The worst procedural error ever
Oriel36
as a validation of gr,this is one of many sites availible on the web
covering the topic,explaining that when all the relative motions from
a geocentric standpoint are taken into account,the remaining figure is
43" per century.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html
Because gr supplies a local gravitation solution for the perihelion
advance for Mercury it is obliged to give one for Earth also
[[discussing perihelion advance of various planets]]
>in Ohanian and Ruffini (1994) we find a different table [[different
from Weinberg (1972)]]
> GR observed
> Mercury 42.98 43.1 +-0.1
> Venus 8.65 8.62
> Earth 3.85 3.84
> Mars 1.36 1.35
The problem is that the original perihelion advance is given as 43"
from a geocentric standpoint,if gr were valid for both Earth and
Mercury the true value for Mercury would be 43 " minus 3.84 " given a
true perihelion advance of 39.16" for Mercury but now a terrible
paradox raises its ugly head.
Even if gr tries to correct for a true perihelion advance of 39.16" it
is also obliged to change the value for the Earth's perihelion advance
so then you are back with new figures for both the perihelion advance
of Earth and Mercury but you have to subtract the new figure for
Mercury's advance with the new figure of Earth's advance to take
account for the true perihelion advance from a geocentric picture and
on and on it goes,the figures diminishing without end like a celestial
zeno's paradox.
It is over 8 decades since the validation of gr by the perihelion
advance was celebrated and it is scarcely possible to believe that
scientists have missed the awful paradox lurking behind the
confirmation.
It is not a matter of being correct,for clearly I am,but who here will
be first to notify your peers that there is a problem with the
celebrated validation of gr,to be mathematically exact 43" - 3.84" =
39.16"
Dirk Van de moortel
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.03040...@posting.google.com...
> For those who are not familiar with the perihelion advance of Mercury
> as a validation of gr,this is one of many sites availible on the web
> covering the topic,explaining that when all the relative motions from
> a geocentric standpoint are taken into account,the remaining figure is
> 43" per century.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html
>
> Because gr supplies a local gravitation solution for the perihelion
> advance for Mercury it is obliged to give one for Earth also
>
> [[discussing perihelion advance of various planets]]
> >in Ohanian and Ruffini (1994) we find a different table [[different
> from Weinberg (1972)]]
> > GR observed
> > Mercury 42.98 43.1 +-0.1
> > Venus 8.65 8.62
> > Earth 3.85 3.84
> > Mars 1.36 1.35
>
>
> The problem is that the original perihelion advance is given as 43"
> from a geocentric standpoint,if gr were valid for both Earth and
> Mercury the true value for Mercury would be 43 " minus 3.84 " given a
> true perihelion advance of 39.16" for Mercury but now a terrible
> paradox raises its ugly head.
Your fly is open. We see a very ugly head.
Dirk Vdm
Bill Vajk
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html
> from Weinberg (1972)]]
Well no, that's not true.
Your table quite correctly states "observed" as the foundation which
carries with it all the ramifications of the observer locked into his
inertial frame.
> It is over 8 decades since the validation of gr by the perihelion
> advance was celebrated and it is scarcely possible to believe that
> scientists have missed the awful paradox lurking behind the
> confirmation.
"Missed" is too strong a word. Likely "ignored" is more appropriate.
> It is not a matter of being correct,for clearly I am,but who here will
> be first to notify your peers that there is a problem with the
> celebrated validation of gr,to be mathematically exact 43" - 3.84" =
> 39.16"
Proof of the core thesis does not require the sort of absolutism you're
suggesting. The observed reality is as stated and is adequate.
Compare Occham.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Oriel36
You may find the header of this thread outrageous but it is no more
outrageous than the hype surrounding the 1919 validation of gr,this is
no minor matter of some obscure experiment with little influence of
the study of natural phenomena for the last century but the purported
validation had widespread implications.
Bill Vajk <bill9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3E8EE438...@hotmail.com>...
> Oriel36 wrote:
>
> > For those who are not familiar with the perihelion advance of Mercury
> > as a validation of gr,this is one of many sites availible on the web
> > covering the topic,explaining that when all the relative motions from
> > a geocentric standpoint are taken into account,the remaining figure is
> > 43" per century.
>
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html
>
> > Because gr supplies a local gravitation solution for the perihelion
> > advance for Mercury it is obliged to give one for Earth also
>
> > [[discussing perihelion advance of various planets]]
>
> >>in Ohanian and Ruffini (1994) we find a different table [[different
>
> > from Weinberg (1972)]]
>
> >> GR observed
> >>Mercury 42.98 43.1 +-0.1
> >>Venus 8.65 8.62
> >>Earth 3.85 3.84
> >>Mars 1.36 1.35
>
What would I gain if I yelled out "disproof !" using the figures above
or became enamored by introducing paradoxes.As far as I am concerned
the perihelion advance is still there but simultaneously and
historically it is recognised that you cannot account for discrepancy
of planetary motions gravitationally.
> > The problem is that the original perihelion advance is given as 43"
> > from a geocentric standpoint,if gr were valid for both Earth and
> > Mercury the true value for Mercury would be 43 " minus 3.84 " given a
> > true perihelion advance of 39.16" for Mercury but now a terrible
> > paradox raises its ugly head.
>
> > Even if gr tries to correct for a true perihelion advance of 39.16" it
> > is also obliged to change the value for the Earth's perihelion advance
> > so then you are back with new figures for both the perihelion advance
> > of Earth and Mercury but you have to subtract the new figure for
> > Mercury's advance with the new figure of Earth's advance to take
> > account for the true perihelion advance from a geocentric picture and
> > on and on it goes,the figures diminishing without end like a celestial
> > zeno's paradox.
>
> Well no, that's not true.
>
> Your table quite correctly states "observed" as the foundation which
> carries with it all the ramifications of the observer locked into his
> inertial frame.
>
Well you are filtering it through relativity and Newton has nothing to
say about motion that cannot be explained away gravitationally,the
insight of Roemer was just arriving on the scene when the Principia
was written and to be fair to Newton he did adjust the transits time
of light from the Sun to the Earth in his second edition to reflect
better data.
As relativity has nothing to say about how light distance conditions
observance of planetary motion where elliptical orbits are involved,it
is my job to present the method by which finite distance was
determined in the first place.There is a geometric displacement in
comparing elliptical orbits or a cyclical expansion and contraction in
distance that you cannot account for gravitationally,no more than
Roemer needed gravitation to explain the anomalous motion of Io
through the varying distances of Earth and Jupiter around the Sun.
Newton simply ignored the implication (he refers to this in Optiks) as
his limits only reached geocentric/heliocentric comparisons but
imagine the consequences if you ignore the implication over the vast
distances of intergalactic space.
> > It is over 8 decades since the validation of gr by the perihelion
> > advance was celebrated and it is scarcely possible to believe that
> > scientists have missed the awful paradox lurking behind the
> > confirmation.
>
> "Missed" is too strong a word. Likely "ignored" is more appropriate.
>
Would you accept this from any scientist doing a minor experiment
never mind an experiment with huge implications ?.
> > It is not a matter of being correct,for clearly I am,but who here will
> > be first to notify your peers that there is a problem with the
> > celebrated validation of gr,to be mathematically exact 43" - 3.84" =
> > 39.16"
>
> Proof of the core thesis does not require the sort of absolutism you're
> suggesting. The observed reality is as stated and is adequate.
>
If you think about it carefully enough you find the that the
absolutism belongs to gr.
Fortunately for you and your colleagues,the flaw in the validation of
gr via the perihelion advance would be grounds for introduction of
paradoxes,the choice being Zeno (diminishing values) or the
chicken-and -egg ( how do you calculate the true perihelion advance of
Mercury without knowing what the perihelion advance of Earth is first)
> Compare Occham.
>
I take lessons from geometers only,the Roemers,Keplers and
Copernicus's of our race,you can keep Occham,Hume and Locke who talk
much but as historically insights come from pure intuition guided by
careful observation and then only by a few,the rhetorical outriggers
which serve empirical investigation would seem to place Newton over
Kepler but Newton himself knew that his gravitation laws would be
worthless without the ability to translate apparent motion
(geocentric) into true motion (heliocentric) from the vantage point of
the geocentric (relative space) and the conceptual heliocentric space
(absolute space).
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia
There is no climbdown involved in making a compromise where none
exists at present,the need to explain all celestial motion
gravitationally was never Newton's purpose but this all depends on how
you read the above excerpt from the Principia,while Newton compliments
the work of Copernicus and the later work of Kepler,there was never
any need to subdue Kepler's careful geometric analysis to Newton's
laws of motion for the insight of Roemer still has to be added to
celestial motion.
Bill Vajk
> You may find the header of this thread outrageous but it is no more
> outrageous than the hype surrounding the 1919 validation of gr,this is
> no minor matter of some obscure experiment with little influence of
> the study of natural phenomena for the last century but the purported
> validation had widespread implications.
You haven't been clear on one point. In your opinion, is any error
you've discovered sufficient to invalidate the proof itself?
> What would I gain if I yelled out "disproof !" using the figures above
> or became enamored by introducing paradoxes.As far as I am concerned
> the perihelion advance is still there but simultaneously and
> historically it is recognised that you cannot account for discrepancy
> of planetary motions gravitationally.
Have you done the work necessary to clearly demonstrate some
alternative causality? Until that's done.....
>>"Missed" is too strong a word. Likely "ignored" is more appropriate.
> Would you accept this from any scientist doing a minor experiment
> never mind an experiment with huge implications ?.
It really depends on whether it invalidates the result. Assume, for a
moment, that lightspeed as we talk about it today is off by 1 in the
least significant figure. Does that invalidate everything else we
know?
>>Compare Occham.
> I take lessons from geometers only,(.....) you can keep Occham,Hume
> and Locke who talk much but as historically insights come from
> pure intuition guided by (.......snip run on paragraph-sentence)
Come back when you understand the value of applying Occham (aka Ockham.)
> There is no climbdown involved in making a compromise where none
> exists at present,the need to explain all celestial motion
> gravitationally was never Newton's purpose but this all depends on how
> you read the above excerpt from the Principia,while Newton compliments
> the work of Copernicus and the later work of Kepler,there was never
> any need to subdue Kepler's careful geometric analysis to Newton's
> laws of motion for the insight of Roemer still has to be added to
> celestial motion.
Stop with the 1 sentence paragraphs already. You're obfuscating the
primary discusson that drew me into replying. Your discussion
boils down to the single question, "Do you believe your discovery
invalidates the proof?"
If not, you're merely correcting some accepted astronomical
calculations.
Uncle Al
>
> Bill,
>
> You may find the header of this thread outrageous but it is no more
> outrageous than the hype surrounding the 1919 validation of gr,this is
> no minor matter of some obscure experiment with little influence of
> the study of natural phenomena for the last century but the purported
> validation had widespread implications.
The only problem with General Relativity is that it works perfectly to
the limits of experimental accuracy in every test ever assembled at
any scale...
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General relativity.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
...and that is *your* problem, not ours.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Oriel36
> Oriel36 wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > You may find the header of this thread outrageous but it is no more
> > outrageous than the hype surrounding the 1919 validation of gr,this is
> > no minor matter of some obscure experiment with little influence of
> > the study of natural phenomena for the last century but the purported
> > validation had widespread implications.
>
> The only problem with General Relativity is that it works perfectly to
> the limits of experimental accuracy in every test ever assembled at
> any scale...
>
I understand that you have got your own thing going and would probably
be the last to see that it is not as simple as the "limits of
experimental accuracy " for without knowing what the perihelion
advance for Earth is first you are effectively creating a circular
paradox which diminishes the figures without end.
> <http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
> Experimental constraints on General relativity.
> <http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
> Relativity in the GPS system
>
I am not interested in gr although the procedural error for validation
of the theory and the hype surrounding it certainly had historical
significance whether one adheres to the theory or not.Bringing up the
procedural flaw that has gone unnoticed for 9 decades should generate
discussion and you can expect that it will by somebody else,but as it
often happens that the significance of these things are slow to sink
in.
> ...and that is *your* problem, not ours.
You are correct,my predicament is that in comparing the elliptical
orbits of two planets there should be a slight positional displacement
due to the exaggerated acceleration towards the perihelion which is
balanced ot by a exaggerated slowing away from the perihelion from the
vantage point of a heliocentric observer.This method was used by
Roemer and it would'nt interest you as it treats planetary motion and
how an observer recognises positional displacements due to the effects
of light over finite distances and these do not have a gravitational
cause,again,you are correct,I am starved for correspondence on this
matter for all are busy with gravitational concepts.
Oriel36
> Oriel36 wrote:
>
> > You may find the header of this thread outrageous but it is no more
> > outrageous than the hype surrounding the 1919 validation of gr,this is
> > no minor matter of some obscure experiment with little influence of
> > the study of natural phenomena for the last century but the purported
> > validation had widespread implications.
>
> You haven't been clear on one point. In your opinion, is any error
> you've discovered sufficient to invalidate the proof itself?
>
There is a great difference between an error and a paradox,in this
instance the introduction of a procedural error leads to a nasty
paradox,whether you wish to look at the procedural error or the
mathematical paradox that generate diminishing values is entirely up
to you,again,I must remind you that the perihelion advance validation
of gr was of no little significance.
> > What would I gain if I yelled out "disproof !" using the figures above
> > or became enamored by introducing paradoxes.As far as I am concerned
> > the perihelion advance is still there but simultaneously and
> > historically it is recognised that you cannot account for discrepancy
> > of planetary motions gravitationally.
>
> Have you done the work necessary to clearly demonstrate some
> alternative causality? Until that's done.....
>
From a heliocentric vantage point,elliptical orbits will have a slight
positional displacement which will register with the heliocentric
observer as an exxagerated acceleration towards the perihelion and an
exagggerated slowing away from the perihelion.From a geocentric
standpoint it will register as a slight positional displacement in the
orbit of Mercury.The methodology is borrowed from Roemer who
effectively discerned finite light distance via exxagerated
acceleration and retardation in the orbit of Io due to the variation
in Earth and Jupiter's orbit,if a slight positional displacement due
to adaptation of the Roemerian insight did not occur between Mercury
and Earth it would be highly unusual.
> >>"Missed" is too strong a word. Likely "ignored" is more appropriate.
>
> > Would you accept this from any scientist doing a minor experiment
> > never mind an experiment with huge implications ?.
>
> It really depends on whether it invalidates the result. Assume, for a
> moment, that lightspeed as we talk about it today is off by 1 in the
> least significant figure. Does that invalidate everything else we
> know?
>
> >>Compare Occham.
>
> > I take lessons from geometers only,(.....) you can keep Occham,Hume
> > and Locke who talk much but as historically insights come from
> > pure intuition guided by (.......snip run on paragraph-sentence)
>
> Come back when you understand the value of applying Occham (aka Ockham.)
>
Yeah,right,Ockham whatever .
Have a good look at the article from 1932 and it would break your
heart.This poor man became so bullied by mathematicians that he no
longer has control of the relativistic monster he created besides you
will notice the advancement of large scale structure and motion
remains stalled out since 1919.
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020406/timeline.asp
> > There is no climbdown involved in making a compromise where none
> > exists at present,the need to explain all celestial motion
> > gravitationally was never Newton's purpose but this all depends on how
> > you read the above excerpt from the Principia,while Newton compliments
> > the work of Copernicus and the later work of Kepler,there was never
> > any need to subdue Kepler's careful geometric analysis to Newton's
> > laws of motion for the insight of Roemer still has to be added to
> > celestial motion.
>
> Stop with the 1 sentence paragraphs already. You're obfuscating the
> primary discusson that drew me into replying. Your discussion
> boils down to the single question, "Do you believe your discovery
> invalidates the proof?"
>
What proof ?,there is such a basic procedural error that even if you
wanted to, you would'nt be able to talk about proof or disproof.
> If not, you're merely correcting some accepted astronomical
> calculations.
>
> William J. Vajk
> Techny, Illinois
Hey,have a ball with the perihelion advance validation by gr,I'm sure
you and your colleagues will be perfectly happy with the
inconsistency,all the same,you have to laugh at the great mantra that
gr is observationally accurate.
Minor Crank
news:273f8e06.03040...@posting.google.com...
> I understand that you have got your own thing going and would probably
> be the last to see that it is not as simple as the "limits of
> experimental accuracy " for without knowing what the perihelion
> advance for Earth is first you are effectively creating a circular
> paradox which diminishes the figures without end.
Knowledge of perihelion advance of Earth is not necessary for observation of
perihelion advance of Mercury.
Minor Crank
Oriel36
I recognise that it is no minor matter but a serious procedural flaw
with serious implications nothwitstanding the perihelion advance of
43" for Mercury has still to be explained.It is not an occasion for
the aetherists or pseudorelativists to hop in but it is an occasion
for those who are responsible enough to deal with the matter.
Not all celestial motion can be explained away gravitationally,should
gr remain as a validation for the perihelion advance of Mercury,it
will neither do science nor humanity any favors,unfortunately it now
has a massive hype problem going back to 1919 and that I understand.
In Newton's era they would have spotted the procedural error almost
immediately and laughed the scientist out of existence,but after nine
decades it is no laughing matter.