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 2 Jul 2010 14:05 On Jul 2, 7:30 am, "J. Clarke" wrote: > On 7/2/2010 4:32 AM, 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? > > Legions of astronomy students have verified the math. I am certain interested to see that math where these legions of astronomy students can conclude all bodies with the solar system or beyond can contribute exactly 530 arcseconds to the orbital advance of Mercurys perihelion. So, where is it? <shrug> > 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"? You an astronomer? > > 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? If a tree falls on the ground in Siberia, why does a man in Australia decide to drink a can of beer? > 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. Uranus case is not as tiny as 43 per earth century of orbital anomaly. <shrug> > > 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? I guess Mr. Kadoshima probably means the Schwarzschild metric which is one of the infinite numbers of solutions to the field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat, and degenerative to Newtonian law of gravity. However, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had already predicted (3 G M / c^2 / R, where M = solar mass, R = average orbital distance to the sun) per revolution of advance in perihelion. That was about half a year before the field equations. In fact bragging about this so-called achievement was what prompted Hilbert to pull out that so-called Lagrangian as a density of some sort to the ever so mystic Einstein-Hilbert action. With that Lagrangian, Hilbert was about to derive the field equations. What Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did was to mechanically copy Gerbers work. Both modified the Newtonian gravitational potential to do so. Gerbers approach was to design a speed dependent gravitational potential, while Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar chose to add a second order effect to the orbital distance. Of course, being a nitwit, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar naturally made a lot of mistake on that. <shrug>
From: kado on 3 Jul 2010 05:41 On Jul 2, 7:30 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > snip > > Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury? The GR equation of Einstein that this whole thread is all about: The advance of the perihelion of the orbits (i.e., exactly 43 arcsec/century in the case of Mercury) = 24pi^3(a^2/T^2c^2[1-e^2]) See page 163 of 'The Principle of Relativity' authored by Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, and originally published in German in 1923. This is in English in 'Gravity, the Glue of the Universe', therefore so are the definitions of the letters used in the equation. D.Y.K.
From: J. Clarke on 3 Jul 2010 08:09 On 7/3/2010 5:41 AM, kado(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jul 2, 7:30 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> > snip >> >> Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury? > > > The GR equation of Einstein that this whole thread is all about: > > The advance of the perihelion of the orbits (i.e., exactly 43 > arcsec/century in the case of Mercury) = > > 24pi^3(a^2/T^2c^2[1-e^2]) > > See page 163 of 'The Principle of Relativity' authored by Lorentz, > Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, and originally published in German > in 1923. This is in English in 'Gravity, the Glue of the Universe', > therefore so are the definitions of the letters used in the equation. And it is your contention that Einstein derived General Relativity from this equation? So what were the other 162 pages of the book about do you think?
From: kado on 3 Jul 2010 16:55 On Jul 3, 5:09 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/3/2010 5:41 AM, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 7:30 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > snip > > >> Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury? > > > The GR equation of Einstein that this whole thread is all about: > > > The advance of the perihelion of the orbits (i.e., exactly 43 > > arcsec/century in the case of Mercury) = > > > 24pi^3(a^2/T^2c^2[1-e^2]) > > > See page 163 of 'The Principle of Relativity' authored by Lorentz, > > Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, and originally published in German > > in 1923. This is in English in 'Gravity, the Glue of the Universe', > > therefore so are the definitions of the letters used in the equation. > > And it is your contention that Einstein derived General Relativity from > this equation? So what were the other 162 pages of the book about do > you think? Where the heck did you ever get the idea that I maintain that Einstein derived GR from this equation? I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43 arcsec/centrury of Le Verrier's findings. Your logic is extremely weak, if you have any at all. Furthermore your responses to my posts positively demonstrates that your sense of cause and effect is non-existent. 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. Furthermore, the values of what T. Roberts claims as errorbars are astronomical when applied to many binary extra-Solar System bodies. So do not expect any more responses to your flummox posts. To argue with a fool only demonstrates that there are two. D.Y.K.
From: J. Clarke on 3 Jul 2010 17:08
On 7/3/2010 4:55 PM, kado(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jul 3, 5:09 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 7/3/2010 5:41 AM, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 2, 7:30 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >>> snip >> >>>> Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury? >> >>> The GR equation of Einstein that this whole thread is all about: >> >>> The advance of the perihelion of the orbits (i.e., exactly 43 >>> arcsec/century in the case of Mercury) = >> >>> 24pi^3(a^2/T^2c^2[1-e^2]) >> >>> See page 163 of 'The Principle of Relativity' authored by Lorentz, >>> Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, and originally published in German >>> in 1923. This is in English in 'Gravity, the Glue of the Universe', >>> therefore so are the definitions of the letters used in the equation. >> >> And it is your contention that Einstein derived General Relativity from >> this equation? So what were the other 162 pages of the book about do >> you think? > > > Where the heck did you ever get the idea that I maintain that > Einstein derived GR from this equation? > > I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43 > arcsec/centrury of Le Verrier's findings. I see. So show us where the 43 arcsec/century was assumed in its derivation. > Your logic is extremely weak, if you have any at all. Furthermore > your responses to my posts positively demonstrates that your > sense of cause and effect is non-existent. When in doubt attack, the typical resort of the troll, conspiracy theorist, and loon. > 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. Why would it? > Furthermore, the values of what T. Roberts claims as errorbars > are astronomical when applied to many binary extra-Solar System > bodies. So are all binary extra-Solar System bodies. So what? > So do not expect any more responses to your flummox posts. Hope springs eternal. > To argue with a fool only demonstrates that there are two. This is true. I should not be arguing with you. |