Possibly as Large as Jupiter: Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered

reply to post by MrStyx

Thats exactly the incorrect thinking I am speaking of. It is not a fact.

You are confused about what a theory is in science. You are confused about the difference between gravity and magnetism. You are completely wrong about composition being important in gravity. Your examples of gravitational effects do not describe what actually happens.

From your logic I would deduce every probe we sent out was succesful and always returned

You are mistaken in what you call logic. Your conclusion has nothing to do with the propositions you put forth. Understanding gravity is just one small part of sending a probe through space.

reply to post by backinblack

We do not trully know the mass of the earth, let alone some planet lightyears away..

Actually the mass of the Earth is known. Why do you think it is not known? Is this some semantic debate hinging on the word 'truly' you added to your sentence?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by backinblack

 

Last time I checked Neptune was not lightyears away. It's only about 29 AU away. The problem we had in determining Neptune's mass is that we did not know about six of its moons. It was during the Voyager 2 mission that these moons were discovered and thus able to give us more accurate figures to use in our calculations. Clearly these new figures were pretty accurate since they explained away issues that were found in the orbits of the other gas giants.

Last time I checked I never said it was..
It's simply that they got the mass wrong of a body in our own solar system and yet tell us they know the mass of stars lightyears away..
Get it.????

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by backinblack

 

We do not trully know the mass of the earth, let alone some planet lightyears away..

Actually the mass of the Earth is known. Why do you think it is not known? Is this some semantic debate hinging on the word 'truly' you added to your sentence?

Better men than you and me are still debating the THEORY of gravity..

So explain to me how they got Neptune's mass wrong again.???

reply to post by backinblack


It seems that you might want to take a course discussing measurement, precision, and other matters. An estimate would be based on sampling. Such estimates have an uncertainty due to the sampling variance and the precision of the measurements used. Measurements have an uncertainty called precision.

If someone asks for your height do you state 182.638cm? No you say 182. That measurement is sufficient. A measurement of height to a precision of 1cm is a good height measurement. Why measure more precisely when your height can change by over 1cm over the course of a day?

I believe the distance from the Earth to the Moon can be measured with 3 or 5 cm. That's a precise measurement.

reply to post by backinblack


Xcalibur254 has already explained it to you. What you seem to be unable to understand is that different measurements have different precisions. Not all measurements are the same.

1. Different methods can be used to derive the same types of values
2. Incomplete data can lead to errors.

Masses can be derived by observing bodies orbiting each other. If the assumption is that there are no interactions between the observed bodies and other unseen objects in the system, then the measurement if going to somewhat off due to the assumption. The statement of the assumption is done to make it clear to others how the measured values were plugged into formulas.

Better men than you and me are still debating the THEORY of gravity..

Show me how any of those discussions affect the law of gravity in the environments to which it is being applied. Please I'd like to see anything to that effect.

They can tell a galaxy or sun or planet light years away, but they can't tell what this is outside of our own solar system...yeah right.

reply to post by arcana_imperii

Yes, "they" can.
Yes, "they" did.

I love the science protectors on this site..

They'd have us believe science is perfect and theories are facts..

Great stuff.

reply to post by backinblack

Nope. Not perfect. But it beats the hell out of anything else for finding out how things work. Some theories are "facts" but not all, you would know that if you understood the concept.

Next time you have a problem with science throw your computer out the window.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Nope. Not perfect. But it beats the hell out of anything else for finding out how things work. Some theories are "facts" but not all, you would know that if you understood the concept.

Next time you have a problem with science throw your computer out the window.

edit on 2/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Many believe it IS perfect..That's my issue..

Throw my comp..?? What a stupid unscientific approach..

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by Hundroid

 

They never spoke of it in school as a child. Wonder why?

Because it was considered an asteroid. Didn't they teach you about the asteroid belt as a child? There you go.

By the way, if you were an astronomer 170 or so years ago you'd not only have known about Ceres, you'd have said it was a planet along with about 3 other asteroids.


en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Davian

 

The galaxies are not in our solar system. They are lightyears away. When researchers first received the data they hypothesized it might be a planet amongst other things, including a new type of galaxy. Mind you, this research was from 1983. At this time it was still believed a planet may be lurking at the edge of the solar system, due to perturbations in the orbits of the gas giants. This hypothesis was dismissed after Voyager 2's flyby on Neptune, which showed astronomers had the wrong mass for the planet. When calculations were made with the new mass the perturbations disappeared and with them the need for Planet X.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. S+F

reply to post by backinblack

Many believe it IS perfect..That's my issue..

People who think science is perfect don't understand science.
Most people that claim it is imperfect don't understand science either.

Could this be the SpaceGoatFart Entity described in the linked article?

Just wondering....

reply to post by stereologist


I belive that a specific composition has a direct correlation to mass, within a defined volume, and therefore gravity in any celestial body. Magnetism (although it may not be relevant in this instance) would also be affected by composition. Is this not so?

reply to post by InTheMix


Gravity is simply a function of mass and within a fixed volume composition is an indicator of mass - with the understanding that phase differences can affect the density.

The same composition can be arranged into different minerals. Some of the arrangements are denser. This applies to solids, but not to gases. Also, I believe that the person thought that composition affected gravity so that not all masses were equal.