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: kado on 7 Jul 2010 01:33 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 know 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, so I can compare it with the accepted value below. 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 used an indirect questionable route. Instead of studying the advance of the perihelions directly, they studied and recorded the properties 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, all the mathematics mentioned above not withstanding, 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) problems, 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 discernable 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. Nevertheless these, or any perturbations caused by any body other than the Sun or Mercury makes this an n-body system, and precludes any solution. In other words; all who were believed to check and verify Le Verriers math just followed in the footsteps of Le Verrier to solve the n-body problems, and made the silly mistakes he did. So what's really important to accept is that mainline science still cannot solve n-body problems! So this makes the whole of Le Verriers work moot, and of questionable validity. 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 who is not, and who has and who has not adequately studied this particular subject, so who should stop posting and exit stage left. 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 supposing (guessing) that the estate of Albert Einstein would not attribute words that he did not speak or write to him. Furthermore, I won't go deeply into the fact the Einstein's equation has zero errorbars only when applied to the planet Mercury, but do have considerable errorbars when applied to some of 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. But I will give you this: the observed precession per century of The perihelion of the orbit of Earth is ~7.70% greater than that found by Le Verrier, and ~31% greater than that predicted by the GR equation. The % errors of the planet Uranus are even greater. I thought everyone with an interest in physics, cosmology and SR/GR already knew this, but I know now that I was wrong. 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 take the liberty to bring up another related subject that is not yet 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
From: PD on 7 Jul 2010 10:04 On Jul 6, 8:34 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > 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. > Fundamental mistake. The discrepancy between a measured and expected value is NEVER taken to be a good measure of the errorbar. Please return to a freshman physics lab. PD
From: Simp on 7 Jul 2010 21:21 On 6 Lip, 02:51, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > So why does the same method of measuring orbital periods that works for > every other planet give an incorrect result with Mercury? It 'works' because GR don't predicts precession of... Moon. Earth axial precession (equinox): 50.3 arcsec / year. Yes? Jupiter - Sun (second body correction): pi/T * m/M = pi/11.86 y /1050 = 52.03 as/ y; Earth: pi/1 y * m/M = pi/333000 = 1.95 as / y Observed from Earth - difference: ~50 arcsec / year; T = ~25800 years. Moon & Sun tidal forces -> 50.3 ? Maybe... but 0.3;
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jul 2010 21:48 On 7/7/2010 9:21 PM, Simp wrote: > On 6 Lip, 02:51, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> So why does the same method of measuring orbital periods that works for >> every other planet give an incorrect result with Mercury? > > It 'works' because GR don't predicts precession of... Moon. So you're saying that General Relativity correctly predicts the motion of Mercury? Then what are you on about? > Earth axial precession (equinox): 50.3 arcsec / year. > Yes? > > Jupiter - Sun (second body correction): > pi/T * m/M = pi/11.86 y /1050 = 52.03 as/ y; > > Earth: > pi/1 y * m/M = pi/333000 = 1.95 as / y > > Observed from Earth - difference: > ~50 arcsec / year; T = ~25800 years. > > Moon& Sun tidal forces -> 50.3 ? > Maybe... but 0.3; If you have a point please make it in complete sentences.
From: Tom Roberts on 8 Jul 2010 00:55
kado(a)nventure.com wrote: > 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. You have not "taken care" of me; you have not even addressed my point. By "accepting" 43 arcsec/century you completely avoid my issue. My point is that in addition to the value (43) one must also know the accuracy with which that value was measured (in this case computed from other measurements) -- this is called the errorbar. And you have not addressed the errorbar on that value at all. In the first paragraph up there you misuse the term "errorbar". In Newtonian mechanics that 43 arcsec/century is a DISCREPANCY between theory and experiment, not any sort of "errorbar". In the second paragraph up there you misuse the term "error". In this context, errors are unavoidable differences between the actual value of a quantity (which is unknowable) and the measured value. As I said before, one must quantify such errors, and that is generally done via an error analysis that expresses its results in errorbars -- errorbars are simply the estimates of the error. In particular the difference between measurement and theory is NEVER considered to be part of an errorbar. Before attempting to continue this discussion, I suggest you STUDY modern experimental techniques, particularly error analysis. Tom Roberts |