Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > The generator electromagnetic oscillations always is nonlinear
> > > > > > system, since this one converses one sort of energy in other.
> > > > > > For example - resistor.
> > > > >
> > > > > The voltage is what tries to restore the quiescent
> > > > > conditions and is linearly related to the current
> > > > > hence in normal terminology it is linear.
> > > >
> > > > But in "exact"  terminology it is nonlinear.  >;-)
> > >
> > > The accurate terminology in English is "linear", the
> > > conventions may be different in your first language
> > > but it seems unlikely.
> > >
> > > I'll snip the rest, sorry to disappoint you but
> > > I have too many other demands on my time. I am
> > > already spending more effort than I intended on
> > > the discussion with Jim Greenfield but cosmology
> > > is my primary interest and a considerably more
> > > relevant topic for sci.astro.
> >
> > " But cosmology is my primary interest " also.
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my astrophysical
> > article from point of view of a scientific methodology:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0310080641.6aadf4a1%40posting.google.com
> 
> As an article, you note empirical relatinships which could be
> taken as evidence for interactions between the orbiting bodies
> producing locked periods. 

THE GRAVITATIONAL MASS is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given 
enough elementarily prime EMPIRICAL THEORY. 

I have eliminated SPACE and TIME from mine enough elementarily 
prime THEORY of a GRAVITATION.   >;^)
  

> However, it is always possible to
> express any value as a ratio of integers given sufficiently
> wide bounds.

You skip SYMMETRY joining all set of the ratios in uniform 
and monolithic whole. 

Why? 

"it is _NOT_ always possible to express any value as a ratio 
of integers given sufficiently _narrow_ ( NOT wide ) bounds."

If you penetrate into a methodology of measuring of quantities 
of planetary masses more deep, you will experience stunning 
disbelieving to these measurings. 
It's brought to the surface a much wider controversy. 

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0202220901.78585585%40posting.google.com

   The considered ratioes are optimal from a point of view of
influence of values of absolute errors in values of planetary 
masses on outcomes of evaluations, since the planetary masses, 
closest on values, enter in these ratioes.

I have shown, that statistically significant correspondence (fit) 
can be made for masses of planets utillizing the elementary 
          OF THE SAME TYPE RATIOS 
of quantities of planetary masses.


All ratioes consist of three quantities of planetary masses:

1.2. Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the 
planetary masses

It is impossible to choose *many* different combinations of ratios 
by random which 

    - lie close to a whole number; 
    - obey to boundaries of measurement errors 
      of quantities of planetary masses; 
    - are continuous sequence of the least values 
      of the ratioes: 
               3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39... ; 
    - have PHYSICAL chiral SIMMETRY; 
    - have all indicated properties simultaneously. 

================================================================= 
It is impossible to choose *any* different combinations of ratios 
by random which - have Unparalleled CLASS linear combinations 
of triple nearest planetary system masses. 
================================================================= 

If you can deny my statements, please you should primely point other 
concrete class of the ratios possessing even by part of the
properties, indicated by me. 
  


> 
> To show that these ratios are meaningful, you need to show
> that they will be stable for a significantly longer period
> than would occur if the had these values at the moment by
> chance if you want it to be considered scientific. As it
> stands, it is only numerology.


    The precision gravitational measurings are executed only 
in limits of the Solar system. 
    Outside the Solar system the gravitational measurings 
have extremely speculative character, therefore these abstract 
_so-called_ measurings (evaluations) can not be a basis 
for really scientific examinations and scientific 
deductions. 

**********************************************************
    Outside the Solar system the gravitational measurings 
have extremely speculative estimated character.

They are the INFERIOR grade of a NUMEROLOGY.
**********************************************************


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0202220901.78585585%40posting.google.com

      The 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. 


> > 1. Here SPACE and TIME are eliminated from the given EMPIRICAL THEORY.
> >
> > 2. THE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given
> > EMPIRICAL THEORY.
> >
> > 3. The given EMPIRICAL THEORY demonstrates EXPERIMENTALLY QUANTIZATION
> > of a GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE.
> 
> I couldn't see any theory, just specific examples. 

What can you say about the Kepler's laws, 
about thorough examinations of Balmer and Bohr?

> Perhaps
> you could express the method you use indepently of the
> results so that it could be applied to extrasolar planets.
> You need state the rules governing the relationships now
> when there are few systems with multiple planets known so
> that the predictions can be checked as results come in. That
> would qualify as an empirical law, basically a refinement of
> Bodes Law.
> 
> However, what you posted is not a theory. You do not give a
> model for gravitation or show how your empirical law could
> be derived from it. If you could give the equations for your
> "quantised gravtitational charge" and how to apply then and
> show how to derive say an equivalent for the inverse square
> law then you would have at least a start on a theory.

For the first time I have pointed a concrete natural 
phenomenon of a QUANTUM GRAVITATION. 

IT IS DISCOVERY HAVING a FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE 
for the subsequent development of the genuine QUANTUM THEORY 
of a GRAVITATION.

Once again, what can you say about the Kepler's laws, 
about thorough examinations of Balmer and Bohr?


> 
> George