Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Progression of the Perihelion
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
greywolf42  
View profile  
 More options May 26 2003, 12:08 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: "greywolf42" <ming...@sim-ss.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 09:18:41 -0700
Local: Mon, May 26 2003 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: Progression of the Perihelion
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

heimdall <vze3t...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:b0601654.0305260516.1d8f8ec8@posting.google.com...

> I have seen the progression of the perihelion of Mercury
> described as the effect of the light-speed of gravity, but
> also as the effect of the time dilation and space expansion
> (spacetime curvature) nearer the sun.

> Undoubtedly, both spacetime curvature and gravity contribute,
> but which is more important?  Gerber, I think, explained it
> entirely as a function of light-speed, but, I understand, his
> explanation was wrong although his formula was correct.

> Is there a good reference to explaining the motion of the
> perihelion, preferably one that introduces just enough mathematics
> to get the job done?

> Heimdall

Yes.  An excellent reference for this is Petr Beckmann's "Einstein Plus
Two."  And all you need is speed of gravity.  (By the way, there are NO
errors in Gerber's work.)  Pauli et al dislike Gerber's derivation because
it is not a complete theory of gravity.  Not because there are errors in
Gerber's work.  (At least no errors have ever been published or noted in
what Gerber actually DID.)  GR's results are also the result solely of
finite gravity speed.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google