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: 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.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 21:18 kado(a)nventure.com wrote: [...] > I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43 > arcsec/centrury of Le Verrier's findings. He did not. You are guessing. [...] > 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. It does. You are, again, guessing. > > Furthermore, the values of what T. Roberts claims as errorbars > are astronomical when applied to many binary extra-Solar System > bodies. Error bars from one measurement do not apply to other, independent, measurements. You are guessing about a subject you have not adequately studied, and it shows. Please stop. > > 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: Simp on 4 Jul 2010 18:31 On 2 Lip, 11:47, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:32 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <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? > > Le Verrier had available to him well over a century (since 1631) > of accurate timings of the transit of Mercury. This so-called > "tiny value" of 43 arc seconds was throwing off his transit > predictions by an hour. (Le Verrier actually calculated 38 arcsec > per century.)http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1859AnPar...5....1L > > Over the next several decades, Le Verrier's calculations were > scrutinized by many people. By the time Asaph Hall and Simon > Newcomb got around to studying the problem, the accumulated > discrepancy in transit timings had reached about an hour and a > half. Simon Newcomb had become director of the National Almanac > Office in 1877, and as such had access to what was arguably the > best-trained team of computers in the world under the management > of George William Hill, to which he set the task of recalculating > all the major astronomical constants. From 1896 on, Newcomb's > values were the standard used by all ephemerides. It was Newcomb > who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the > anomalous precession of Mercury. > > Jerry Orbital period is shorter - check Mercury mass...
From: J. Clarke on 4 Jul 2010 19:04 On 7/4/2010 6:31 PM, Simp wrote: > On 2 Lip, 11:47, Jerry<Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On Jul 2, 3:32 am, "k...(a)nventure.com"<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? >> >> Le Verrier had available to him well over a century (since 1631) >> of accurate timings of the transit of Mercury. This so-called >> "tiny value" of 43 arc seconds was throwing off his transit >> predictions by an hour. (Le Verrier actually calculated 38 arcsec >> per century.)http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1859AnPar...5....1L >> >> Over the next several decades, Le Verrier's calculations were >> scrutinized by many people. By the time Asaph Hall and Simon >> Newcomb got around to studying the problem, the accumulated >> discrepancy in transit timings had reached about an hour and a >> half. Simon Newcomb had become director of the National Almanac >> Office in 1877, and as such had access to what was arguably the >> best-trained team of computers in the world under the management >> of George William Hill, to which he set the task of recalculating >> all the major astronomical constants. From 1896 on, Newcomb's >> values were the standard used by all ephemerides. It was Newcomb >> who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the >> anomalous precession of Mercury. >> >> Jerry > > Orbital period is shorter - check Mercury mass... Shorter than what and what do you believe to be the relevance?
From: Simp on 4 Jul 2010 21:56
On 5 Lip, 01:04, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/4/2010 6:31 PM, Simp wrote: > > > > > On 2 Lip, 11:47, Jerry<Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Jul 2, 3:32 am, "k...(a)nventure.com"<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? > > >> Le Verrier had available to him well over a century (since 1631) > >> of accurate timings of the transit of Mercury. This so-called > >> "tiny value" of 43 arc seconds was throwing off his transit > >> predictions by an hour. (Le Verrier actually calculated 38 arcsec > >> per century.)http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1859AnPar...5....1L > > >> Over the next several decades, Le Verrier's calculations were > >> scrutinized by many people. By the time Asaph Hall and Simon > >> Newcomb got around to studying the problem, the accumulated > >> discrepancy in transit timings had reached about an hour and a > >> half. Simon Newcomb had become director of the National Almanac > >> Office in 1877, and as such had access to what was arguably the > >> best-trained team of computers in the world under the management > >> of George William Hill, to which he set the task of recalculating > >> all the major astronomical constants. From 1896 on, Newcomb's > >> values were the standard used by all ephemerides. It was Newcomb > >> who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the > >> anomalous precession of Mercury. > > >> Jerry > > > Orbital period is shorter - check Mercury mass... > > Shorter than what and what do you believe to be the relevance? Kepler (two body, no one): T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m)); Approximation: T(m) =~ 2pi sqrt(a^3/GM)(1 - 0.5 m/M) = T(0)*(1 - 0.5 m/M); T(0) > T(m); Mercury-Sun: m/M = 1/600000 > 0. For one orbit: da = 2pi * 0.5 m/M = pi/6000000; 100 years = 415 orbits: da = 415pi/6000000 = 44.8 arcsecs. Anomalous orbit precession? Only optical effect - illusion (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury). |