Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> 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. 
> ================================================================= 

You have mistaken George's point.  He did not claim that it was
possible that to choose *another* set of ratios than your chosen set.

Indeed, there are 756 different ratios which are combinations A/(B+C),
(A+B)/C or (A+B)/(C+D).  Thus, it is not surprising that -- by random
chance -- you were able to choose one set that was within 0.04 of an
integer.  There are in fact 36 such combinations.  That you found
eight is almost a monument to the obvious.

There are five ratios which give values close to 3, two that give
ratios close to eight, three near 10.  Thus even your choice of ratios
that yield a given value are not unique.  Furthermore, as I previously
showed, two of your given ratios, .../MME and .../MVE, are very far
from an integer (N.88, N.84) when appropriate masses are used.

Your ordering of 3,5,7,... is purely a product of your own mind, and
therefore is hardly unique.


>     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.
> **********************************************************

Note no substantiation.  Indeed measurements of the motions of
extrasolar bodies can be *highly* precise.


>     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. 

Incorrect.  The integrations of the equations of motion for the solar
system are derived from physics.

> 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 

Diversion.  Any theory gives "exact" coordinates, but the question is
how accurate those coordinates are to the real system.  

Replacing "exact" with "accurate," your statement is still ambiguous.
The DE406 ephemeris has been integrated for +/- 1000 years or more.
It is is highly accurate over the near term (+/- 100 years).  Accuracy
over the long term is difficult to assess since there are few
measurements to compare against.  As I understand, the accuracy is
probably limited by difficult-to-constrain interactions of planets
with asteroids in the asteroid belt.

Finally, your statement is irrelevant, since there are no exact
analytical theories of gravitation for the general N-body problem.

CM