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: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 20:18 On 5 Lip, 16:34, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 56 / year = 5600 / 100y > > > 5599.7 / 100y - Observed; > > 100% Jupiter. > > So why doesn't the calculation method that successfully accounts for > Jupiter in the analysis of the orbits of the other planets work for > Mercury? Mercury is in correct place without extra precession - orbital period is shorter.
From: J. Clarke on 5 Jul 2010 20:51 On 7/5/2010 8:18 PM, Simp wrote: > On 5 Lip, 16:34, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>> 56 / year = 5600 / 100y >> >>> 5599.7 / 100y - Observed; >>> 100% Jupiter. >> >> So why doesn't the calculation method that successfully accounts for >> Jupiter in the analysis of the orbits of the other planets work for >> Mercury? > > Mercury is in correct place without extra precession - > orbital period is shorter. So why does the same method of measuring orbital periods that works for every other planet give an incorrect result with Mercury?
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 21:02 Simp wrote: > On 5 Lip, 16:34, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> > 56 / year = 5600 / 100y >> >> > 5599.7 / 100y - Observed; >> > 100% Jupiter. >> >> So why doesn't the calculation method that successfully accounts for >> Jupiter in the analysis of the orbits of the other planets work for >> Mercury? > > Mercury is in correct place without extra precession - > orbital period is shorter. Do you know the difference between perihelion advance and orbital period? I suspect you do not.
From: spudnik on 5 Jul 2010 22:00 what more hypothesis is there to "instantaenous waves" of gravity, then there was for instantaneous lightwaves, before Ole Roemer? now, if you weren't so bound-up in the Department of Einsteinmania, The Musical Dept., you'd have known about Alfven waves ... not that I really do, but see _The Big Bang Never Happened_ by E.Lerner, a student of his at UCSDiego. > The question is whether a mechanism can be identified > to define what the speed of gravity is. thus&so: TOA, means "top of atmosphere?" also, I'd appreciate more about the definition of "one optical depth." thus&so: OK, why don't you dyscuss, whether or not cap&trade is a "tax," per the WSUrinal editorials' & teaparty's mere slogan, or just another way for the bears &bulls to make money, whilst the hogs get slaughtered? (that is to say, the Next (or very Last) Bailout of Wall Street etc., including Beyondish Petroleumish, the big operators in the Gulf and Alaska ... and "the nationbuilding of E.Timor?") thus&so: the Kyoto Protocol was stricltly cap&trade, a.k.a. "free trade" of the yore of British imperialism in 1776 (whence Smith's second hoax, _The Wealth of Nations_, was published), as Waxman's wunnerful bill of '91 on NOX and SO2. maybe, it was fortunate, that someone lied to Dubya about Kyoto's true nature, or he'd surely have signed it. so, how about an actual, tiny, accountable carbon tax, instead of the next and/or last bailout of Wall Street and the City (of London, financial district & gated community) ?? the voluntary USA cap&trade, apparently partly started by Sen. Obama via private foundations, is already huge, tens of billions of dollars US per annum since 2003, although much smaller than the EU's mandatory one. > > Kyoto and Cap & Trade. thus&so: ice that is within the arctic circles never gets direct insolation over 47 degrees from horizon (or less than 43 degrees from zenith). I mean, that is not really apparent in GCMers flatscreen HDTVs. > Which sea ice (Arctic summer or Antarctic winter) affects albedo, most? thus&so: all of the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives, seems to agree with Emmanuel, that this is the time to install BP's old cap&trade ideals from Kyoto ... actually, first launched in '91 under Waxman and H-Dubya. thus&so: so, acid rain is the germain topic, since it was the First Cap and Trade (Waxman's '91 bill). so, what I haven't seen dyscussed in the WSUrinal e.g., is just how wonderfully this'd worked -- who made the money in the God-am "free market?" [NB, Waxman's cmte. also ran the healthcare bill; is that a conspiracy, or doe he get free drugs?] thus&so: sad to say, I missed the authors of _Doubt Merchants_, when they came to the public library, as folks around here rely on me to be the (usually) lone contrarian in Santa Monica, the capital of Green (with the help of Alcoa's largest-ever bequest to the WAND Corp., when the President was chosen to be Dubya's Treasurer ... when HDPE bags are outlawed, only criminals and baby-smotherers will have HDPE bags -- a-hem.) you bring-up 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. well, 2003 was when a) they cut-off a tenth of our supply to Californicators (with their ban on offshore drilling), and spent a huge amount of oil on the new war ... and that's when the hedgers jacked the price up, kind of a double-whammy after the "electricity crisis" from Texas and Canada. thus&so: such is the nature of an ad hoc interpretation of glaciation, that added snowfall requires a "colder" planet (and that more icebergs calving necessarily implies melting ... not according to the satellite telemetry, circa the day of the panel at UCLA, a few y.a.; citing-out two of the professors, known to me.) > increasing WV content results in stronger cyclonic systems > as much as or more than vertical lapse rate changes. thus quoth: Miskolczi said in <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf> thus&so: what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate for Bernward at the Post [*], was also the Vice President, who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower (second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop); and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set, to make for a controlled demolition? well, some of us believe that he was not just the acting president -- especially since the impeachment of Bill C.. * in the theatrical parlance of editor Bradley or ms. Graham, Woodstein ne'er followed the Pennzoil money to <a-hem>; see http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/ --BP's cap&trade plus free beer/miles on your CO2 creds at ARCO! http://wlym.com
From: kado on 6 Jul 2010 21:34
On Jul 2, 10:11 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > [...] > > > I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information > > if I found it for you. Probably nothing? > > Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. > > > > > Jerry > > If we accept that the 43 arcsec/century value is true so we don't get all tied up with side issues and get into a pissing contest, this is the value that determines the errorbars within Classical Newtonian Mechanics that Tom Roberts is all hung up on. On the other hand, Einstein's GR equation for the precession of the perihelion of the orbits predicts exactly 43 arcsec/century. Consequently there is no error, thus the subject of errorbars are, in the words of Einstein, superfluous and unnecessary. So this takes care of Tom Roberts. Now to get back 'experts' Eric Gisse and J. Clark. As I posted earlier, the 43 arcsec/value of Le Verrier is the difference (error) between the 'observed' precession of the orbit and the predicted value derived from the mathematics of Classical Newtonian Mechanics. That's why I asked Clark to post Newcomb's value for the 'observed' advance of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. I'm not really sure of the exact values that Le Verrier arrived at after all his work. I also wanted Clark to commit himself to a specific number. Now anyone that knows anything about physics and cosmology remembers the numbers 43 arcsec/century. Clark stated that he could find Newcomb's numbers if he so wished. This demonstrates that he has not put this into his 'brain'. The 43 arcsec/century is an effect! It's that causes that are important. In other words; the validity of this value of the 'observed' precession and that of Classical Newtonian Mechanics is crucial to the validity of the 43 arcsec/century value. I think, but am not sure the Le Verrier maintains that the mathematics of Classical Newtonian Mechanics ) predicts a value of 526.7 arcsec/century, and that the observed Newcomb value is what I am after. The accepted modern value is 574.1 arcsec/century. However, Le Verrier's words of 'observed' precession is a big fib, and a really big untruth. Le Verrier, et. al. did not actually empirically observe and study the perihelion of the orbits of the planet Mercury, but studied instead the transits of Mercury across the face of the Sun. Then by employing the same Classical Newtonian Mechanics that is supposedly responsible for 43 arcsec/century error came up with his twisted rendition of the 'observed' advance of the perihelion of the orbit as, (I think) 531.509 arcsec/century. However, the mechanics of Newton and Kepler's Laws address 2 body, and only 2 body systems. This is clearly stated in Principia. On the other hand, the advance of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury is a multiple body (n-body in the words of mathematicians) problem, because the orbits are perturbed by all nearby (in the cosmological sense) bodies, large and small. That's why I threw in the bit about Pluto. The perturbations caused by Pluto may not be discernible in one 88 Earth day orbit, but may contribute a tiny little, but meaningful bit in an Earth century. It's not up to the researcher to just toss out what he/she may guess what's unimportant, but address all that may contribute to what is being researched. Only after finding that something is not meaningful, can he/she truly toss this particular cause out as superfluous and unnecessary. But what's really important to accept is that mainline science still cannot solve n-body problems! Moreover, any true scientific, empirical observations of the advance of the perihelion of the orbit will, by it's nature include all the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Therefore any 'Solar quadruple moment' noted by Gisse is already included. Now on Jul 3, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > [...] > > > I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43 > > arcsec/century of Le Verrier's findings. > > He did not. > > You are guessing. > > [...] > > > I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same > > degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the > > Solar System. > > It does. > > You are, again, guessing. > snip > > You are guessing about a subject you have not adequately studied, and it > shows. Please stop. > So lets see who's guessing and has not adequately studied this particular subject, and who should stop. The following words are attributed to Einstein (in reference to the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) on page 126 of the book titled 'Relativity', published by the estate of Albert Einstein, quote: "...that theory requires that this rotation should amount to 43 seconds of arc per century for the planet Mercury but for the other planets of our solar system its magnitude should be so small that it would necessarily escape detection." Now I am guessing that the estate of Albert Einstein would not attribute words that he did not speak or write to him. I won't go deeply into the fact the Einstein's equation does not have zero errorbars when applied to the other planets of the Solar System, because this will take a lot of my time and space on this thread (and this post is long enough), but is noted and explained in a whole lot of other readily available references. I thought everyone knew this, but I know now that I was wrong But I will give you this: the observed precession per century of the orbit of Earth is ~7.70% greater than that predicted by the GR equation, and the error of the planet Uranus is even greater. So I hope this post takes care of all the stupid comments made about my posts by both the experts Clark and Gisse. Now I will bring up another related subject that is not addressed in this thread. Have you ever wondered why it's always the perihelion of the orbit of a planet of the Solar System that is used, rather than the aphelion? It would seem that the aphelion, especially of the inner planets would be a more easier quality to get right. Both Mercury and Venus would farther from the Sun, so the observation sessions could be longer, and possible more precise. The measured numerical values are also greater because the shift in the point space in respect to the 'fixed stars' of each succeeding aphelion are greater than those of the perihelions. Furthermore, the speed of the orbiting body is slower at aphelion than when at perihelion, so the values are less prone to 'sighting' errors. Nevertheless, there is a very valid logical and empirical reason for concentrating on the perihelion. Guess who knows. D. Y. Kadoshima |