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: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:22 On Jul 2, 3:32 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > > Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century, > and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math? The *measured* half-life of U-235 is 704 million years. When you figure out how we can possibly know that despite not having been around for 704 million years, then you'll perhaps have a glimmer of understanding of what's going on in this case. > > Moreover, the Sun is not absolutely stationary within the Solar > System, because like all multiple body 'binary' systems, all the > masses move. The planets and comets obit, and the Sun jiggles > and 'is agitated' in the words of Isaac Newton. Did Le Verrier > even consider the minor mass planets, let alone the comets? > Additionally, the 'planet' Pluto was not yet discovered at the > time Le Verrier published his findings. > > So let's face it, the 43 arc seconds/century on which Einstein > based his whole equation is pretty darn shaky, and screw the > errorbars. Sorry, but the error bars tell you how shaky that number is. That's what the purpose of error bars is. What you are saying is that you don't have any idea how those error bars were arrived at.
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jul 2010 10:30 On 7/2/2010 4:32 AM, kado(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jun 26, 8:43 pm, Koobee Wublee<koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > snip >> >> 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? > > 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? Legions of astronomy students have verified the math. As for "who the hell or what team", many astronomers. Why do all observations have to be by the same person or team? And why does the measurement have to be over "exactly one century"? > Moreover, the Sun is not absolutely stationary within the Solar > System, because like all multiple body 'binary' systems, all the > masses move. The planets and comets obit, and the Sun jiggles > and 'is agitated' in the words of Isaac Newton. Did Le Verrier > even consider the minor mass planets, let alone the comets? > Additionally, the 'planet' Pluto was not yet discovered at the > time Le Verrier published his findings. If the cause of the anomaly in the precession of Mercury is Pluto and comets then why it is the _only_ planet that shows such an anomaly? You're assuming that the same guy who figured out from its effect on the other planets the position of the then unknown Neptune with such accuracy that the observational astronomers were able to find it within hours of starting the search was unable to account for such effects in calculating the orbit of Mercury. > So let's face it, the 43 arc seconds/century on which Einstein > based his whole equation is pretty darn shaky, and screw the > errorbars. Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury?
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 13:11 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
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 13:13 OwlHoot wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:23 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 25, 8:58 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >> >> >> > Surfer wrote: >> > > See: >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p... >> >> > > Amount: arcsec/Julian century >> > > 5603.24 Total predicted >> > > 5599.7 Observed >> > > -3.54 Discrepancy >> >> > > The discrepancy is larger than the observational error >> >> > Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare >> > the discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not >> > do that, and does not include the errorbars. >> >> > So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can >> > determine whether this is important or not. >> >> Not the errorbars again. What is the errorbar of the one due to other >> solar bodies? They seem to be very big, no? <shrug> KW is stupid. That's all that really needs to be said after all these years. > > There's expected to be a slight discrepancy due to flattening > of the Sun's core, on account of its quite rapid rotation. > > Since nobody yet knows the core's exact shape (although progress > is being made by observations of surface vibrations), the same > slight uncertainty is associated with the precession of Mercury's > perihelion. The name for this is 'solar quadrupole moment'. A massive body with a quadrupole moment makes an orbiting body's orbit precess, which is a well known feature in classical mechanics. > > > Cheers > > John Ramsden
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 13:29
On Jul 2, 2:00 am, Jerry wrote: > On Jul 2, 12:04 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Misinformed by whom? > > By yourself. You make no sense. <shrug> > > GR has no prediction on the speed of gravity. The issue is a > > philosophical one for GR. <shrug> > > False. Where is it? Want to bring up Rob Lows paper with warp drives? Hello, Star Trek. <shrug> > > What type of bullshit is that? An infinitesimal orbiting particle > > still orbits the parent gravitating mass at relatively high speed. > > So, only the gravitating mass is subject to aberration while this > > infinitesimal particle does not? That is not according to the > > principle of relativity. <shrug> > > You are being nonsensical.http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087 What is so nonsensical about telling you that an infinitesimal orbiting particle still orbits the parent gravitating mass at relatively high speed? <shrug> > > Well, as you have claimed, the speed of gravity must be infinite to > > satisfy Newtonian orbiting system. So, the late Dr. Van Flandern's > > claim of the speed of gravity being higher than several billion times > > the speed of light is actually very correct. What is the problem > > here? > > Newtonian mechanics is merely an approximation, So are all other mathematical models. <shrug> > therefore its > requirement that the speed of gravity be infinite (or nearly so) > is wrong. There is no such requirement to a mathematical model. The question is whether a mechanism can be identified to define what the speed of gravity is. Both Newtonian and GR fail at that. <shrug> > > Know what? More of your bullshits and more fermented diarrhea of > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein > > Dingleberries? > > In a few years, you will die and your "theories" will be totally > forgotten. Within their respective realms of applicability, > Newton's and Einstein's theories still have many millenia to go. I would certain bet against that. <shrug> In the meantime, keep drinking more fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug> |