The Mystery of Puma Punku

[bb113]

So I read this:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/08PDF_Files/New_Concepts_in_Gravitation.pdf

The main point seems to be this (quoting John Lear's summary):

What Pari has done is to formulate the equation of the least squares line of regression of the mean orbital velocity of each planet around the sun versus the mean distance of that planet to the sun which she states as Fs = a.A, or 'the gravitation force of the sun is equal to the acceleration times the area' of each planet. And the gravitational force of the sun turns out to be 4.16449 ± 0.00032 x 10^20 m s^-2 m^2.

Mass of the sun: 1.9855E+30 kg
Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67384E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Mass of sun  X G X pi= 4.1629E+20 m s^-2 m^2

So her position (not explicitly stated in what I read) is that people are using her number but multiplying mass of the sun by an arbitrary constant in order to incorporate mass into the model.




How does she explain that the same constant can be multiplied by the earth's mass to explain the orbit of the moon?

Mass of the earth: 5.9736E+24 kg
Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67384E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Mass of earth  X G X pi= 1.25245E+15 m s^-2 m^2

Her equation of F= pi*a*v^2 (used to get that 4.16 number for things orbiting the sun earlier) yields 1.261345E+15

a=Semi-Major Axis of Moon =384399 km
v=average orbital velocity of moon=1.02 m/s

Does she address this issue at all?

[1713277601]

1713277601

[1713277601]

1713277601

[1713277601]

1713277601

[1713277601]

1713277601

[Haole]

Wow 113, glad you're having some fun with it as you're obviously capable of entertaining the material on a technical level.

You're asking the wrong guy regarding physics at such a level but from what I understand mass is irrelevant in calculating gravitational force but as far as a constant somehow derived to use... It's "French" to me 113, and I know a little bit of rudimentary French.  

I'm sure you can contact Pari somehow and you can most certainly contact John Lear anytime.  He's a very affable guy and would be delighted to discuss this with you at length or at least liase with Pari if he can't entertain your questions adequately.  John actually has an open offer out to anyone that wants to bring some cigars over to his house in Vegas and discuss any of the multitudes of things he researches.  I've had some correspondence with him myself over the years and if I ever go to Vegas hopefully he'll still be alive and kicking.  He's not only a pretty sharp guy but has done, seen and heard some amazing stuff, rubbed shoulders with many noteworthy people as well as being a bit of a legend of aviation.  Hell, his name has been banned from Wikipedia, that is very cool.  Neither of these people are "snake oil salesman" in my eyes and I'm sure they'd love to speak and/or correspond with you about it.

Thanks and good luck!

[bb113]

Hm ok, I will try. At this point it looks like her theory explains less about gravity than the one that incorporates mass.

Let me restate my issue with it:
Her number she is calculating for the "gravitational force due to the sun" is simply the Standard Gravitational Parameter. If we also calculate the "gravitational force due to the earth" and divide both by their respective masses (which differ by orders of magnitude), we will get the same number, this constant "G". You can do the same for jupiter and its moons. For that reason I believe mass is related to gravitational force.

This can all be gathered from observations you can do at home with a cheap telescope and basic algebra.

Edit: Well actually you would have to do something like the Cavendish Experiment to measure the mass of earth from home, and most people seem to be calculating the mass from newtons laws... so maybe there is still room for error here.

[Haole]

Hm ok, I will try.

If you do and enter into an exchange with one or both of them I'd be very grateful to know how it turns-out.

Thanks, good luck and cheers!

[bb113]

Hm ok, I will try.

If you do and enter into an exchange with one or both of them I'd be very grateful to know how it turns-out.

Thanks, good luck and cheers!

I have a family member who doesn't even accept heliocentrism (not due to religion, just thinks physicists all have it wrong and just parrot each other), so this is me looking for thanksgiving dinner material.

[myrkul]

I have a family member who doesn't even accept heliocentrism (not due to religion, just thinks physicists all have it wrong and just parrot each other),

wut.

How does s/he explain planetary motion, then? Back to crystal spheres?

[bb113]

I have a family member who doesn't even accept heliocentrism (not due to religion, just thinks physicists all have it wrong and just parrot each other),

wut.

How does s/he explain planetary motion, then? Back to crystal spheres?

The gist of it is that the sun is like a giant balloon that (driven by an as yet undiscovered force) inflates and moves higher in the sky in the summer while it deflates and descends in the winter. The earth is still spinning, but stays in one place relative to the sun. I don't remember how the motion of the planets was explained.

[myrkul]

I have a family member who doesn't even accept heliocentrism (not due to religion, just thinks physicists all have it wrong and just parrot each other),

wut.

How does s/he explain planetary motion, then? Back to crystal spheres?

The gist of it is that the sun is like a giant balloon that (driven by an as yet undiscovered force) inflates and moves higher in the sky in the summer while it deflates and descends in the winter. The earth is still spinning, but stays in one place relative to the sun. I don't remember how the motion of the planets was explained.

You should explain Occam's Razor. (interestingly, the example used is planetary motion.)

[bb113]

I think AIC is better. The basic idea is that when comparing multiple models of reality, both how well the prediction fits the observations and how complicated the model is should be taken into account. This is superior to occam's razor because  there is an actual equation backed with proofs and simulations.