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: Surfer on 25 Jun 2010 14:25 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury Amount: arcsec/Julian century 5603.24 Total predicted 5599.7 Observed -3.54 Discrepancy The discrepancy is larger than the observational error In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be unphysical.
From: BURT on 25 Jun 2010 14:34 On Jun 25, 11:25 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> 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 > > In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an > eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be > unphysical. Could it be a fall back rather than an advance? And shouldn't it happen with every elliptical orbit? Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 20:47 Surfer wrote: > See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury > > Amount: arcsec/Julian century > > 5603.24 Total predicted > 5599.7 Observed > > -3.54 Discrepancy > > The discrepancy is larger than the observational error http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=articlesu9.html > > In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an > eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be > unphysical. No, it doesn't. Don't apply forumlae outside their assumed parameter ranges.
From: Koobee Wublee on 26 Jun 2010 00:23 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>
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 11:19
On Jun 25, 11:23 pm, 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> No. |