Prev: solutions manual
Next: Origins of the universe
From: Surfer on 26 Jun 2010 13:06
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:34:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>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?
>
The total predicted precession is slightly too large.
A non-zero precession for a circular orbit also seems too large.

Both problems would be fixed by a theory that appropriately predicts
less precession, with the amount tending to zero for a circular orbit.

Interestingly, such predictions can be seen on page 70 in,

Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter,
Cahill R.T.
Nova Science Pub., New York, 2005.

So this could be the replacement theory for GR.






From: eric gisse on 26 Jun 2010 20:37
Surfer wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:34:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>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?

Thus we are reminded that BURT knows absolutely not a goddamn thing about
physics.

>>
> The total predicted precession is slightly too large.

You cited Wikipedia. It has no error bars.

I cited living reviews of relativity, which does. You did not reply.


> A non-zero precession for a circular orbit also seems too large.

Circular orbits don't precess, stupid.

>
> Both problems would be fixed by a theory that appropriately predicts
> less precession, with the amount tending to zero for a circular orbit.
>
> Interestingly, such predictions can be seen on page 70 in,
>
> Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter,
> Cahill R.T.
> Nova Science Pub., New York, 2005.

WOW IMAGINE THAT, SURFER CITING CAHILL WHO SOLVES A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T
EXIST.

>
> So this could be the replacement theory for GR.

Stop being stupid, if it is possible.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Jul 2010 19:47
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>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.

There you have it then.
Gravity moves faster than light....but at a finite speed.

>Jerry
>


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Jul 2010 19:00
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>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

Why does precession occur at all?
Several reasons.

One is due to the sun's poperties. Another due to the motions of other planets.

If an object is captured in a chance three body event, its orbit will precess
for eons. Was Mercury captured?

Similarly, if an object such as a comet goes past a highly elliptically
orbiting planet like Mercury, its orbit will be given a sideways kick and
continue to precess for a very long time.

Induced precession doesn't just go away quietly.

Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: solutions manual
Next: Origins of the universe