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: Koobee Wublee on 29 Jun 2010 03:10 On Jun 26, 8:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Jun 26, 9:25 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > > I do not know, and neither does the author of the post to which I responded, or > > the author of the referenced article. > > You got me. I don't know the error bar for the influence due to other > solar bodies. I was hoping you might know and show so. So, you don't > know either, and that does not bother you a bit. <shrug> > > > THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Yes, I suspect there > > are contributions to the errorbars on the measurement that are comparable to the > > discrepancy. If, for instance, the errorbar turns out to be 3 arcsec/century, > > then the claim "the discrepancy is larger than the observational error" is > > correct, yet the discrepancy is not SIGNIFICANT, and thus is not important. > > You don't see a problem because you are expecting and hoping for the > validity in the Schwarzschild metric. That is not scientific. > > You are also guessing for a very small error bar. Have you noticed > all the literatures so far presented to this newsgroup do not include > this error bar? On top of that, the number 530 only has two > significant digits. With no error bar associated, why are you > assuming the error bar to be zero? > > > For those of you who don't understand errorbars... > > Let's lay out the issue at hand ignoring the nonsense due to the > quadruple moment of the sun. Using the number of significant digits > presented, we should have a good idea on how tight the error bar is. > > Observed = 5,599.7 +/- 0.? (no error bar) > Equinox = 5,028.00 +/- 0.04 (super accurate) > Perturbation = 530 +/- ?0 (implying very sloppy) > > So, it all depends on the error bar from the contribute due to other > planets. With this argument, it does not bode well for the said 43" > for the Schwarzschild metric's influence, don't you think? Why is Professor Roberts not responding to these issues right up his line of work? Being an experimental physicist, I would expect him to be on top of where the tolerances and/or pertinent attributes are. I am certain that a good engineer would have no problem assessing where the issues of accuracy and fidelity lie. <shrug> Wait! Maybe Professor Roberts is still searching through the literatures on where the myth of 530 with unnaturally high precision of observation comes from. <shrug>
From: Dono. on 29 Jun 2010 14:14 On Jun 27, 5:13 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: > > [...] > > You are arguing with the fake idiot who posts behind anonymous proxies. > Killfile the domain and move on. Yes, the australian fake idiot
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Jun 2010 17:04 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:52:21 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:54 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>>> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of >>>> gravity. >>> >>>As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the >>>existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a >>>testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide. >>> >>>Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to say >>>something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'. >>> >>>Dance for me, puppet. >> >> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction >> of action will vary with relative target speed. >> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will >> result from this. > >Since you feel it is obvious, where is your derivation for Mercury's >perihelion precession? Why don't you do it and prove me wrong? >You could undermine relativity pretty nicely if you could do so, wouldn't >you agree? That is , of course, assuming you can actually do what you claim >and aren't just guessing as you are wont to do. > >> >>>> Henry Wilson... Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 21:08 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:52:21 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:54 -0700, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>[...] >>>> >>>>> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of >>>>> gravity. >>>> >>>>As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the >>>>existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a >>>>testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide. >>>> >>>>Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to >>>>say something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'. >>>> >>>>Dance for me, puppet. >>> >>> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its >>> direction of action will vary with relative target speed. >>> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will >>> result from this. >> >>Since you feel it is obvious, where is your derivation for Mercury's >>perihelion precession? > > Why don't you do it and prove me wrong? Because it isn't my claim - it is yours. You have an odd propensity of attempting to shift the burden upon others whether or not it is you who is making the claim that's in question. Post the derivation then I'll look at it, until then you are guessing and it isn't up to me to research the mathematical foundation that disproves your guess. > >>You could undermine relativity pretty nicely if you could do so, wouldn't >>you agree? That is , of course, assuming you can actually do what you >>claim and aren't just guessing as you are wont to do. >> >>> >>>>> Henry Wilson... > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 1 Jul 2010 00:05
On Jun 28, 5:17 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction of > action will vary with relative target speed. > One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will result > from this. Guess again, Henry. You are WAY OFF TRACK as usual. It should be obvious that if gravitational force travels at the speed of light, then a naive application of Newtonian principles would predict that the Earth is accelerated, not in the direction of the Sun, but rather in the direction that the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago. This implies a constant 0.0057 degree discrepancy between the direction of Earth's acceleration vector versus the direction that would keep Earth in a stable orbit around the Sun. Each year, in fact, the Earth would steadily spiral closer towards the Sun by approximately 30,000 miles. Hundreds of years ago, Laplace concluded that for Newtonian mechanics to be consistent with observation, the speed of gravity must be at least 7x10^6 times the speed of light. Jerry |