack of the state of the inertia of the
mass. This is a theory in the works it appears.
The concept of inertia should not be associated
with the theory of Newton, because a capacity
is applied and Newton never required a capacity.
When you referr to a gravity charge, it must then be
abstract charge, where the behavior of the outcome of the
force of gravity implies a resolution to this delimma, by
use of the implication of the charge behavior.
And a resolution it is. Except the delimma alters and
this is likley only another theory in the works.
Good luck on the theory. It looks straight forward to me.
Except the concept of absolute and relative inferences
is a difficult concept to communicate. The satillite example
is a very good way to state the relative mass of Newton.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3C75E5C9...@yahoo.com>...
[snip]
Second half of XIX century is characterized by a brisk
critical controversy under the methodological concepts of
fundamental concepts of a Newtonian mechanics: space, force,
mass, inertia, gravitational charge, law of action and reaction.
For example, Hertz has offered version of a mechanics
constructed on a limited set of concepts: space, time, mass
and ideal mechanical bond.
1. Definition of inert mass of a body.
The works by Ernest Mach (1838-1916) have made LARGE influence
on alternative interpretations of fundamental concepts of a Newtonian
mechanics. Mach builds concept of mass on the basis of a principle of
symmetries. Mach determines mass by a following way:. " The ratio of
masses of two bodies is a module of an inverse ratio of two
accelerations, which two bodies give each other. " In the given
definition the additional theoretical suppositions and concept
" an amount of substance " are not used, they are absolutely
unnecessary, as Mach has told. The given definition of mass of a
body excludes necessity law of action and reaction, since it
expresses for the second time same fact.
Just the given position of things we have in a celestial
mechanics, when we "measure" dynamic parameters of motion of
celestial bodies. (Read Mach a mechanics, it is very useful).
See "Uncertainty of gravitational constant" by Jim Cobban:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0202140855.63ef1054%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
2. A gravitational charge.
The a priori foundation do not exist for equality of a
gravitational charge (mass) of a body to its inert mass
(by suitable selection of units). The earlier researchers
of a gravitation studied difference between gravitational
action on a trial body and ungravitational action on the
same body. For example Eotvos.
The equality of both masses is the experimental fact
for a limited spatial scale.
The modern fans of extremely speculative reasons in
a gravitation (GTR) ignore this fact (for a limited spatial
scale!!!).
The statements about confirmation of a principle of
equivalence in boundaries of the solar system are lie,
conscious or inadvertent.
3. The modern modern theories of motion of planets are
a pure numerology.
The theorists Astronomers (Celestial mechanics), proceeding from
political interests, carefully hide from a public, that " the most
exact modern theories of motion of planets " are a pure numerology.
The problems of construction of the precision theories of motion of
planets are so difficult, that some theorists come to ideas of chaos,
i.e. they deny possibility of construction of the precision analytical
theory of motion of planets. Now there are very many numerical
theories of motion of planets, but theory giving exact co-ordinates
of planets for large time intervals does not exist. These theories
use various sets " of the most exact fundamental astronomical
parameters of a solar system ", but we have not the precision theory
of motion of planets till now.
See a pure numerology:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/
and
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/#Astronomy
In any most exact theory the empirical corrections " are used "
which have not physical interpretation. The reason is very simple,
in the fundamentals of the theoretical astronomical concepts really
there are error postulates.
On my sight, the principle of equivalence gives the greatest
contribution to errors the theories of motion of planets.