Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Calculation of the absolute radius of the Earth by the fundamental physical constants

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    <snip>
    No rational person would be stupid or ignorant enough in the future, present or past to state that Earth is an atom.
    Reality Check,

    That is an attack on the person, not the idea. It is inappropriate and inflammatory. Take it down a notch.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    The future will show whether this is so or not.
    The present is still that you have made your own ATM idea wrong by getting the radius of the Earth wrong from still not described math. No only is the value wrong, by not describing the math we cannot even tell where you went wrong.

    Now we have another image and not described or cited experiments.

    There is no "dependence of an electromagnetic frequency on the gravity acceleration" in the many scientific pendulum experiments that have been done for centuries. Gravity will not affected by electromagnetic frequency from some unstated source.

    The frequency of electromagnetic waves is not restricted to a single value as in your next image of a formula.

    g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth: g = GM/Re2 where M is the mass of the Earth and Re is the radius of the Earth.

    A guess that astronomers cannot measure the radius of the Earth to within 3-4 kilometers will not work. The equatorial radius is 6,378.1370 km. The polar radius is 6,356.7523 km. The standard in science for measurements is to write then to the last significant digit, i.e. the one with the error in it. That is 6,378.1370 +/- 0.0001 km and 6,356.7523 +/1 0.0001 km. The source for the equatorial radius states that the uncertainty is 0.1 meters. The mean radius is 6,371.0088 +/1 0.0001 km.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Aug-08 at 09:26 PM.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is no "dependence of an electromagnetic frequency on the gravity acceleration" in the many scientific pendulum experiments that have been done for centuries.
    Maybe they have chosen wrong frequencies and lengths of pendulums for centuries. I really have got some strange resonances that cannot be explained by the standard oscillation theory of a pendulum like a suspended string. Maybe the reason of getting these resonances is that I live in the neighborhood of the 43th parallels ( see my comment #50 ). This all requires study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A guess that astronomers cannot measure the radius of the Earth to within 3-4 kilometers will not work. The equatorial radius is 6,378.1370 km. The polar radius is 6,356.7523 km. The standard in science for measurements is to write then to the last significant digit, i.e. the one with the error in it. That is 6,378.1370 +/- 0.0001 km and 6,356.7523 +/1 0.0001 km. The source for the equatorial radius states that the uncertainty is 0.1 meters. The mean radius is 6,371.0088 +/1 0.0001 km.
    Let's assume it so, but how correctly are the radii measured - from the sea level, from the Mariana Trench, from Mount Everest or other mountains and sea trenches? This all is ambiguous. Maybe scientists have solved one thing, but Nature has decided differently. Sorry, but 3-4 km in comparison with the huge Earth is almost nothing. I do not think that this small difference is essential.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Do you acknowledge this? That it is most likely an accidental coincidence (which are very very common), or do you think that the physical constants must have different values on the moon?
    I'm not sure. So I asked my question.
    Considering that there is no real evidence that physical constants have different values on the moon (we've been there!), and it is fairly easy to come up with coincidences like this, I'm afraid you're going to have to, in your words, one should "acknowledge that the formulas obtained are some accidental coincidences for the Earth."

    It's an interesting coincidence, but it's not very unusual--even if it does get the units right.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,689
    Spacefaring nations, for years, have accurately navigated near and even upon bodies of the solar system using constants you tell us must be incorrect.

    How do they accomplish that?
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    [COLOR="#f9f9f9"]Testing... 1... 2... 3...[/COLOR]

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,421
    The 30-day time limit for this thread has expired. Thread closed. Report this post if good reason can be given for an extension.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •