Can you grade the calculations I just presented?

Pawrent gave me a 2

Since when did psychiatrists become experts in astronomy?

It’s funny—I didn't think anyone with a degree in natural sciences would even bother looking at what's written about physics and

mathematics here, yet they've gone ahead and graded my calculation presentation


Are American physicists and mathematicians actually terrified of losing their licenses just for giving me a wrong grade,

and because of that, they're too scared to rate me publicly right here? 😁

silverwolf88's take on the 3rd Kepler's law correction actually differs from the "official" version by less than 1%.

silverwolf88 said:Can you look at these two expressions I've laid out and tell me if putting a period on one side of the equals sign makes sense?

The constant equality as measured in the Henry Cavendish experiment:
6.6740831 / ( ( ( 2 * pi ) ^ 2 ) * ( 10 ^ 11 ) ) = ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * ( M + m ) )

The constant equality using my own correction:
ln( 2 * e ) / ( 10 ^ 12 ) = ( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * ( M + m ) )

It's just basic math, really.

silverwolf88 said:( ( R + r ) ^ 3 ) / ( ( T ^ 2 ) * ( M + m ) ) = ln( 2 * e ) / ( 10 ^ 12 )

The official correction for Kepler's 3rd law:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

Gregory Thomas said:Basically, if you've got even a decent grasp of high school math—maybe middle school level, honestly—you can see that silverwolf88’s little tweak to Kepler's third law differs from the "official" correction by less than 1%.

So, he managed to mess up a formula from the seventeenth century by a mere 1%? Wow. Way to go!

And wait, there's more! I guess he actually went ahead and doubled the kinetic energy of a moving object too—so now energy isn't (mv^2)/2 anymore, it's just mv^2!

Which, unfortunately, is going to send shipping costs through the roof since we'll apparently need twice the fuel to hit the same speeds. But hey, don't worry, we won't let him publish his "revolutionary" derivation, so things should stay exactly as they are.

In short, it's just one donkey rubbing against another.

Newton, Bato, Newton.

Alexander Thompson said:Newton, Bato, Newton.

Henry Cavendish?
Since I ended up deleting my previous post, I feel like I owe it to you guys to clarify that we’re basically debating the massive leap between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

EDIT

DELETED POST:
The seventeenth century?
Long story short, just look this up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish

P. S.
It doesn't really change the debate, but I should probably mention that my name isn't Bato magarac.
I'm actually Gregory Thomas, though honestly, you can just call me Pi since remembering the value of e is always a bit of a struggle for me!

Gregory Thomas said:silverwolf88's correction to Kepler's third law differs from the "official correction" by less than 1%.

The official correction to Kepler's third law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem

Gregory Thomas—do you honestly believe the data in these links is incorrect?
https://www.forum.com/showthread.php?...1#post85676561
Which correction yields a more accurate calculation for Earth and the Moon?

If you're so certain my presented calculations are wrong, why aren't you giving me a 1 (insufficient)?

Alexander Thompson said:Newton, Bato, Newton.

What on earth did you write in

Did you guys actually peer-review Gregory Thomas—did he pass, and did you let him publish his paper?

silverwolf88 said:What's up? Just hanging out, I guess. I was thinking about that whole thing earlier—you know, the way we look at physics and just assume everything fits into those neat little boxes we learned in high school. It’s funny, really. I guess I was reading up on some stuff regarding mass and energy, specifically how people try to reconcile things like the Mass of Jupiter = A3 / p2 Mass of Jupiter formula, and it just makes you realize how much we gloss over. Anyway, I saw what silverwolf88 was saying about it, and honestly, maybe there's something to it? I don't know. It feels like one of those rabbit holes where you start with something simple and end up questioning the entire fabric of reality. It’s a bit like when you're driving through a small town in the Midwest—everything looks straightforward until you realize the local legends don't quite line up with the official maps. I mean, if you look at the work done by guys like Newton or even the way Gauss's theories play into modern calculations, there's always that tiny bit of friction between the math and what we actually see happening in the world. It’s subtle, though. Most people just move on. But for some of us... well, I guess we just get stuck on the details. Not that I'm claiming to have figured anything out—I'm definitely not that guy—but it's worth pondering while you're staring at the ceiling at 2 AM, right? Did he write it?

Evo, ovo:

Дјоко, немој мене дрзати за дјоку.

Јамцим ти да ни један твој рад неце бити објављен у знанственом цасопису који ја уредјујем. Нити у било којем другом.

За то постоје тисуцу и два разлога.

Ова два су заправо један и исти су и у твом и у мом слуцају.

Ово сматрај загонетком, иако сумњам да си ју у стању одгонетнути. И не, рјесење није булдог.

BTW, unlike you, Gregory Thomas actually has some pretty interesting ideas—I'm thinking someone might reach out to him sooner rather than later.

Него, не описа нам експерименте којима си мјерио гравитацијску константу? Оно епиријски, сјецас се?
Ниси ваљда лагао да си ју мјерио?

silverwolf88 said:So, did you guys actually get around to reviewing Gregory Thomas? Like, did he pass the test? And more importantly—did you give him the green light to publish his work?

А сто ти мислис? Засто би инаце он писао да су ти израцуни лосији од оних из седамнаестог стољеца?

Hey, Opica, let me tell you—I could probably go on forever about Moreover. I guess I just haven't really found the right way to frame it all yet, but honestly? There’s just so much to unpack there. It’s one of those things where you think you’ve got the whole picture figured out, and then you realize you're only looking at the surface level... maybe. Anyway, I'll try to dig a little deeper next time. 😬

silverwolf88 said:If I hadn't factored in Moreover's correction, I probably wouldn't be able to nail down that smaller mass—but then again, I went ahead and tweaked Moreover's formula a bit myself.

Alexander Thompson said:Look at this:

Djokica, don't try to pull one over on me.

I bet you won't see a single bit of your work published in the journal I edit—or any other, for that matter.

There are a thousand and two reasons for that.

Actually, those two reasons are effectively the same thing in both our cases.

Think of it as a riddle, though I highly doubt you have the capacity to solve it. And no, the answer isn't "bulldog."

BTW, unlike you, @Gregory Thomas actually has some interesting insights here; I suspect someone will be reaching out to him soon.

So, why don't you describe the experiments you used to measure the gravitational constant? You did it empirically, right—if you can even remember that?
Don't tell me you lied about measuring it?

What’s your take? Why else would he write that your calculations are worse than ones from the seventeenth century?

Hey, Opica, come on, write something more about Moreover 😬

I don't own a telescope to perform measurements; I just used publicly available data found online and included links to those datasets, just like I included the links to the data in that survey topic presentation.

ZustraZiraf pointed out who caused the confusion regarding the Moreover correction link

Stop playing dumb. You know perfectly well who was the first to present Moreover as some sort of individual and stir up this mess about that hypothetical person's correction via these links.

Opica, are you telling me they actually tried to slip a non-existent Moreover transformation past you?

Moreover doesn't even exist—though I guess you did lean pretty hard into the whole moreover/furthermore thing in your text:🙏.

And then there's you, being your usual unrefined self, doubling down and starting to smugly brag about how you "corrected" this fake transformation of yours?

Djokica is being incredibly protective when it comes to Babunovic, acting like he’s some high-security asset under constant surveillance by a federal agency. 🤣 🤣

Babunovic is honestly kind of a vibe with those endless archives of trivia—you know, all those photos of TV screens from the last fifty years, just documenting absolutely everything under the sun.

And don't even get me started on his culinary "achievements" and those little experiments he runs with expiration dates... it’s a whole thing. I mean, maybe he could actually charm one of those cute girls by inviting her over for an intimate home-cooked dinner, assuming she survives the menu. 🎉

But then there's our guy Djokica—always busy with his bulldozer energy, fixing math equations, or trying to straighten out the wrong Drina. 🤦

Alexander Thompson said:Opica, is this one of those times they tried to feed you some non-existent Moreover transformation?

Moreover doesn't exist—but you still bit the bait on the "moreover/furthermore" thing in the text :🙏.

And you—in all your ignorance—actually bit and started smugly bragging about how you "corrected" this imaginary transformation?

What kind of university did you even graduate from? Do you actually consider yourself a better physicist or mathematician than someone from FOIevac? And are we really back to you spamming topics just because I started them?

If you're so convinced my math isn't accurate, why don't you just give me a 1 (fail) in that poll? What are you so afraid of—losing your license if you publicly hand out an incorrect grade?

silverwolf88 said:What college did you even graduate from? Do you actually think you’re some kind of superior physicist or math whiz compared to an MIT grad? And are you really back at it again, spamming threads just because I started them?

If you're so damn sure my math is wrong—since you clearly think those calculations aren't accurate—then why don't you just give me a 1 (insufficient) in that poll? What are you so afraid of... losing your license or something if you go on record giving me a wrong grade?

Djokica, look, I already gave you a grade. You little jerk. 🤷

Anyway, how'd you end up improving Moreover again? You were bragging pretty hard about pulling that off. 😒

Where exactly did we leave things with kinetic energy? Stuck in a dead end or something?

Alexander Thompson said:Djokica, I gave you my rating. You little dog 🤷

Anyway, how exactly did you "improve" Moreover? You wouldn't shut up about how you fixed him 😒

Where exactly are we with kinetic energy? Lost in some dead-end alleyway?

So, are you actually lying and claiming I don't know Math 1—the course I already passed?

silverwolf88 said:So you're actually trying to claim I don't even know basic Calculus 1, which I already passed?

Like, is this the same guy who barely scraped by with a D-minus and then basically vanished from campus just to avoid the embarrassment?

silverwolf88 said:Gregory Thomas, you honestly think the data in those links isn't legit?
I was just sitting here thinking about how much we take for granted when it comes to the sheer scale of things out there in space. You know, I was reading up on some old physics theories—the kind of stuff that makes your head spin if you stare at it too long—and it really puts our little corner of the universe into perspective. It’s wild to think about the math behind it all, especially when you start looking at the relationship between gravity and planetary bodies. It actually reminds me of this one time I was driving through the Midwest, just staring out at those endless cornfields under a massive sky, feeling incredibly small. That’s exactly what happens when you start diving into the mass calculations for a giant like Jupiter. When you look at the formula where the Mass of Jupiter = A3 / p2 Mass of Jupiter, it’s not just numbers on a page; it’s the literal blueprint of how these giants hold everything together. It’s heavy stuff, literally and figuratively! Anyway, just a random thought that popped into my head while I was grabbing my morning coffee. Hope everyone's having a killer day!
Which correction actually makes the math for Earth and the Moon more accurate?

If you're absolutely certain those bills I showed you aren't accurate, then why on earth aren't you giving me a 1 (insufficient)?

Didn't I already mention that your tweak to Kepler's third law is pretty much on par with the "official correction"?
Isn't that a pretty solid grade, though?

silverwolf88 said:Some people out there swear you can't actually calculate the mass of a planet if it doesn't have its own Moon orbiting it, so a ton of folks just give up on trying to find a solution altogether.
..

Understood. I'm ready to go. Just send over the content you need me to rework, and I'll get to work crafting those fresh, Americanized posts while keeping the original voice intact.
If I’m following you correctly, your tweak to Kepler's third law actually gives us way better precision when we're trying to pin down the mass of a celestial body that doesn't have its own moon orbiting it.

So, if I’m following the logic here correctly, we basically use artificial satellites to get a more precise read on the mass of a celestial body that doesn't have any natural moons orbiting it.
If I caught that right!

Here’s a quick breakdown of how you’d calculate the mass for a planet like Jupiter that’s got its own natural satellites:

So, if you're looking at the math, we've got a = Callisto’s mean distance = 4.898 lunar.

p = Callisto’s orbital period = 0.611 Moon cycles

Just pop those figures right into the equation down here, and boom—there you go! WE have Jupiter ’ expressed in Earth masses.

Mass of Jupiter = A3 / p2 Mass of Jupiter
Mass of Jupiter = A3 / p2 Mass of Jupiter
So, I was sitting around crunching some numbers earlier, thinking about how massive things actually get out in space, and I landed on this: Mass of Jupiter = A3 / p2 Mass of Jupiter. It’s wild when you really start looking at the math behind it.
The mass of Jupiter equals about 314.756 Earth-masses.

Ever wonder how we actually pin down the mass of a giant like Jupiter? It’s not like we can just toss it on a scale in a lab somewhere. Honestly, figuring out the weight of a gas giant is one of those things that sounds simple until you realize you're dealing with a massive ball of swirling storms floating millions of miles away. The whole thing really boils down to some classic orbital mechanics—stuff you probably remember from high school physics, though maybe not quite this applied. We basically look at how Jupiter tugs on other things. Think about it like this: if you're spinning a heavy weight on a string, you can feel that pull. In space, we watch how Jupiter's gravity messes with the orbits of its moons or even how it nudges the Sun. By measuring that gravitational "tug," we can work backward using math to figure out exactly how much mass is doing the pulling. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. We aren't physically touching the planet, yet through pure observation and some heavy-duty calculations, we know its heft. It’s all about that relationship between distance, speed, and gravity. If you've ever played around with Newton's laws, you know that once you have the orbital period and the distance, the rest is just solving for the variable. It makes you realize how much we can truly understand about the universe just by watching how things move.

EDIT
I ended up cutting out that whole section about the rough estimate for the Moon's mass.

Gregory Thomas said:Didn't I already state that your correction to Kepler's 3rd law is roughly equal to the "official correction"?
Isn't that a decent enough assessment?

Fine.
If I’ve followed you correctly, your version of the correction to Kepler's 3rd law yields even higher precision when determining the mass of a celestial body that lacks a natural satellite.

But—if my understanding holds—we actually use artificial satellites to get that kind of precision for bodies without natural moons.
Assuming I've got that right!

Here is an example of an approximate calculation for the mass of the Moon:

And here is an example of calculating the mass for the planet Jupiter, which actually has natural satellites:

Have you ever even heard of Gauss's error theory?

Look, it is technically possible to calculate the mass of a celestial body without relying on natural or

artificial satellites—just by using the known mass of the Solar System—but the accuracy is nowhere near what you get when you have the

known mass of a satellite.

What’s next? Do you want me to derive the math for you, just so Alexander Thompson can post it and claim it's your own work?

silverwolf88 said:Are you perhaps planning to provide the full mathematical derivation as well, just so Alexander Thompson can swoop in and publish it under his own name?

Don't bother; those two will simply plagiarize your work and present it to the world as their own achievement.

Brandon Harris20 said:Don't bother—those two will just rip you off and pass it off as their own work.

Look, I’m finishing my paper because this group of scientists actually wants to review it—they're sitting there waiting to see my mathematical derivations. I still need to include some practical examples and references, but I've run into some technical hurdles. If my math passes the peer review, they'll probably send it back to me to fix the formatting—it's a process. I even told them straight up that my English isn't great, and they responded by saying they have translators on staff, so I'll just send the paper over in American English once it's ready.