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 4 Jul 2010 22:38 On 7/4/2010 9:56 PM, Simp wrote: > 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). You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession. >
From: Androcles on 5 Jul 2010 03:53 "Simp" <alsor(a)interia.pl> wrote in message news:17ac0450-0465-4eeb-8cd4-081db94b33b4(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... 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)); ======================= Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length. DOA.
From: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 09:19 On 5 Lip, 04:38, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > Anomalous orbit precession? > > Only optical effect - illusion > > (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury). > > You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession. Le Verrier too. Precession is ~560 arcsec / year... it's little more than 0.4 arcsec. Jupiter: m/M = 1050; 560 arcsec - here is good precession. Moon-earth orbit: m/M = 1/81 ! 360 deg / 8.85 years; and 18.6 years - orbit precession (nodes).
From: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 09:23 On 5 Lip, 09:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Kepler (two body, no one): > T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m)); > ======================= > Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length. > DOA. 2pi is angle - full cycle, closed loop...
From: Simp on 5 Jul 2010 09:41
On 5 Lip, 15:19, Simp <al...(a)interia.pl> wrote: > On 5 Lip, 04:38, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > Anomalous orbit precession? > > > Only optical effect - illusion > > > (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury). > > > You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession. > > Precession is ~560 arcsec / year... > it's little more than 0.4 arcsec. 56 / year = 5600 / 100y 5599.7 / 100y - Observed; 100% Jupiter. |