GR prediction for precession of perihelion of Mercury is not quite right
in [Math]
|
Prev: Speed limit of universe factored and solved by Einsteinian math
Next: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
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: Koobee Wublee on 1 Jul 2010 13:54 On Jun 30, 9:05 pm, Jerry < wrote: > 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. Yes, that was exactly what prompted the late Dr. Van Flandern to claim the speed of gravity to be more than several billion times the speed of light. <shrug> > 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. Yes, indeed. <shrug> Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because he only included the aberration from the point of view of the gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug>
From: Jerry on 1 Jul 2010 22:50 On Jul 1, 12:54 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 9:05 pm, Jerry < wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, that was exactly what prompted the late Dr. Van Flandern to claim > the speed of gravity to be more than several billion times the speed > of light. <shrug> > > > 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. > > Yes, indeed. <shrug> > > Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because > he only included the aberration from the point of view of the > gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the > answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass > filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at > one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass > has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for > the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for > light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for > this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug> Sorry, you are grossly misinformed (AS ALWAYS!!!) Even as Newtonian theory requires an infinite speed of gravity for stable orbits, GR requires a finite speed of gravity. Prof. Carlip limited his discussion to the case of an infinitesimal orbiting particle because of its analytical simplicity. But numerical relativity is an extremely well-established field, and it is quite well known in the field that Van Flandern's claims were just plain WRONG. If you did even a modicum of study, you would know this... Jerry
From: Androcles on 2 Jul 2010 01:10 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:00ba6d5d-16f1-4dae-a149-c0160105fc68(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Jul 1, 12:54 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 9:05 pm, Jerry < wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, that was exactly what prompted the late Dr. Van Flandern to claim > the speed of gravity to be more than several billion times the speed > of light. <shrug> > > > 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. > > Yes, indeed. <shrug> > > Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because > he only included the aberration from the point of view of the > gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the > answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass > filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at > one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass > has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for > the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for > light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for > this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug> Sorry, you are grossly misinformed (AS ALWAYS!!!) Even as Newtonian theory requires an infinite speed of gravity for stable orbits, GR requires a finite speed of gravity. Prof. Carlip limited his discussion to the case of an infinitesimal orbiting particle because of its analytical simplicity. But numerical relativity is an extremely well-established field, and it is quite well known in the field that Van Flandern's claims were just plain WRONG. If you did even a modicum of study, you would know this... Jerry ================== Tom&Jeery is insane, as always!
From: kado on 2 Jul 2010 04:32
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? 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. D. Y. Kadoshima |