Prev: Detecting relative motion
Next: Carbon Footprint of BP's Oil Spill
From: WalterOrlov on 7 Jun 2010 15:27
Hello!

Physicists are awkwardly when it comes to Gerber's gravitational
potential. I have a help:
http://home.arcor.de/walter-orlov/gerber-potential.pdf

Paul Gerber recognized two factors that due to finite propagation
speed of interaction can influence the Newtonian law of gravitation.

1. Neumann's factor: the potential of the mutual attraction of two
masses requires some time to get from one mass to another mass.

2. Gerber's factor: duration of impact of gravitational potential.
According to Gerber, the gravitational interaction has the constant
speed (of light) only relative to the mass, from which it emanates.
This leads to greater "exposure time" in the removal of the masses of
each other and vice versa.

Taken together, two factors make the Gerber's gravitational potential.
This potential allowed Gerber in year 1898 to compute the perihelion
precession of the planets.

From: eric gisse on 7 Jun 2010 20:45
WalterOrlov wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Physicists are awkwardly when it comes to Gerber's gravitational
> potential. I have a help:
> http://home.arcor.de/walter-orlov/gerber-potential.pdf
>
> Paul Gerber recognized two factors that due to finite propagation
> speed of interaction can influence the Newtonian law of gravitation.
>
> 1. Neumann's factor: the potential of the mutual attraction of two
> masses requires some time to get from one mass to another mass.
>
> 2. Gerber's factor: duration of impact of gravitational potential.
> According to Gerber, the gravitational interaction has the constant
> speed (of light) only relative to the mass, from which it emanates.
> This leads to greater "exposure time" in the removal of the masses of
> each other and vice versa.
>
> Taken together, two factors make the Gerber's gravitational potential.
> This potential allowed Gerber in year 1898 to compute the perihelion
> precession of the planets.

Thanks for reminding us of 19th century curve fitting of a problem that has
been solved for nearly a century.

From: WalterOrlov on 8 Jun 2010 15:25
On Jun 8, 5:55 pm, John Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> In this paper are you seem to have made dimensional errors that would
> invalidate further conclusions.
> E = mv^2/r - GMm/r - GML^2/mc^2r^3
> In the second term you don't need m; it'sGM/r.
> The third term appears to be a ratio of two energies so it's
> dimensionless, coming down to GM/r divided by mc^2.
> You might want to check into this.

Everything ok!
According to definition L = m [r x v] => L^2 ~ m^2 => m^2 /m = m.


From: WalterOrlov on 9 Jun 2010 02:02
On Jun 8, 10:27 pm, John Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> The energy of the gravitational potential for mass M is MG/r. There is
> no reason to multiply further by m.
> John Polasek

You're wrong: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#ui
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Detecting relative motion
Next: Carbon Footprint of BP's Oil Spill