GR prediction for precession of perihelion of Mercury is not quite right
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Fraternal Twins going equally fast at all times?
Next: dimensional analysis of BP's Waxman's arbitraguers' WSUrinal's "cap&tax" nostrum?
From: Androcles on 5 Jul 2010 03:53 "Simp" <alsor(a)interia.pl> wrote in message news:17ac0450-0465-4eeb-8cd4-081db94b33b4(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... On 5 Lip, 01:04, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/4/2010 6:31 PM, Simp wrote: > > > > > On 2 Lip, 11:47, Jerry<Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Jul 2, 3:32 am, "k...(a)nventure.com"<k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > > >>> I have always wondered how Joseph Le Verrier determined the > >>> observed value of the advance of the perihelion of the obit > >>> of Mercury to such precession that his mathematics of Newtonian > >>> Mechanics results in an error of the tiny value 43 arc seconds > >>> per century. He could not have observed this Natural Phenomenon > >>> personally. > > >>> Furthermore, the value of 43 arc seconds/century is the effect. > >>> The accuracy of the 43 arc seconds is very dependent on the > >>> causes, i.e., the accuracy of the so call the 'observed advance > >>> of the perihelion of the orbit'/earth century, and Le Verrier's > >>> math. > > >>> Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century, > >>> and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math? > > >> Le Verrier had available to him well over a century (since 1631) > >> of accurate timings of the transit of Mercury. This so-called > >> "tiny value" of 43 arc seconds was throwing off his transit > >> predictions by an hour. (Le Verrier actually calculated 38 arcsec > >> per > >> century.)http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1859AnPar...5....1L > > >> Over the next several decades, Le Verrier's calculations were > >> scrutinized by many people. By the time Asaph Hall and Simon > >> Newcomb got around to studying the problem, the accumulated > >> discrepancy in transit timings had reached about an hour and a > >> half. Simon Newcomb had become director of the National Almanac > >> Office in 1877, and as such had access to what was arguably the > >> best-trained team of computers in the world under the management > >> of George William Hill, to which he set the task of recalculating > >> all the major astronomical constants. From 1896 on, Newcomb's > >> values were the standard used by all ephemerides. It was Newcomb > >> who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the > >> anomalous precession of Mercury. > > >> Jerry > > > Orbital period is shorter - check Mercury mass... > > Shorter than what and what do you believe to be the relevance? Kepler (two body, no one): T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m)); ======================= Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length. DOA.
From: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 09:19 On 5 Lip, 04:38, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > Anomalous orbit precession? > > Only optical effect - illusion > > (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury). > > You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession. Le Verrier too. Precession is ~560 arcsec / year... it's little more than 0.4 arcsec. Jupiter: m/M = 1050; 560 arcsec - here is good precession. Moon-earth orbit: m/M = 1/81 ! 360 deg / 8.85 years; and 18.6 years - orbit precession (nodes).
From: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 09:23 On 5 Lip, 09:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Kepler (two body, no one): > T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m)); > ======================= > Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length. > DOA. 2pi is angle - full cycle, closed loop...
From: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 09:41 On 5 Lip, 15:19, Simp <al...(a)interia.pl> wrote: > On 5 Lip, 04:38, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > Anomalous orbit precession? > > > Only optical effect - illusion > > > (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury). > > > You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession. > > Precession is ~560 arcsec / year... > it's little more than 0.4 arcsec. 56 / year = 5600 / 100y 5599.7 / 100y - Observed; 100% Jupiter.
From: Androcles on 5 Jul 2010 09:44
"Simp" <alsor(a)interia.pl> wrote in message news:b68553e2-2878-44fe-9cb4-8e889eab075b(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... | On 5 Lip, 09:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: | | > Kepler (two body, no one): | > T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m)); | > ======================= | > Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length. | > DOA. | | 2pi is angle - full cycle, closed loop... | Precession is more than 2pi radians from aphelion to aphelion. Even then one needs Newton's absolute coordinate frame of reference that he called the "fixed" stars, there being no other reference available, and we need to take into account Earth's precession. |