tom roberts ...gerber and precession of mercury
patrick
In an earlier thread Tom Roberts says this
"If one wishes to analyze ONLY the advance of the perihelion, one can
follow Gerber and apply Newtonian mechanics with a finite speed of
gravity, and fit the unknown speed of gravity to the observed perihelion
advance and obtain good agreement. That's fine AS FAR AS IT GOES --
because if one tries to apply the same theory to the orbits of other
planets and moons it fails, big time. So this approach is useless, and
nobody has been able to make it work for ALL observations."
How can the above be correct.? As far as i understand it Gerber arrives at
the same formula
as GR does...into which the data for specific situations like sun/mercury is
plugged.So both should give the same precession.
tia
patrick
xxein
xxein: Normally I don't profess. Did you check it against finite c
in gravity? On a recent post somewhere, it was stated that the
observer velocity of c is gravitationally dependent (backed up ny
Einstein). That certainly affects observation of differently spaced
perhelion observations. But I know nothing at all. No one should
change any belief because of me.
It is up to you to differentiate reality from belief. Questions are
good, but belief obfuscates most other reasonable answers. Try
questioning your belief of interpretation of raw data. There is the
world of difference.
Joe Fischer
: In an earlier thread Tom Roberts says this
:
: "If one wishes to analyze ONLY the advance of the perihelion, one can
: follow Gerber and apply Newtonian mechanics with a finite speed of
: gravity, and fit the unknown speed of gravity to the observed perihelion
: advance and obtain good agreement. That's fine AS FAR AS IT GOES --
: because if one tries to apply the same theory to the orbits of other
: planets and moons it fails, big time. So this approach is useless, and
: nobody has been able to make it work for ALL observations."
:
: How can the above be correct.? As far as i understand it Gerber
: arrives at the same formula as GR does...
: plugged.So both should give the same precession.
Not for all the planets, most have longer
light path times than Mercury to Earth, and Mercury
is the only one that differs from Newtonian theory
so much.
GR results do not depend only on the
time differences of finite vs infinite propagation
speed of gravity, and any thoughts about propagation
speed affecting orbits shows a lack of knowledge
about gravity and General Relativity.
Joe Fischer
--
3
patrick
To re-phrase my question:
The GR formula for perihelion precession is 6 pi k^2 (m^2 / h^2) (as in
Bergmann Theory of Relativity)
This is the same formula that Gerber gets for precession from his non GR
theory.( I think)
When the values for Mercury are inserted the correct experimental result is
got.
My question: are the correct results got for precessions in other planets /
moons? I would expect yes.
or am i missing something here.
patrick
"Joe Fischer" <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3ed94...@news.iglou.com...
Tom Roberts
Gerber arrived at the same VALUE for the precession. I don't know enough
about his reults to know whether or not he obtained the same formula as
is commonly used in GR for such precessions, but I do know that in GR
that formula is an approximation.
I also know that if one attempts to use Gerber's approach to compute
things like the orbit of Jupiter's moons one obtains wildly incorrect
results. So his approach is soundly refuted by real observations.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
patrick
Thanks for that. Gerber in fact does get the formula right. I thought
that you maybe had done work on it.
But does not predict other things correctly as you say.
It is significant in that he got a correct formula before GR arrived on the
scene ..1898.
patrick
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bbegeh$i...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
Oriel36
> Tom ,
> Thanks for that. Gerber in fact does get the formula right. I thought
> that you maybe had done work on it.
> But does not predict other things correctly as you say.
> It is significant in that he got a correct formula before GR arrived on the
> scene ..1898.
>
> patrick
>
The following tables belong to grists and not to me -
[[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
Earth 3.85 3.84
It takes an exceptional man to recognise why the simultaneous figures
for Earth and Mercury cannot possibly give a result of 43 ' per
century for Mercury,the flaw is too obvious and the few people who
could argue the point have left the forum.
If there ever was a chance to shove it to your peers and do something
worthwhile in this forum it is a mathematical certainty that the
validation of gr in 1919 was bogus and ill-founded,I don't say it,the
table of figures above and any other like tables dictates it,have
gravity constant or variable (in your beloved relativistic-speak) and
the validation is still wrong.
A mathematical simpleton with even the most basic understanding of
geocentric observation and heliocentric modelling would laugh the
validation of gr via Mercury out of existence instead of this
linguistic dithering that attempts to conceal that the gr results
generate unsurmountable paradoxes rather than a validation.
greywolf42
There is zero difference in perihelion advance between Mercury (GR vs.
Gerber) and other planets (GR vs. Gerber).
What Tom is parroting is the claim that if one ONLY models the finite speed
of gravity for a complete gravitational theory, then one obtains unstable
orbits. It's really quite simple, but Tom either doesn't understand that
simplicity, or his English useage here is poor.
(Of course the overall intent is to declare Gerber fallacious, so as to
ignore it completely.)
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
> : In an earlier thread Tom Roberts says this
> :
> : "If one wishes to analyze ONLY the advance of the perihelion, one can
> : follow Gerber and apply Newtonian mechanics with a finite speed of
> : gravity, and fit the unknown speed of gravity to the observed perihelion
> : advance and obtain good agreement. That's fine AS FAR AS IT GOES --
> : because if one tries to apply the same theory to the orbits of other
> : planets and moons it fails, big time. So this approach is useless, and
> : nobody has been able to make it work for ALL observations."
> :
> : How can the above be correct.? As far as i understand it Gerber
> : arrives at the same formula as GR does...
> : into which the data for specific situations like sun/mercury is
> : plugged.So both should give the same precession.
>
> Not for all the planets, most have longer
> light path times than Mercury to Earth, and Mercury
> is the only one that differs from Newtonian theory
> so much.
The length of the light path (sic, gravity path) is irrelvant. The EQUATION
provided by both GR and Gerber is the same for ALL planets. We are only
discussing perihelion shift.
> GR results do not depend only on the
> time differences of finite vs infinite propagation
> speed of gravity, and any thoughts about propagation
> speed affecting orbits shows a lack of knowledge
> about gravity and General Relativity.
LOL!
Again, since we are ONLY discussing perihelion shifts, then you are
completely wrong. The Gerber/Einstein formula may be simply rewritten as:
24 pi^3
delta theta = -------------------------------
(v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
Whether using Gerber or GR, there are only three parameters needed to
determine perihelion shift: semimajor axis of the planet's orbit,
eccentricity of the planet's orbit, and the speed of propagation of gravity.
(v_g = c in GR)
greywolf42
{Top Post reordered}
> To re-phrase my question:
>
> The GR formula for perihelion precession is 6 pi k^2 (m^2 / h^2) (as
in
> Bergmann Theory of Relativity)
> This is the same formula that Gerber gets for precession from his non GR
> theory.( I think)
> When the values for Mercury are inserted the correct experimental result
is
> got.
> My question: are the correct results got for precessions in other planets
/
> moons? I would expect yes.
> or am i missing something here.
You're doing fine, Patrick. Mr. Fischer is incorrect.
greywolf42
> > In an earlier thread Tom Roberts says this
> >
> > "If one wishes to analyze ONLY the advance of the perihelion, one can
> > follow Gerber and apply Newtonian mechanics with a finite speed of
> > gravity, and fit the unknown speed of gravity to the observed perihelion
> > advance and obtain good agreement. That's fine AS FAR AS IT GOES --
> > because if one tries to apply the same theory to the orbits of other
> > planets and moons it fails, big time. So this approach is useless, and
> > nobody has been able to make it work for ALL observations."
> >
> > How can the above be correct.? As far as i understand it Gerber arrives
at
> > the same formula
> > as GR does...into which the data for specific situations like
sun/mercury is
> > plugged.So both should give the same precession.
>
> Gerber arrived at the same VALUE for the precession. I don't know enough
> about his reults to know whether or not he obtained the same formula as
> is commonly used in GR for such precessions, but I do know that in GR
> that formula is an approximation.
LOL!
Tom, you are priceless. Gerber derived GR's EQUATION 17 years before
Einstein. That you know Gerber's name, but put forth this slimy accusation
is below your usual class.
> I also know that if one attempts to use Gerber's approach to compute
> things like the orbit of Jupiter's moons one obtains wildly incorrect
> results. So his approach is soundly refuted by real observations.
B.S. Again Tom. If you don't know whether Gerber produced an "equation" or
a "value", then you don't know squat about the subject. Get a life. Or
preferably a reference.
Try "Einstein Plus Two" by Petr Beckmann to see that both of your claims are
pure trash.
greywolf42
> Tom ,
> Thanks for that. Gerber in fact does get the formula right. I thought
> that you maybe had done work on it.
> But does not predict other things correctly as you say.
> It is significant in that he got a correct formula before GR arrived on
the
> scene ..1898.
>
> patrick
Gerber's formula is ONLY for perihelion advance. It is not a general theory
of gravity. If you are attempting to use it in some fashion for other
purposes, then one must "extend" Gerber's work. And fouling up the
"extension" does not mean that GERBER's approach is invalid. (i.e. Speicher
posted a horrendous hatchet piece a short while back -- filled with basic
errors and fields of strawmen). See "Einstein Plus Two" by Petr Beckmann
for an "extension" that "works."
patrick
Just about to order Einstein plus two.Am very curious.
patrick
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vdmtth7...@corp.supernews.com...
patrick
He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
patrick
"patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:ZeLCa.16398$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
Dirk Van de moortel
"patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message news:LtLCa.16400$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
> He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
;-)
Instead, have a look at
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
and
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
Enjoy...
Dirk Vdm
patrick
patrick
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:wzLCa.33369$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Dirk Van de moortel
"patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message news:PSLCa.16403$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> yes Ive seen those already.very good
> patrick
[by the way, please do not top-post? Thanks]
If you have specific questions, try sci.physics.research.
I'm sure John Baez will pull something interesting out
of his sleeves.
It might be not as spectacular as what Petr Galilean
Electrodynamics Beckman had in mind with his 'book'.
See also:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=k3m97.1304$lB.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
> On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
> He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
>
> patrick
I bet you also miss out on a lot of good movies.
How could you determine Dr. Beckmann was "a bit of a nutter" on the basis of
some "reviews?" I'd be interested in finding out where you got your
"reviews."
I'll bet they never addressed Dr. Beckmann's qualitifications or the actual
(reviewed) work.
Dr. Beckmann was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1924. He received his
M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Prague Technical University
in 1942 and 1955, and a Dr. Sc. degree from the Czechoslovak Academy of
Sciences in 1962. In 1963 he was invited by the University of Colorado as a
Visiting Professor, defected to the US, became a US citizen, ant taught at
the University of Colorado until his retirement in 1981.
He published more than 60 scientific papers, mostly devoted to
electromagnetics and probability theory. His scientific books include: 'The
Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves from Rough Surfaces' (with A.
Spizzichino, 1963, reprinted 1987), 'The Depolarization of Electromagnetic
Waves' (1968), and 'The Structure of Language' (1973); his textbooks include
'Probability in Communication Engineering' (1967), 'Elementary Queuing
Theory and Telephone Traffic' (1967), and 'Orthogonal Polynomials for
Engineers and Physicists.' His best selling popular books are 'A History of
Pi' (1970, 5th edition 1981) and 'The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear'
(1976, 10th printing 1985).
He was editor and publisher of the "pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free
enterprise" monthly newsletter 'Access to Energy.'
Here's an excerpt from the book:
===============
section 3.2 in its entirety ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was observed as early as 1880 that the axis of Mercury's
elliptical orbit is turning very slowly in the direction of its
rotation about the sun. The phenomenon is known as the advance of
Mercury's perihelion (the latter being the point on the orbit
closest to the sun). The rate at which the axis is turning is a
tribute to the astronomers for being able to detect, let alone
measure, it: about 43 seconds of arc (0.012 of one degree) per
century. For Venus, Earth, and Mars, the rate of rotation, again in
seconds of arc per century, is 8.6, 3.8, and 1.35, respectively.
Actually the astronomers are even better than that, for what they
can directly observe are these angles multiplied by the orbit's
eccentricity, and even for Mercury, the only one of' these to have a
significant eccentricity, this makes a miniscule 8.82 seconds of arc
per century.
Mercury's motion contradicts Newton's original law of gravitation,
for if the field were strictly central, and strictly inverse-square,
the orbits (if they are finite) would have to be closed curves. It
is shown in theoretical mechanics that there are only two types of
central field which give rise to closed orbits: those whose
potential is proportional to 1/r (such as the traditional Newton-
Coulomb field) and those where it is proportional to l/r^2 (but not,
for example, to the sum of these two). All other central fields
result in orbits whose axis rotates by an angle AO per orbit, as
shown in the figure.
Based on his general theory of gravitation and acceleration published
in 1915, Einstein [19151 derived the formula
6piZM 24pi^3a^2
[delta]Fee = ------------- = --------------- (Eq. 1)
ac^2(1 - e^2) (cT)^2(1 - e^2)
Z = Greek symbol Large ROT
where e is the eccentricity of the orbit, a is the semi-major axis,
and T the period [the second expression follows from (18), Sec. 2.1,
last expression]. This formula is in very good agreement with
observations of Mercury, which is the only planet allowing reliable
comparison: for reasons explained in numerical astronomy, the
observable quantity is not [delta]Fee, but e[delta]Fee, and only
Mercury's eccentricity e = 0.2056 is big enough to make this product
8.82 seconds of arc per century; the eccentricities of the orbits of
Venus, the Earth, and Mars are 0.0068, 0.0167, 0.0034, so that the
observable values would only be 0.05, 0.07, 0.13 seconds of arc per
century, respectively.'
But once again, Einstein was not the first to derive the Mercury
formula (I). It had been derived 17 years earlier by Paul Gerber
[1898] by classical physics using the same assumption that I am using
now - the propagation of gravity with velocity c. For readers who
find that hard to believe, Gerber's final expression is reproduced
here:
...
Gerber started from the delayed potential to terms down to 1/c^2,
K K / 2r' 3r^2\
U = ------------- = - - |1 + -- + ----| (Eq. 2)
R(1 - r'/c)^2 r \ c c^2 /
and from there took a long and arduous road to derive (1). He was
presumably not familiar with what a small perturbation in a potential
will do to an orbit in general, and neither, for that matter, was
Einstein 17 years later: when Einstein [1915] finally emerged from
Riemannian geometry and gravitational tensors with an additional term
supplementing the Newtonian potential, he solved the resulting
equation by an approximation involving elliptic integrals.
From this I take it that in 1915, let alone 1898, the simple and
general formula for the advance A6 (see figure on p. 121) in central
motion with a perturbed Newtonian potential was not known. It will
considerably shorten both Gerber's and Einstein's derivation, so let
me first briefly sketch its derivation, leaning heavily on Landau
and Lifshits [1965; see Chapter III, Problem 3 at the end of Sec. 15].
Since a 1/r (IAAD) potential leads to a closed ellipse (we assume a
negative total energy, excluding conics corresponding to an escape
from the planetary system), an advance of the type shown in the figure
must be caused by a perturbation of this basic potential. We therefore
set the potential equal to a "regular", term plus a small perturbation
proportional to other powers of r:
K K C_n
U = - + [delta]U = - + --- (Eq. 3)
R r r^n
where C_n is a constant, and the second term is small compared with
the first.
Then we turn to the basic formula for the orbit (13), Sec. 2.1,
substituting this general perturbed potential energy (3) for the
special case K/r used there. To find the advance [delta]Fee shown in
the figure, we integrate from r_max to r_min,, and back again to r_max,
which is the same as twice the latter trip; and in order to evade
diverging integrals in the following, we re-write the integral (13),
Sec. 2.1, in the form of a derivative with respect to L. All of this
yields
R max _______________
@ / / L^2
[delta]Fee = -- | / 2m(E - U) - --- dr (Eq. 4)
@L / v r^2
r min
Now expand (4) in a power series with respect to [delta]U; the constant
(zeroeth) term of the expansion is 2pi, and the first-order term is the
required value [delta]Fee, the advance by which the polar angle exceeds
a full orbit of 2pi. After the expansion has been performed, we change
the variable of integration from r to Fee, using the unperturbed orbit
[see (15), Sec. 2.1]
p
r = -------------- (Eq. 5)
(1 - e Cos Fee)
(in this section, e stands for eccentricity), so that we finally obtain
the general Landau-Lifshits formula (I will call it that, though I am
not sure whether they are its original authors)
- pi -
@ |2m / |
[delta]Fee = -- |-- | r^2 [delta]U dFee | (Eq. 6)
@L | L / |
- 0 -
In particular, if we substitute (5) and three with n = 2,3,4 we find
| 2piC_2
| - ----- (n = 2)
| K_p
|
| 6piC_3
[delta]Fee < - ----- (n = 3) (Eq. 7)
| Kp^2
|
| 10piC_4(1 + 1/2e^2)
| - ------------------ (n = 4)
| Kp^3
corresponding to perturbation potentials proportional to the inverse
second, third, and fourth powers of r, respectively.
This establishes the tool we shall use in a moment; next, let us check
how far the present theory is from Gerber's starting point (2). The
modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given by (19), Sec.
1.8; the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must be
incorporated in the potential as given by (13), Sec. 1.6. Moreover,
the force in the radial direction is weakened by the cosine of the
aberration angle, i.e. cos B ~ Sqrt(I - B^2). (We take all these
factors as constant when we integrate force to obtain the potential.)
Hence our expression for the potential is
__________________
K / 1 - B^2
U = ----------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
R(1 - r'/c) v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
where Fee is the angle between the radius vector r (centered in the sun)
and the velocity of the planet. Thus (8) differs from Gerber's starting
point by the factor of the square root, which we will now evaluate. By
elemental differential geometry based on the elliptical orbit (15), Sec.
3.1, one finds
e^2 Sin^2 psi
Cos^2 Fee = -----------------------
1 - 3e Cos theta + e^2
where (psi is the polar angle (wt); hence the square root in (8), averaged
over the orbit (psi from 0 to 2pi), to second order in B and e is
< 1 - 0.5B^2 Cos^2 > = 1 - 0.25B^2e^2
For Mercury, with 0 = 1.597E10-4 and e = 0.2056, the square root is
therefore not only very close to one, but since the coefficient of B^2 in
the equation above amounts to only 1.06%, it is much closer to one than
the delay parenthesis in the denominator. Our potential (8), therefore,
is for all practical purposes equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2),
to which we now return.
He derives the equation of motion via the Lagrange function ^ (kinetic
energy T less potential energy U, and via the Lagrangian general equation
of motion, which is explained in any textbook of theoretical mechanics
(e.g. [Landau and Lifshits 1965], Chapt. 1, Sec. 5),
d @^ @^
-- -- = -- (Eq. 9)
dt @v @r
Applying (9) and using (2), Gerber finds the acceleration of one body in
the retarded gravitational potential of another:
1 dT 1 d dT dU d dV ZM
- -- - - -- -- = -- - -- -- = - --- Fee (Eq. 10)
m dr m dt dr' dr dt dr r^2
where
3 6r
Fee = 1 - --- r'^2 + --- r'' (Eq. 11)
c^2 c^2
so that his equation of motion is equivalent to
K
m(r'' - r'Fee^2) = ---(1 - Fee) (Eq. 12)
r^2
which differs from the Newtonian IAAD equation (Sec. 2. 1) by the appearance
of the term containing Fee. This is where we will leave Gerber; integrating
his equation (12) will yield the corresponding potential, and the advance of
the perihelion will then follow immediately from the Landau-Lifshits
formula.
We will first show that the second term in (11) has no effect. It is found
by expressing it in terms of r and substituting in (12). [This is done by
using (5) and its derivative r'(Fee), eliminating Sin Fee by using Cos Fee
found from (5), and finally using r' = r'(Fee)Fee' = r'(Fee)(L/mr^2).] The
result is easily integrated to yield the perturbation in potential due to
the second term in (11), i.e., due to the radial velocity of the planet:
3KL^2 / 1 -e^2 p p^2 \
[delta]U(r') = - ----- |- ------ + --- - ----| (Eq. 13)
mc^2 \ r r^2 3r^3/
The first term in the bracket is proportional to 1/r and is equivalent to
altering the value of the constant K (and only slightly at that), but it
does
not change the 1/r dependence of a Newtonian IAAD potential which leads to a
simply closed conic. The other two terms, as can be seen from the first two
lines of (7), exactly cancel, so that the effect of the second term in (11)
on turning the orbit is zero.
Thus the only significant modification of the potential comes from the third
term of (11), which depends on the radial acceleration. The product rr'', if
we multiply it by m, is force times radial distance, i.e. increase in
potential energy, which must equal a decrease in kinetic energy:
6rr'' 6(0.5v^2) 3L^2
---- = - --------- = -3B^2 = - ------- (Eq. 14)
c^2 c^2 (mrc)^2
Substituting this in the right side of the force (12) with its irrelevant
velocity term discarded, and integrating over r, we obtain the potential in
the form
K / L^2 \ K K^2p
U = - - |1 + -------| = - - - ------- (Eq. 15)
r \ (mrc)^2/ r mc^2r^3
where we have substituted p from (16), Sec. 3. 1, and this is equivalent to
Einstein's approximation to the gravitational potential in curved space
[1915].
From here on, the Landau-Lifshits formula would have saved both Gerber and
Einstein several pages of calculations: from (15) and the second line of
(7),
we immediately have
6piK
[delta]Fee = ----- (Eq. 16)
mc^2p
It remains to substitute for p, which is also the semilatus rectum of an
ellipse,
i.e., p = a(1 - e^2), and since by our definition K = ZMm, we have
6piZM
[delta]Fee = ------------- (Eq. 17)
ac^2(1 - e^2)
which is not just similar or approximately equal to but perfectly identical
with
(1). Chalk up another "Einstein minus zero."
There is, however, at least one important difference between Gerber's and
Einstein's derivations. Though both arrive at similar-gravitational
potentials,
Gerber gets there by classical physics based on hard physical concepts;
Einstein
arrives there after the abstract acrobatics of curved space-time in the
intangible Temple of Tensors.
My streamlining of the derivation by the use of the Landau-Lifshits formula
takes
place only after the gravitational potential has been derived, and though it
radically shortens the calculations, it has nothing to do with the essence
of the
underlying derivation in either case. What is important is that once more
the
Einsteinian equivalence has been shown due to the same mechanism: the
propagation
of force with a finite velocity.
===============
Still think Dr. Beckmann is a "nutter?" If so, please identifigy specific
errors.
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:wzLCa.33369$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
news:LtLCa.16400$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
> > He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
>
> ;-)
> Instead, have a look at
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
You'll note that that piece of slime is unattributed. This pathetic, lying
hatchet piece on the work of a dead man -- submitted by Stephen Speicher --
was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
After this expose, the silence (from Dirk and others) was deafening.
As usual, Dirk lay low and let Speicher do the dirty work.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2698704898d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v5q761ed6c7e5e%40corp.supernews.com
> and
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
LOL!!!
This cowardly sniping is the best you have to offer, Dink?
patrick
explanation of gerbers derivation. Just taking a quick glance through the
excerpt i dunno ..its not as clear. he arrives at the correct result but im
certainly not going to invest $55 in a book which I doubt adds much to
gerbers original ideas.
If he hasnt got his ideas published in a reputable physics journal he in
all probability is a nutter.
patrick
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vdne6al...@corp.supernews.com...
Joe Fischer
: You're doing fine, Patrick. Mr. Fischer is incorrect.
You have been accused of spreading misinformation
for a long time, why do you write with such conviction?
: The Gerber/Einstein formula may be simply rewritten as:
:
: 24 pi^3
: delta theta = -------------------------------
: (v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
:
: Whether using Gerber or GR, there are only three parameters needed to
: determine perihelion shift: semimajor axis of the planet's orbit,
: eccentricity of the planet's orbit, and the speed of propagation of
: gravity. (v_g = c in GR)
: greywolf42
That is total nonsense, the orbital velocity
is a big part of the phenomenon.
The really moronic part is using the speed
of propagation of gravity, which General Relativity
does not do, the only speed associated with gravity
is the hypothetical gravitational radiation.
There have been many space craft launched
into orbits having greater eccentricity than Mercury,
how about an analysis of those orbits.
The sick part of all anti-relativity
discussions is in the negativity of the effort
to discredit something that works very well.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Oriel36
> On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
> He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
>
> patrick
>
From what I have seen of his archived postings he was the only other
participant to recognise that the Principia is a geometric work,given
that he has been dead for a decade that says something.
"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That was done
by
the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course,
the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but of
geometry.."
Petr Beckmann
I can testify to the same guesswork-loving hatchet jobs done on all
astronomers from the past for it is no wonder that only one other
participant has seen the flaw in the validation of this spacetime
nonsense in 1919 via the orbit of Mercury. People like Beckmann are a
rare type but then again common mediocre minds are only distinguished
by the level of noise they can generate and propose linguistic
dithering as substance.
Joe Fischer
: "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote:
:> On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
:> He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
: From what I have seen of his archived postings he was the only other
: participant to recognise that the Principia is a geometric work,given
: that he has been dead for a decade that says something.
Sure, everybody should pay attention to a
hotmailer who top posts and doesn't have a clue
on how to snip unneeded text.
With your talent you should start a newsgroup
for all the morons who were told by daddy that relativity
was all wrong.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vdneeha...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:wzLCa.33369$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:LtLCa.16400$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > > On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
> > > He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
> >
> > ;-)
> > Instead, have a look at
> > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
>
> You'll note that that piece of slime is unattributed. This pathetic, lying
> hatchet piece on the work of a dead man -- submitted by Stephen Speicher --
> was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:
Very emotionally involved indeed :-)
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
> m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
>
> After this expose, the silence (from Dirk and others) was deafening.
> As usual, Dirk lay low and let Speicher do the dirty work.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2698704898d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> lm=v5q761ed6c7e5e%40corp.supernews.com
>
> > and
> > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>
> LOL!!!
>
> This cowardly sniping is the best you have to offer, Dink?
Sniping? Ah yes, you mean like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> : You're doing fine, Patrick. Mr. Fischer is incorrect.
>
> You have been accused of spreading misinformation
> for a long time, why do you write with such conviction?
There's a difference between accusations and reality. As in this case. I
am simply stating an explicit algebraic result. I feel confident enough to
make this statement with conviction.
> : The Gerber/Einstein formula may be simply rewritten as:
> :
> : 24 pi^3
> : delta theta = -------------------------------
> : (v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
> :
> : Whether using Gerber or GR, there are only three parameters needed to
> : determine perihelion shift: semimajor axis of the planet's orbit,
> : eccentricity of the planet's orbit, and the speed of propagation of
> : gravity. (v_g = c in GR)
> : greywolf42
>
> That is total nonsense, the orbital velocity
> is a big part of the phenomenon.
I've posted the derivation, before. If you don't believe the result, please
identify the error instead of just asserting that I am "spreading
misinformation." You'll then have a perfect example of why I am often
accused of such. And you'll be able to look within yourself to find out why
your reaction was to accuse me of "total nonsense."
> The really moronic part is using the speed
> of propagation of gravity, which General Relativity
> does not do, the only speed associated with gravity
> is the hypothetical gravitational radiation.
I believe you are wrong. Please provide evidence or references that GR
contains NO propagation speed of gravity (i.e. gravity is instantaneous
action-at-a-distance). [See Steve Carlip, "Aberration and the speed of
gravity," _Physics Letters A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000.]
> There have been many space craft launched
> into orbits having greater eccentricity than Mercury,
> how about an analysis of those orbits.
The same equation applies. The above equation is not limited to Mercury.
> The sick part of all anti-relativity
> discussions is in the negativity of the effort
> to discredit something that works very well.
The point is not to discredit something that works (on occasion), but to
obtain something that works better. In this case, there is nothing wrong
with correcting religious myths that have grown up around a theory. Science
cannot advance if the field is littered with myth masquerading as fact.
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vdneeha...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:wzLCa.33369$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> > news:LtLCa.16400$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > > > On second thoughts may not order einstein plus two.
> > > > He seems a bit of a nutter...from some of the reviews.
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > > Instead, have a look at
> > > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
> >
> > You'll note that that piece of slime is unattributed. This pathetic,
lying
> > hatchet piece on the work of a dead man -- submitted by Stephen
Speicher --
> > was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:
>
> Very emotionally involved indeed :-)
Hi, Dirk! Still pandering the slime, instead of physics?
>
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
> > m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
> >
> > After this expose, the silence (from Dirk and others) was deafening.
> > As usual, Dirk lay low and let Speicher do the dirty work.
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2698704898d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> > lm=v5q761ed6c7e5e%40corp.supernews.com
> >
> > > and
> > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
> >
> > LOL!!!
> >
> > This cowardly sniping is the best you have to offer, Dink?
>
> Sniping? Ah yes, you mean like in
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
I mean like your continued sliming of a dead man (Gerber) with a
pathetically putrid link you know to be horrendously dishonest.
greywolf42
So much for the "thought" processes of a top-poster. :(
> I dunnno. The link given by Dirk Van Moortel is very clear in its
> explanation of gerbers derivation.
The problem is that the link is Steven Speicher's derivation -- not Gerbers.
It's not even BASED on Gerber's paper! Had you bothered to read anything
I'd written, you'd understand that. Of course, it WAS clear that the link
was totally at sea:
The link is written based on a typo-ridden summation (Roseveare) of Gerber's
paper. Roseveare claimed Gerber's work was "not at all clear" to him
(Roseveare) -- perhaps because Gerber's paper was in German. The link notes
that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in mind."
Nonetheless, the link is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a paper that
he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed critique
written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber was doing!
Of course, instead of working from Roseveare (who admittedly couldn't follow
Gerber's work), perhaps Stephen could have worked from a different
contemporaneous source. That's why I pointed you to Petr Beckmann's
"Einstein Plus Two." Beckmann had no problems reading and understanding
Gerber's work. And provided a shortened version, using more modern
mathematical tools (section 3.2).
> Just taking a quick glance through the
> excerpt i dunno ..its not as clear. he arrives at the correct result but
im
> certainly not going to invest $55 in a book which I doubt adds much to
> gerbers original ideas.
There is FAR more in Beckmann's book than "Gerber's ideas." (The book
doesn't begin and end with section 3.2.)
OK, now a simple logic check. Beckmann has no problem understanding Gerber,
and obtains a "correct result" (using Gerber's method). The link provided
by Dink admits that it DOESN'T understand Gerber, works from a source
riddled with typos, and continues by providing many new errors not performed
by Gerber -- then blames Gerber for it's problems. Which do you want to use
to advance your own knowledge?
> If he hasnt got his ideas published in a reputable physics journal he in
> all probability is a nutter.
Oh, My, God.
Beckmann has published MANY papers in reputable physics journals. He also
had the book reviewed by a panel of prominent physicists (and includes the
remaining comments by same). Which you would have known, had you bothered
to read my post.
By the way, you've again avoided answering the question about where the
reviews were that you read, accusing Dr. Beckmann of being a "nutter."
Amazon's reviews are positive -- with the occasional "the book must be wrong
because it's not GR" accusation.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vdphv3a...@corp.supernews.com...
Dishonest? Ah, yes, you mean like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Dirk still is too cowardly to address the lies within the link he champions.
> > > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
> > > > m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
> > > >
> > > > After this expose, the silence (from Dirk and others) was deafening.
> > > > As usual, Dirk lay low and let Speicher do the dirty work.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2698704898d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> > > > lm=v5q761ed6c7e5e%40corp.supernews.com
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
> > > >
> > > > LOL!!!
> > > >
> > > > This cowardly sniping is the best you have to offer, Dink?
> > >
> > > Sniping? Ah yes, you mean like in
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
> >
> > I mean like your continued sliming of a dead man (Gerber) with a
> > pathetically putrid link you know to be horrendously dishonest.
>
> Dishonest? Ah, yes, you mean like in
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
Dishonest, like not backing up one's assertions. In this thread, you (Dink)
assert error on the part of a dead man, via gross misrepresentation. Then
refuse to back up any of it.
That you found a line to take out of context in your silly "fumbles" list is
irrelvant.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=v9o6s87ne9mc6b%40cor
p.supernews.com
"Whenever the DHRs are confronted with something embarrassing (such as
actual
evidence) about SR or the Standard Model, the approach is to constantly
divert into side issues. At each step, the original point of physics is
snipped, as we descend further and further from physics to some quote or
interpretation. Then when -- eventually -- a DHR can find something that
can be misinterpreted, they *SCREAM* their findings and demonize the
poster -- calling in their friends to join the party."
greywolf42
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:3edbf...@news.iglou.com...
> > greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
{snip}
> > : The Gerber/Einstein formula may be simply rewritten as:
> > :
> > : 24 pi^3
> > : delta theta = -------------------------------
> > : (v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
> > :
> > : Whether using Gerber or GR, there are only three parameters needed to
> > : determine perihelion shift: semimajor axis of the planet's orbit,
> > : eccentricity of the planet's orbit, and the speed of propagation of
> > : gravity. (v_g = c in GR)
> >
> > That is total nonsense, the orbital velocity
> > is a big part of the phenomenon.
>
> I've posted the derivation, before. If you don't believe the result,
please
> identify the error instead of just asserting that I am "spreading
> misinformation." You'll then have a perfect example of why I am often
> accused of such. And you'll be able to look within yourself to find out
why
> your reaction was to accuse me of "total nonsense."
>
{snip}
Just to make it easy on you, I'll provide a few reverse algebraic
iterations. A reminder that this formula is for the change in NNPA per
ORBIT. (Which is general -- as opposed to a common GR listing of change in
Mercury's orbit per 100 Earth orbits.)
First, multiplying by a^2 / a^2:
24 pi^3 a^2
delta theta = -------------------------------
(v_g)^2 a^3 (1 - e^2)
Using Kepler's law (P^2 = a^3, where P is the orbital period):
24 pi^3 a^2
delta theta = -------------------------------
(v_g)^2 P^2 (1 - e^2)
We now note that for orbits where e is small: s_orbital = 2 pi a / P
so P = 2 pi a / s_orbital
24 pi^3 a^2
delta theta = -------------------------------
(v_g)^2 (2 pi a / s_orbital)^2 (1 - e^2)
simplifying:
6 pi s_orbital^2
delta theta = -------------------------------
(v_g)^2 (1 - e^2)
or
6 pi (s_orbital / v_g)^2
delta theta = -------------------------------
(1 - e^2)
So, now you can have your "orbital velocity" show up in the equation -- by
removing the orbital size from the equation. (Personally, I prefer the more
fundamental data.) But, you still cannot escape the fact that the speed of
gravity is what determines the NNPA of planets.
So my post was not "total nonsense." That was simply your boorish religion
that caused you to post before analysing.
Oriel36
I hardly expect that anyone who ignores that the table of figures
which gives simultaneous values for Earth and Mercury and still can
say that the figure is 43 " per century for Mercury is accurate will
be in a position to say what is right and what is not.
[[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
Earth 3.85 3.84
Don't be so sour about it,if you spent a lifetime getting excited
over the relativistic wordplay you have plenty of company.When the
scale of galaxies was discovered in 1923,the important information
that it carries was left dormant insofar as it introduces the 'Now'
back into celestial structure and motion and if relativists had their
way it would be left dormant for 'fixed stars' models you love so
much.
It is an effortless task to go outside and look at the local stars
which are pinwheeling around the galactic axis and recognise this new
axis as a point of departure for new challenges,far more difficult yet
more satisfying than the transition from geocentric to heliocentric
made by the old astronomers.
Steve Carlip
> "If one wishes to analyze ONLY the advance of the perihelion, one can
> follow Gerber and apply Newtonian mechanics with a finite speed of
> gravity, and fit the unknown speed of gravity to the observed perihelion
> advance and obtain good agreement. That's fine AS FAR AS IT GOES --
> because if one tries to apply the same theory to the orbits of other
> planets and moons it fails, big time. So this approach is useless, and
> nobody has been able to make it work for ALL observations."
> How can the above be correct.? As far as i understand it Gerber arrives at
> the same formula
> as GR does...into which the data for specific situations like sun/mercury is
> plugged.So both should give the same precession.
Gerber's formula comes from an expression for the potential of a "Sun"
whose mass is large enough that it can be treated as being at rest while
planets orbit around it. In this situation, it reproduces the result of GR.
But this is a bad assumption. The Sun is also affected by the planets,
and moves as well, relative to the center of mass of the Solar System.
Gerber's ``theory,'' as far as I can tell, does not tell us how to take this
motion into account. But if, as his supporters claim, Gerber merely
added finite propagation speed to Newtonian gravity, then the answer
is pretty straightforward. It's also wrong -- in a ``Newtonian'' theory
with a finite propagation speed, the force on a planet will point to the
propagation-delayed position of the Sun, and this is a big enough error
to lead to clear disagreement with observation.
General relativity avoids this problem because of the presence (in this
language) of a very specific set of velocity-dependent interactions that
cancel this effect. Gerber's theory doesn't have the right interactions.
So it's wrong, even for planetary orbits.
Steve Carlip
Oriel36
The so-called perihelion advance of Mercury was derived from a
geocentric observation which means there is no perihelion advance for
Earth included prior to the figure of 43" per century for Mercury nor
could there be.Now,unless there is an abundance of numbskulls
around,it is quite clear that when the validation of gr in 1919 give a
figure that corresponded to 43" per century for Mercury also included
a figure for Earth,it might dawn on some bright spark that when you
include the perihelion advance for Earth it would affect the
geocentric observation for Mercury coming in at something less than
43" per century.
This bright spark may realise that you set unsurmountable paradoxes in
motion where once there was a gr validation but to figure out the flaw
requires a disciplined intellect and so far only one other person is
willing to venture into the subtleties.
A scientist should have no complaint that the validation of gr via 43"
per century is a mathematical impossibility or plain bogus but then
again there are very few here capable of understanding the geometric
error and probably fewer still among your peers.
patrick
Gerber uses a potential which is a funcion of 1/r and of relative velocity
dr/dt.
This function is obviously loosely based on propagation time but the precise
reasoning is vague.
But whataever the reasoning the answer is correct as far as current
observations go for perihelion precession.
Gerber does not say anything I think about using a propagation delayed
direction for the force.He still assumes a central force.And ends up with
the correct result observationally.
Why that is so is curious.
Denying it is wrong is the classic case of.
"its all right in practice but it doesnt work out in theory"
patrick
"Steve Carlip" <car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:bbjgoo$1ae$4...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vdpt841...@corp.supernews.com...
Irrelevant? Ha yes, you mean irrelevant like dead man Lorentz'
opinion on whether dead man Einstein plagiarized him.
Irrelevant like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Irrelevant.html
Dirk Vdm
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
:> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
:> : You're doing fine, Patrick. Mr. Fischer is incorrect.
:>
:> You have been accused of spreading misinformation
:> for a long time, why do you write with such conviction?
:
: There's a difference between accusations and reality. As in this case. I
: am simply stating an explicit algebraic result. I feel confident enough to
: make this statement with conviction.
I didn't say you have no talent, but you should
take what so many other degreed scientists have said
about your writings. And state your opinion, not
as if it were fact.
:> : The Gerber/Einstein formula may be simply rewritten as:
:> :
:> : 24 pi^3
:> : delta theta = -------------------------------
:> : (v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
:> :
:> : Whether using Gerber or GR, there are only three parameters needed to
:> : determine perihelion shift: semimajor axis of the planet's orbit,
:> : eccentricity of the planet's orbit, and the speed of propagation of
:> : gravity. (v_g = c in GR)
:> : greywolf42
:>
:> That is total nonsense, the orbital velocity
:> is a big part of the phenomenon.
:
: I've posted the derivation, before. If you don't believe the result, please
: identify the error instead of just asserting that I am "spreading
: misinformation." You'll then have a perfect example of why I am often
: accused of such. And you'll be able to look within yourself to find out why
: your reaction was to accuse me of "total nonsense."
A formula can be concocted to give any result,
and if done as a math exercise, means nothing.
The physics is important, and the Gerber work
seems to assume that there is a communicating field
or particle at work as the mechanism of gravitation,
which is a gross assumption, but one that was used
universally before Einstein.
:> The really moronic part is using the speed
:> of propagation of gravity, which General Relativity
:> does not do, the only speed associated with gravity
:> is the hypothetical gravitational radiation.
:
: I believe you are wrong.
You could at least consider that maybe the
idea of gravity pulling at great distances is wrong.
: Please provide evidence or references that GR
: contains NO propagation speed of gravity (i.e. gravity is instantaneous
: action-at-a-distance). [See Steve Carlip, "Aberration and the speed of
: gravity," _Physics Letters A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000.]
I maintain that GR uses NO propagation of
anything, so "speed" is not even mentionable or
remarkable.
:> There have been many space craft launched
:> into orbits having greater eccentricity than Mercury,
:> how about an analysis of those orbits.
:
: The same equation applies. The above equation is not limited to Mercury.
The Gerber math is based on a wrong assumption,
whether or not it gives comparable results.
:> The sick part of all anti-relativity
:> discussions is in the negativity of the effort
:> to discredit something that works very well.
:
: The point is not to discredit something that works (on occasion), but to
: obtain something that works better. In this case, there is nothing wrong
: with correcting religious myths that have grown up around a theory. Science
: cannot advance if the field is littered with myth masquerading as fact.
: greywolf42
Go ahead with promoting your displeasure with
GR, it is boring though. It seems odd that all the
anti-relativists seem to thing that a little high school
algebra can prove millions of man hours of work by the
most learned students of gravitation wrong.
Get a life.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: The so-called perihelion advance of Mercury was derived from a
: geocentric observation which means there is no perihelion advance for
: Earth included prior to the figure of 43" per century for Mercury nor
: could there be.Now,unless there is an abundance of numbskulls
: around,it is quite clear that when the validation of gr in 1919 give a
: figure that corresponded to 43" per century for Mercury also included
: a figure for Earth,it might dawn on some bright spark that when you
: include the perihelion advance for Earth it would affect the
: geocentric observation for Mercury coming in at something less than
: 43" per century.
What event in 1919 had anything to do with
the advance of the apsides of Mercury.
Are you so stupid to be confusing the bending
of light passing the limb of the sun attempts in 1919
with Mercury?
: This bright spark may realise that you set unsurmountable paradoxes in
: motion where once there was a gr validation but to figure out the flaw
: requires a disciplined intellect and so far only one other person is
: willing to venture into the subtleties.
And only you can do it?
: A scientist should have no complaint that the validation of gr via 43"
: per century is a mathematical impossibility or plain bogus but then
: again there are very few here capable of understanding the geometric
: error and probably fewer still among your peers.
You need to study facts and get off whatever
is fogging your brain into thinking you have a clue
to what causes the unexplained 43" per century.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Ken S. Tucker
>Steve,
>Gerber uses a potential which is a funcion of 1/r and of relative velocity
>dr/dt.
>This function is obviously loosely based on propagation time but the precise
>reasoning is vague.
>But whataever the reasoning the answer is correct as far as current
>observations go for perihelion precession.
>
>Gerber does not say anything I think about using a propagation delayed
>direction for the force.He still assumes a central force.And ends up with
>the correct result observationally.
>Why that is so is curious.
Steve creates a good point here...
If you decide to create a theory of gravitation that requires the speed
of gravity = c, then that premise must be applied in every case.
When that is applied to a simple system like the Earth revolving
around the Sun, the Sun's center of gravitation force will be equal to
the Sun's apparent location, and that means it's aberrated location.
As a result the Earth undergoes a acceleration in the direction of
revolution, and should gain orbital energy. Evidently this does not occur.
(Draw a diagram using aberration to verify this simple effect).
To allow GR to have a speed of gravity =c, Carlip accounted for
this effect. I accounted for it somewhat differently, although still
within the bounds of GR. I needed the principle of Equivalence
to do so, by using the apparent direction of gravitation force being
equal and opposite to the inertial force.
That said, if Gerber did build into his theory a vector action
relating gravitational and inertial force (this is the centrifugal
force of the circular orbits) to be opposite, then it may be viable.
Does Gerber employ this?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
>Denying it is wrong is the classic case of.
> "its all right in practice but it doesnt work out in theory"
That type of statement isn't helpful. We easily remain
critical within the context of this problem without
corny philosophy. You're jumping to some kind of conclusion
that has so many double negatives, you should be a lawyer
and not a phycist. Physics is hard to enough to communicate.
KST
>patrick
greywolf42
Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<RYhDa.16640$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...
> >Steve,
> >Gerber uses a potential which is a funcion of 1/r and of relative
velocity
> >dr/dt.
> >This function is obviously loosely based on propagation time but the
precise
> >reasoning is vague.
> >But whataever the reasoning the answer is correct as far as current
> >observations go for perihelion precession.
> >
> >Gerber does not say anything I think about using a propagation delayed
> >direction for the force.He still assumes a central force.And ends up with
> >the correct result observationally.
> >Why that is so is curious.
>
> Steve creates a good point here...
> If you decide to create a theory of gravitation that requires the speed
> of gravity = c, then that premise must be applied in every case.
Perhaps. But Gerber did no such thing. First, Gerber did NOT assume that
v_g=c. Second, Gerber did NOT provide a "theory of gravitation."
> When that is applied to a simple system like the Earth revolving
> around the Sun, the Sun's center of gravitation force will be equal to
> the Sun's apparent location, and that means it's aberrated location.
> As a result the Earth undergoes a acceleration in the direction of
> revolution, and should gain orbital energy. Evidently this does not occur.
> (Draw a diagram using aberration to verify this simple effect).
If one was so foolish as to ignore all other contributing forces -- such as
"velocity-dependent back-action."
> To allow GR to have a speed of gravity =c, Carlip accounted for
> this effect.
Yes, Steve applied Noether's theorem.
> I accounted for it somewhat differently, although still
> within the bounds of GR. I needed the principle of Equivalence
> to do so, by using the apparent direction of gravitation force being
> equal and opposite to the inertial force.
>
> That said, if Gerber did build into his theory a vector action
> relating gravitational and inertial force (this is the centrifugal
> force of the circular orbits) to be opposite, then it may be viable.
> Does Gerber employ this?
Gerber does NOT HAVE a "theory!" One may use GR (a "theory" of gravity that
includes "all" effects, including finite propagation speed of gravity). Or
one may use Gerber (a mathematical correlation designed to determine ONE
effect (not all effects) of finite propagation speed of gravity. Either
way, one returns:
24 pi^3
delta theta = -------------------------------
(v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
The NNPA advance of Mercury (and other orbiting bodies) is solely the result
of the finite speed of gravity. It does not depend on any other parameter
in GR (i.e. no mass, no "curvature").
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> : Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
> :> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> :> : You're doing fine, Patrick. Mr. Fischer is incorrect.
> :>
> :> You have been accused of spreading misinformation
> :> for a long time, why do you write with such conviction?
> :
> : There's a difference between accusations and reality. As in this case.
I
> : am simply stating an explicit algebraic result. I feel confident enough
to
> : make this statement with conviction.
>
> I didn't say you have no talent, but you should
> take what so many other degreed scientists have said
> about your writings. And state your opinion, not
> as if it were fact.
I care not about the beliefs of those who claim to be physicists on this
N.G.
But in this specific case, it IS a "fact." Or at least just algebra, based
on the Gerber/Einstein formula. That "algebraic" truism contradicts your
repeated, unsupported claims.
> :> : The Gerber/Einstein formula may be simply rewritten as:
> :> :
> :> : 24 pi^3
> :> : delta theta = -------------------------------
> :> : (v_g)^2 a (1 - e^2)
> :> :
> :> : Whether using Gerber or GR, there are only three parameters needed to
> :> : determine perihelion shift: semimajor axis of the planet's orbit,
> :> : eccentricity of the planet's orbit, and the speed of propagation of
> :> : gravity. (v_g = c in GR)
> :> : greywolf42
> :>
> :> That is total nonsense, the orbital velocity
> :> is a big part of the phenomenon.
> :
> : I've posted the derivation, before. If you don't believe the result,
please
> : identify the error instead of just asserting that I am "spreading
> : misinformation." You'll then have a perfect example of why I am often
> : accused of such. And you'll be able to look within yourself to find out
why
> : your reaction was to accuse me of "total nonsense."
>
> A formula can be concocted to give any result,
> and if done as a math exercise, means nothing.
??? A formula -- if done correctly -- cannot give just "any" result. And
this isn't just a "math" exercise. It contradicts your repeated,
unsupported claims.
> The physics is important, and the Gerber work
> seems to assume that there is a communicating field
> or particle at work as the mechanism of gravitation,
> which is a gross assumption, but one that was used
> universally before Einstein.
That is pure invention on your part (or perhaps you picked it up from a
third party, and are merely repeating the Lie). Gerver NEVER assumes a
"field of particles."
In addition, such an assumption was not "universally" used before Einstein.
That is another misrepresentation on your part. (i.e. "Hypothesis non
fingo": Newton)
> :> The really moronic part is using the speed
> :> of propagation of gravity, which General Relativity
> :> does not do, the only speed associated with gravity
> :> is the hypothetical gravitational radiation.
> :
> : I believe you are wrong.
>
> You could at least consider that maybe the
> idea of gravity pulling at great distances is wrong.
I have considered same. In fact, I agree. But that is irrelvant to your
claims regarding the speed of gravity and perihelion advance.
> : Please provide evidence or references that GR
> : contains NO propagation speed of gravity (i.e. gravity is instantaneous
> : action-at-a-distance). [See Steve Carlip, "Aberration and the speed of
> : gravity," _Physics Letters A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000.]
>
> I maintain that GR uses NO propagation of
> anything, so "speed" is not even mentionable or
> remarkable.
Please provide evidence or reference to back up your (now repeated) bald
assertion that GR does not allow one to even speak of speed. (You ignored
the reference, by the way.)
> :> There have been many space craft launched
> :> into orbits having greater eccentricity than Mercury,
> :> how about an analysis of those orbits.
> :
> : The same equation applies. The above equation is not limited to
Mercury.
>
> The Gerber math is based on a wrong assumption,
> whether or not it gives comparable results.
That you personally believe that Gerber's work was based on a "wrong
assumption" is irrelvant. The issue is whether the NNPA of Mercury (and
other orbiting bodies) is dependent on the speed of gravity. The EQUATION
that results from Gerber and from GR depends only on three things:
1) speed of gravity
2) semimajor axis of orbit
3) orbital eccentricity
You can use more algebra and get:
1) speed of gravity
2) speed of planet in it's orbit
3) orbital eccentricity
But no matter what algebra you use, you cannot avoid the speed of gravity.
Now, if YOU have a third approach (not Gerber, not GR, and one that comes up
with a different equation), please let us know.
> :> The sick part of all anti-relativity
> :> discussions is in the negativity of the effort
> :> to discredit something that works very well.
> :
> : The point is not to discredit something that works (on occasion), but to
> : obtain something that works better. In this case, there is nothing
wrong
> : with correcting religious myths that have grown up around a theory.
Science
> : cannot advance if the field is littered with myth masquerading as fact.
>
> Go ahead with promoting your displeasure with
> GR, it is boring though.
Then don't bother to reply. :)
> It seems odd that all the
> anti-relativists seem to thing that a little high school
> algebra can prove millions of man hours of work by the
> most learned students of gravitation wrong.
>
> Get a life.
It seems odd that all the anti-Ptolemaics seem to think that a little high
school alegebra can prove millions of manhours of work by the most learned
students of planetary motions wrong.
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vdpt841...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:Lb4Da.35232$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:vdphv3a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in
> > > > message news:3edc9092$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:vdneeha...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> > wrote
> > > > in
> > > > > > message news:wzLCa.33369$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > > > > > >
{snip higher levels}
> > > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > Instead, have a look at
> > > > > > > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll note that that piece of slime is unattributed. This
> > pathetic,
> > > > lying
> > > > > > hatchet piece on the work of a dead man -- submitted by Stephen
> > > > Speicher --
> > > > > > was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:
> > > > >
{snip higher levels}
> > > > I mean like your continued sliming of a dead man (Gerber) with a
> > > > pathetically putrid link you know to be horrendously dishonest.
> > >
> > > Dishonest? Ah, yes, you mean like in
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
> >
> > Dishonest, like not backing up one's assertions. In this thread, you
(Dink)
> > assert error on the part of a dead man, via gross misrepresentation.
Then
> > refuse to back up any of it.
> >
> > That you found a line to take out of context in your silly "fumbles"
list is
> > irrelvant.
>
> Irrelevant? Ha yes, you mean irrelevant like dead man Lorentz'
> opinion on whether dead man Einstein plagiarized him.
> Irrelevant like in
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Irrelevant.html
>
Still playing coward, Dink? You assert error on the part of a dead man, via
gross misrepresentation. Then refuse to back up any of it. Pathetically
trying to divert into side issues (that I have "fumbled" in the past).
greywolf42
>
> > In an earlier thread Tom Roberts says this
>
> > "If one wishes to analyze ONLY the advance of the perihelion, one can
> > follow Gerber and apply Newtonian mechanics with a finite speed of
> > gravity, and fit the unknown speed of gravity to the observed perihelion
> > advance and obtain good agreement. That's fine AS FAR AS IT GOES --
> > because if one tries to apply the same theory to the orbits of other
> > planets and moons it fails, big time. So this approach is useless, and
> > nobody has been able to make it work for ALL observations."
>
> > How can the above be correct.? As far as i understand it Gerber arrives
at
> > the same formula
> > as GR does...into which the data for specific situations like
sun/mercury is
> > plugged.So both should give the same precession.
>
> Gerber's formula comes from an expression for the potential of a "Sun"
> whose mass is large enough that it can be treated as being at rest while
> planets orbit around it. In this situation, it reproduces the result of
GR.
>
> But this is a bad assumption. The Sun is also affected by the planets,
> and moves as well, relative to the center of mass of the Solar System.
> Gerber's ``theory,'' as far as I can tell, does not tell us how to take
this
> motion into account.
What a pathetic straw man! The Sun's center-of-mass motion is negligible on
the scale of the effect!
> But if, as his supporters claim, Gerber merely
> added finite propagation speed to Newtonian gravity, then the answer
> is pretty straightforward. It's also wrong -- in a ``Newtonian'' theory
> with a finite propagation speed, the force on a planet will point to the
> propagation-delayed position of the Sun, and this is a big enough error
> to lead to clear disagreement with observation.
Only if somebody else has "expanded" Gerber's work into a theory of gravity
that attempts to address all of the OTHER aspects of gravity (i.e. orbital
stability).
> General relativity avoids this problem because of the presence (in this
> language) of a very specific set of velocity-dependent interactions that
> cancel this effect.
Horsefeathers! GR merely assumes that such exist. (See your own paper: "Is
it a miracle?")
> Gerber's theory doesn't have the right interactions.
> So it's wrong, even for planetary orbits.
Steve Carlip continues the Big Lie. Gerber never HAD a "theory" of gravity.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vdsehsh...@corp.supernews.com...
dead man
> > > > > Speicher --
> > > > > > > was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:
> > > > > >
>
> {snip higher levels}
>
> > > > > I mean like your continued sliming of a dead man (Gerber) with a
dead man
> > > > > pathetically putrid link you know to be horrendously dishonest.
> > > >
> > > > Dishonest? Ah, yes, you mean like in
> > > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
> > >
> > > Dishonest, like not backing up one's assertions. In this thread, you
> (Dink)
> > > assert error on the part of a dead man, via gross misrepresentation.
dead man
> Then
> > > refuse to back up any of it.
> > >
> > > That you found a line to take out of context in your silly "fumbles"
> list is
> > > irrelvant.
> >
> > Irrelevant? Ha yes, you mean irrelevant like dead man Lorentz'
> > opinion on whether dead man Einstein plagiarized him.
> > Irrelevant like in
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Irrelevant.html
> >
>
> Still playing coward, Dink? You assert error on the part of a dead man,
dead man
You really seem to have a thing with dead men.
If she's alive, does your wife know about it?
Don't you think she should know about it?
Dirk Vdm
patrick
Gerbers model does not use the abberated location of the Sun as
the force direction.He still assumes the force is central.There would be no
tangential force on the planet,and no build up of orbital energy in that
model.
Not sure if this answers your question.
To assume a speed of propagation c and not use the aberrated location looks
contradictory.But it works.
My remark was perhaps corny but was a response to Steve Carlips
dismissiveness of Gerber.
patrick
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
Joe Fischer
: The Sun's center-of-mass motion is negligible on
: the scale of the effect!
The sun moves about one million miles back
and forth as viewed from Earth, the center of mass
of the solar system is often outside the rim of
the sun.
If anything, the motion of the sun must
make the calculations very difficult, as the sun
has barely made a full cycle in back and forth
motion as viewed from Earth since Newton.
Joe Fischer
--
3
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> : The Sun's center-of-mass motion is negligible on
> : the scale of the effect!
>
> The sun moves about one million miles back
> and forth as viewed from Earth, the center of mass
> of the solar system is often outside the rim of
> the sun.
>
> If anything, the motion of the sun must
> make the calculations very difficult,
No one said the determination of the Non-Newtonian Perihelion advance was
easy. The planetary interactions are quite complicated. (See, for example,
"An Investigation of the motions of the node and perihelion of Mercury,"
N.C. Rana, Astron. Astrophys. 181, 195-202 (1987)) However, the motion of
the Sun (as it wobbles due to Jupiter and others) is not a significant
effect on the aberration term for Mercury -- regardless of whether one uses
Gerber or GR.
> as the sun
> has barely made a full cycle in back and forth
> motion as viewed from Earth since Newton.
Wherever did you get that gem? Jupiter's mass is about 2/3 of all the
non-solar mass in the solar system.
The Sun's mass is 2 E 30 kg.
The Sun's radius is 0.4 million miles
Jupiter's mass is 2 E 27 kg (0.1% of the Sun).
Jupiter's orbital radius is 500 million miles.
Thus, Jupiter's effect on the Sun is 500 million miles * 0.1% = 0.5 million
miles.
This may be what you are referring to. However, it happens every 12 years,
not 250 years. You are apparently confusing the orbital period and wobble
due to Pluto (utterly negligible) with the tug of Jupiter.
greywolf42
Not satisfied with championing Speicher's slime site, you're even adding the
Preacher's trademark snip-and-insult. Hey, coward! How about either
apologizing for the deliberate distortions in the site you champion, or at
least bothering to respond to the physics points.
Jeff Krimmel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vdupnc8...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> ...How about either
> apologizing for the deliberate distortions in the site you champion, or at
> least bothering to respond to the physics points.
Haha! Now you are asking _Dirk_ to apologize for the incredibly dumbfounding
(and incredibly ignorant) remarks that _you_ make. Your dishonesty truly
knows no bounds.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ken S. Tucker
This post is in response to greywolf and patrick
>Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
>> "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<RYhDa.16640$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...
>> Steve creates a good point here...
>> If you decide to create a theory of gravitation that requires the speed
>> of gravity = c, then that premise must be applied in every case.
Greywolf.........
>Perhaps. But Gerber did no such thing. First, Gerber did NOT assume that
>v_g=c. Second, Gerber did NOT provide a "theory of gravitation."
Of course he does. By correcting Newton's theory of gravitation, and
thus sub-planting it, with new trajectory predictions, qualifies as a new
theory.
>> When that is applied to a simple system like the Earth revolving
>> around the Sun, the Sun's center of gravitation force will be equal to
>> the Sun's apparent location, and that means it's aberrated location.
>> As a result the Earth undergoes a acceleration in the direction of
>> revolution, and should gain orbital energy. Evidently this does not occur.
>> (Draw a diagram using aberration to verify this simple effect).
>If one was so foolish as to ignore all other contributing forces -- such as
>"velocity-dependent back-action."
Be kind enough to direct me to some ref to the "back-action" you
refer to, perhaps one of your previous posts is fine.
>> To allow GR to have a speed of gravity =c, Carlip accounted for
>> this effect.
>
>Yes, Steve applied Noether's theorem.
Thanks greywolf.
Ken S. Tucker
> From: patrick (netwo...@eircom.net)
>Ken,
> Gerbers model does not use the abberated location of the Sun as
>the force direction.He still assumes the force is central. There would be no
>tangential force on the planet,and no build up of orbital energy in that
>model.
>Not sure if this answers your question.
>To assume a speed of propagation c and not use the aberrated location looks
>contradictory. But it works.
The whole point of theory is to allow a humble chinese civil servant
to apply the rules unambiguously, and systematically. How is he
supposed to know where g-propagation is c and then not c, in
some complicated system like predicting eclipses. Remember he
gets balls chopped if wrong.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I posted an explanation of the perehelion advance that does
not need the speed of gravity.
KST
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vdupnc8...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:8_qDa.37195$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vdsehsh...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
[snip]
> > > Still playing coward, Dink? You assert error on the part of a dead man,
> >
> > dead man
> >
> > You really seem to have a thing with dead men.
> > If she's alive, does your wife know about it?
> > Don't you think she should know about it?
> >
>
> Not satisfied with championing Speicher's slime site, you're even adding the
> Preacher's trademark snip-and-insult. Hey, coward! How about either
> apologizing
Apologizing? Ha yes, you mean like you so humbly did after
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
> for the deliberate distortions
deliberate distortions? Ha yes, you *do* mean exactly like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YepQED.html
> in the site you champion,
Champion? Gee, thanks, you are so embarrassingly kind.
> or at
> least bothering to respond to the physics points.
Physics points? Ha yes, you mean like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllNeed.html
Or... perhaps like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LOL.html
Difficult to decide on this one.
Dirk Vdm
Oriel36
> Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : The so-called perihelion advance of Mercury was derived from a
> : geocentric observation which means there is no perihelion advance for
> : Earth included prior to the figure of 43" per century for Mercury nor
> : could there be.Now,unless there is an abundance of numbskulls
> : around,it is quite clear that when the validation of gr in 1919 give a
> : figure that corresponded to 43" per century for Mercury also included
> : a figure for Earth,it might dawn on some bright spark that when you
> : include the perihelion advance for Earth it would affect the
> : geocentric observation for Mercury coming in at something less than
> : 43" per century.
>
> What event in 1919 had anything to do with
> the advance of the apsides of Mercury.
>
> Are you so stupid to be confusing the bending
> of light passing the limb of the sun attempts in 1919
> with Mercury?
>
There is a great deal of satisfaction in knowing the method of
astronomers in Newton's era and how they derived heliocentric models
from geocentric observations,then you look at the relativistic mess
and particularly the explanation by the perihelion advance by the
author of spacetime,perhaps you simply are not aware or intellectually
incapable (no shame in that) of the truly awful defects of the first
line alone.
It is not an understatement to say that this spacetime guy was a
genius at salesmanship for certainly there is not a single shread of
astronomical accuracy to be found in the piece,even today,it is a
masterpiece of something other than astronomy,considering he replaced
Kepler's second law with Newton's gravitation laws !,has the sun
maintain its position to the 'fixed stars' while utilising the
sidereal day (heaven help us ! and nothwitstanding that geocentric
observation is conditioned by annual elliptical motion which makes the
days vary against diurnal rotation).He then pastes a local gravitation
solution on a geocentric observation against the 'fixed stars',deducts
the geocentric observation of the motion of the 'fixed stars' but
then is bound to include a figure for Earth as well and he still grins
that the perihelion advance derived from a geocentric observation is
still 43" per century.
Anyone with the patience to remain a while with how heliocentric
models were derived from geocentric observations and how Newton framed
these methods in terms of absolute/relative time,space and motion
would surely laugh at the joke of the validation of gr and the motion
of Mercury and even though I am hard pressed to find another
participant who sees the joke or problem,it does not however take
away from the enormous personal satisfaction in acknowledging the
exquisite and subtle working of the old astronomers.
What can you do ?,you can't discuss Einstein's explanation out of
sheer uselessness,you can't discuss Newton for his theories require
knowledge of celestial motion derived from geocentric observation,all
you can do is grovel here and take physchobbale lessons from Speicher
but then again you have plenty of company.
Albert Einstein > Relativity > 29. The Solution of the Problem of
Gravitation on the Basis of the General Principle of Relativity
" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars. This deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy,
has been confirmed for all the planets save one, with the precision
that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation
attainable at the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the
planet which lies nearest the sun. Since the time Leverrier, it has
been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury,
after it has been corrected for the influences mentioned above, is not
stationary with respect to the fixed stars, but that it rotates
exceedingly slowly in the plane of the orbit and in the sense of the
orbital motion. The value obtained for this rotary movement of the
orbital ellipse was 43 seconds of arc per century, an amount ensured
to be correct to within a few seconds of arc. This effect can be
explained by means of classical mechanics only on the assumption of
hypotheses which have little probability, and which were devised
solely for this purpose.
On the basis of the general theory of relativity, it is found that
the ellipse of every planet round the sun must necessarily rotate in
the manner indicated above; that for all the planets, with the
exception of Mercury, this rotation is too small to be detected with
the delicacy of observation possible at the present time; but that in
the case of Mercury it must amount to 43 seconds of arc per century, a
result which is strictly in agreement with observation" 1920 TEXT
> : This bright spark may realise that you set unsurmountable paradoxes in
> : motion where once there was a gr validation but to figure out the flaw
> : requires a disciplined intellect and so far only one other person is
> : willing to venture into the subtleties.
>
> And only you can do it?
>
It is not what I can do,it is the fact that positional galactic
displacements to the local Milky Way stars (say goodbye to the
sidereal day and 'fixed stars !) which forces the 'Now' back into the
study of celestial motion but you prefer to chase linguistic spacetime
rainbows rather than consider the implications which eventually turn
out to be a greater cosmological rotation than galactic rotation
derived from 'accelerating' expansion.
> : A scientist should have no complaint that the validation of gr via 43"
> : per century is a mathematical impossibility or plain bogus but then
> : again there are very few here capable of understanding the geometric
> : error and probably fewer still among your peers.
>
> You need to study facts and get off whatever
> is fogging your brain into thinking you have a clue
> to what causes the unexplained 43" per century.
>
> Joe Fischer
Look,this is your problem and not mine,any gr table of figures which
give a value for Earth and Mercury simultaneously while still
maintaining that the value for Mercury is 43" per century must surely
rank as one of the most obvious errors that belongs up there with cold
fusion.
If Earth has a perihelion advance,it means that the Earth-based view
would have to include that figure when you view Mercury,if the gr
figure for Mercury derived from an Earth-based observation is 43" per
century and one for Earth as 3.85" per century,simple logic should
tell you to deduct the figure of the advance of Earth from the figure
for Mercury to get the true value for Mercury.Gr treats the
observation for Mercury as though Earth had no perihelion advance and
that is a procedural error,the death sentence for any theory let alone
a very public verification that sent relativity snowballing for a
century.
I am correct,you and your colleagues are not.
Joe Fischer
: There is a great deal of satisfaction in knowing the method of
: astronomers in Newton's era and how they derived heliocentric models
: from geocentric observations,then you look at the relativistic mess
: and particularly the explanation by the perihelion advance by the
: author of spacetime,perhaps you simply are not aware or intellectually
: incapable (no shame in that) of the truly awful defects of the first
: line alone.
The thing to consider that nobody proffered
a theory or reason for anything close to explaining
the 43 seconds per century.
: It is not an understatement to say that this spacetime guy was a
: genius at salesmanship for certainly there is not a single shread of
: astronomical accuracy to be found in the piece,even today,it is a
: masterpiece of something other than astronomy,considering he replaced
: Kepler's second law with Newton's gravitation laws !,has the sun
: maintain its position to the 'fixed stars' while utilising the
: sidereal day (heaven help us ! and nothwitstanding that geocentric
: observation is conditioned by annual elliptical motion which makes the
: days vary against diurnal rotation).He then pastes a local gravitation
: solution on a geocentric observation against the 'fixed stars',deducts
: the geocentric observation of the motion of the 'fixed stars' but
: then is bound to include a figure for Earth as well and he still grins
: that the perihelion advance derived from a geocentric observation is
: still 43" per century.
You are obviously opinionated, nothing can
be gained by a biased opinion in physics.
The 43 seconds were known for 200 years before
the 1915 explanation, and every scientist and every
thinking person understands that any theory is better
than none, and every tool to understand physics is
greatly appreciated by everyone but opinionated fools
who place their hates above all else.
: Anyone with the patience to remain a while with how heliocentric
: models were derived from geocentric observations and how Newton framed
: these methods in terms of absolute/relative time,space and motion
: would surely laugh at the joke of the validation of gr and the motion
: of Mercury and even though I am hard pressed to find another
: participant who sees the joke or problem,it does not however take
: away from the enormous personal satisfaction in acknowledging the
: exquisite and subtle working of the old astronomers.
:
: What can you do ?,you can't discuss Einstein's explanation out of
: sheer uselessness,you can't discuss Newton for his theories require
: knowledge of celestial motion derived from geocentric observation,all
: you can do is grovel here and take physchobbale lessons from Speicher
: but then again you have plenty of company.
I have had a few semesters of astronomy,
50 years ago, I was impressed with the precision
that record keeping of cyclic events allows.
But I have no prejudice, only a desire
to study and learn, and any tool is useful,
right or wrong.
You have an agenda, but your method of
pursuing it makes it distasteful to anyone
who is interested in truth and logic.
Joe Fischer
--
3
greywolf42
What a pathetic coward you are Dink. Goodbye in this thread.
greywolf42
Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<1orDa.16722$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...
>
> This post is in response to greywolf and patrick
>
> >Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> >news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
> >> "patrick" <netwo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<RYhDa.16640$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...
>
> >> Steve creates a good point here...
> >> If you decide to create a theory of gravitation that requires the speed
> >> of gravity = c, then that premise must be applied in every case.
>
>
> Greywolf.........
> >Perhaps. But Gerber did no such thing. First, Gerber did NOT assume
that
> >v_g=c. Second, Gerber did NOT provide a "theory of gravitation."
>
> Of course he does. By correcting Newton's theory of gravitation, and
predictions, qualifies as a new
> theory.
No, it does not. Newton's equation ("law of gravity") is not a theory,
either -- it is an empirical formula, derived from Kepler's three laws.
Gerber's work was just a second step on Newton's process -- accounting for a
variation that was unknown to Newton.
In the same manner, Planck was able to come up with an empirical formula
that duplicated the black-body radiation curve, by adding a constant "k"
into the equation. Then solving for the value of "k" from the experimental
curve. But Planck only had an empirical formula until he started
hypothesizing. When Planck did start hypothesizing, THEN he had a theory.
Newton never hypothesized about his equation: "hypothesis non fingo."
Gerber, likewise, made no hypotheses. NEITHER claimed their equations or
processes were "complete."
And if one DID attempt further evaluations of Gerber's work, then one can't
blame GERBER for failing to get it right. There ARE expansions of Gerber
that return the Titius/Bode series for planetary orbits. (See Petr
Beckmann, "Einstein Plus Two.") Thus, claims that Gerber's delayed
potential "can't work" are bunk. All that can be claimed is that
"so-and-so" failed to come up with a stable solution. Stable solutions
HAVE been derived.
> >> When that is applied to a simple system like the Earth revolving
> >> around the Sun, the Sun's center of gravitation force will be equal to
> >> the Sun's apparent location, and that means it's aberrated location.
> >> As a result the Earth undergoes a acceleration in the direction of
> >> revolution, and should gain orbital energy. Evidently this does not
occur.
> >> (Draw a diagram using aberration to verify this simple effect).
>
> >If one was so foolish as to ignore all other contributing forces -- such
as
> >"velocity-dependent back-action."
>
> Be kind enough to direct me to some ref to the "back-action" you
> refer to, perhaps one of your previous posts is fine.
See Carlip's paper, "Aberration and the speed of gravity," _Physics Letters
A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000. (As I previously provided in response
to Joe Fisher in this thread.)
> >> To allow GR to have a speed of gravity =c, Carlip accounted for
> >> this effect.
> >
> >Yes, Steve applied Noether's theorem.
>
> Thanks greywolf.
You're welcome.
> > From: patrick (netwo...@eircom.net)
> >Ken,
> > Gerbers model does not use the abberated location of the Sun as
> >the force direction.He still assumes the force is central. There would be
no
> >tangential force on the planet,and no build up of orbital energy in that
> >model.
>
> >Not sure if this answers your question.
> >To assume a speed of propagation c and not use the aberrated location
looks
> >contradictory. But it works.
>
> The whole point of theory is to allow a humble chinese civil servant
> to apply the rules unambiguously, and systematically.
Science is not just a cookbook. Contrary to your claim.
> How is he
> supposed to know where g-propagation is c and then not c, in
> some complicated system like predicting eclipses. Remember he
> gets balls chopped if wrong.
Ahh, Grasshopper! That is why one must apply science and understand the
physical causality of WHY things happen! If you go only by cookbooks, you
are limited only to things that have happened before. If you understand WHY
things work the way they do, you can predict things that haven't happened
before. This more reliably leaves the balls unchopped.
Or more historically to the point, it keeps ships off the rocks.
> PS: I posted an explanation of the perehelion advance that does
> not need the speed of gravity.
As I note in my response to your post, you are incorrect -- because you
assume your conclusion to get there.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:ve1i96o...@corp.supernews.com...
Goodbye in this thread? Ha yes, you mean goodbye like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodBye.html
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
> Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : There is a great deal of satisfaction in knowing the method of
> : astronomers in Newton's era and how they derived heliocentric models
> : from geocentric observations,then you look at the relativistic mess
> : and particularly the explanation by the perihelion advance by the
> : author of spacetime,perhaps you simply are not aware or intellectually
> : incapable (no shame in that) of the truly awful defects of the first
> : line alone.
>
> The thing to consider that nobody proffered
> a theory or reason for anything close to explaining
> the 43 seconds per century.
Horsefeathers. Gerber had the exact formula that Einstein came up with --
17 years before Einstein. In addition, there were other explanations for
some (or all) of the amount. There was no "crisis" -- contrary to GR myths.
> : It is not an understatement to say that this spacetime guy was a
> : genius at salesmanship for certainly there is not a single shread of
> : astronomical accuracy to be found in the piece,even today,it is a
> : masterpiece of something other than astronomy,considering he replaced
> : Kepler's second law with Newton's gravitation laws !,has the sun
> : maintain its position to the 'fixed stars' while utilising the
> : sidereal day (heaven help us ! and nothwitstanding that geocentric
> : observation is conditioned by annual elliptical motion which makes the
> : days vary against diurnal rotation).He then pastes a local gravitation
> : solution on a geocentric observation against the 'fixed stars',deducts
> : the geocentric observation of the motion of the 'fixed stars' but
> : then is bound to include a figure for Earth as well and he still grins
> : that the perihelion advance derived from a geocentric observation is
> : still 43" per century.
>
> You are obviously opinionated, nothing can
> be gained by a biased opinion in physics.
> The 43 seconds were known for 200 years before
> the 1915 explanation,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! "200 years"!!???? This is too rich!
Joe, the first calculation of the NNPA of Mercury was done by LeVerrier (38
arcsec per century) -- about 1873 if I recall correctly. Newcomb came up
with a value of 43 arcsec per century around 1890 -- though he required that
Mercury's eccentricity "varied" in order to do this (he was not correcting
for light bending by the Sun for superior conjunctions). There were
several ready physical explanations (i.e. Vulcan, gases forming the zodiacal
light, and solar oblateness) -- and contributions from more than one source
were possible. There was no "crisis" in 1915 to be addressed. (In the
'40's LeVerrier/Newcomb's work was repeated accounting for light-bending at
superior conjunction -- and without variable eccentricity -- and resulted in
32 arcsec per century.)
> and every scientist and every
> thinking person understands that any theory is better
> than none,
Not true, in any event, but there were already several viable explanations
at the time.
> and every tool to understand physics is
> greatly appreciated by everyone but opinionated fools
> who place their hates above all else.
Mirror, mirror.
> : Anyone with the patience to remain a while with how heliocentric
> : models were derived from geocentric observations and how Newton framed
> : these methods in terms of absolute/relative time,space and motion
> : would surely laugh at the joke of the validation of gr and the motion
> : of Mercury and even though I am hard pressed to find another
> : participant who sees the joke or problem,it does not however take
> : away from the enormous personal satisfaction in acknowledging the
> : exquisite and subtle working of the old astronomers.
> :
> : What can you do ?,you can't discuss Einstein's explanation out of
> : sheer uselessness,you can't discuss Newton for his theories require
> : knowledge of celestial motion derived from geocentric observation,all
> : you can do is grovel here and take physchobbale lessons from Speicher
> : but then again you have plenty of company.
>
> I have had a few semesters of astronomy,
> 50 years ago, I was impressed with the precision
> that record keeping of cyclic events allows.
Unfortunately, you never learned about the difficulties of converting those
observations into measurements via theories. Calculating the NNPA of
Mercury is still a herculean task. Increasing the precisions of the orbits
is NOT the hard part.
> But I have no prejudice, only a desire
> to study and learn, and any tool is useful,
> right or wrong.
> You have an agenda, but your method of
> pursuing it makes it distasteful to anyone
> who is interested in truth and logic.
Whoa! Talk about hypocrisy.
Ed Stamm
>[quoting Petr Beckmann]
>Gerber started from the delayed potential
>
> K K / 2r' 3r^2\
> U = ------------- = - - |1 + -- + ----| (Eq. 2)
> R(1 - r'/c)^2 r \ c c^2 /
>
>...let us check how far the present theory is from Gerber's
>starting point (2).... our expression for the potential is
> __________________
> K / 1 - B^2
> U = ----------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
> R(1 - r'/c) v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
>
>Thus (8) differs from Gerber's starting point by the factor of
>the square root...
That's not true. Even aside from the square root factor (which
Beckmann argues is essentially equal to one), equation (8) contains
only one power of (1 - r'/c) in the denominator, whereas Gerber's
potential (2) contains (1 - r'/c) SQUARED. So, even if we
agree to ignore the square root factor (a dubious step in itself),
Beckmann's potential is definitely NOT the same as Gerber's.
>Our potential (8), therefore, is for all practical purposes
>equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2), to which we now return.
This was Beckmann's key mistake. He carelessly mistook his (8)
for being the same as Gerber's (2), overlooking the crucial
difference in the power of 1 - r'/c, and then he just appropriated
the remainder of Gerber's analysis. The problem is, Beckmann's
(8), even neglecting the square root factor as he recommends, is
not at all the same as Gerber's (2). If you carry out the orbital
analysis based on Beckmann's potential (8), you get just one third
of Gerber's (and Einstein's) predicted precession (i.e., about 14
sec/century).
To be fair, it isn't surprising that Beckmann was unable to come
up with any rational justification for Gerber's potential (2),
because no one else has ever been able to come up with one either,
including Gerber.
>It is shown in theoretical mechanics that there are only two types
>of central field which give rise to closed orbits: those whose
>potential is proportional to 1/r (such as the traditional Newton-
>Coulomb field) and those where it is proportional to l/r^2...
That's wrong, because an inverse square potential corresponds
to an inverse cube force, which leads to Cotes' spiral orbits,
not closed orbits. The two potentials (of the form r^k) that
give closed orbits are actually those proportional to 1/r and
r^2 (not to 1/r^2). This is covered in Newton's Principia (1687).
>It was observed as early as 1880 that the axis of Mercury's
>elliptical orbit is turning very slowly in the direction of its
>rotation about the sun....
That's sloppy scholarship. Le Verrier announced the anomalous
precession in 1859.
>...the Mercury formula (I). It had been derived 17 years earlier by
>Paul Gerber [1898] by classical physics using the same assumption
>that I am using now - the propagation of gravity with velocity c.
There are multiple errors in that sentence. First, Gerber did not
derive the formula from classical physics. No one, including Gerber,
has ever given a rational justification of (2) based on classical
physics, or any other physics for that matter. The fallacies and
errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm. Second, Beckmann did
not even succeed in duplicating Gerber's pseudo-derivation (see
above). Beckmann's potential differs from Gerber's by a factor
of 1/(1 - r'/c), which fundamentally alters the nature of the
perturbation and the resulting orbit.
>Still think Dr. Beckmann is a "nutter?"
The excerpt from his book (assuming your post is accurate) shows
clearly that his brain was not functioning very well at the time
he wrote that book.
>If so, please identifigy specific errors.
Done.
Oriel36
How biased do you have to be to leave dormant or ignore stellar
rotation around the galactic axis and the consequences that follow on
observation of the remaining galaxies?
I can sum up one of the major consequences in a sentence-a greater
rotation than galactic rotation influenced galactic structure and
development.
What is the major obstacle?
The sidereal day is the major obstacle.
Why?
It conceals the ability to model positional displacements of galaxies
to the Milky Way axis by using the local stars and their rotation
around the galactic axis as a reference just as the old astronomers
modeled the motion of the primary planets of the solar system against
the local stars. The modeling off the galactic axis is far more
complex than heliocentric modeling from geocentric observation; on a
galactic scale it puts us back at the level of Copernicus in
cosmological terms.
How?
Three conditions are necessary
1. The local stars of the Milky Way are rotating around the galactic
axis.
2. A supernova observed occurring in another galaxy
3. Two supernovas observed simultaneously occurring in two different
galaxies.
The difference between an observed supernova occurring and when it
actually occurred translates into the shift of the supernova/galaxy to
a reference local Milky Way star, the local star will have rotated a
certain amount depending on how far the supernova/ galaxy is from the
Milky Way and therefore there is a positional displacement to the
galaxy.
If two supernova in two different galaxies are observed simultaneously
from Earth-based observation it stands to reason that although the
supernova appear to occur at the same instant, the local reference
star of the Milky Way will have rotated a different amount for both.
What are the consequences?
Cosmological modeling on a galactic scale requires the transition from
heliocentric modeling from geocentric observation to cosmological
modeling out of the galactic axis. Since 1923 this opportunity has
been available however contemporary views not only remained tethered
to the idea of the ’fixed stars’ but also are further
conditioned by a backward step to what is best described as a
relativistic ‘egocentric’ view that is astronomically
incorrect.
“According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in
an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect
to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed
stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under
consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets
for these two influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct,
we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is
fixed with reference to the fixed stars.”
1920 spacetime text.
The components which introduce the ‘Now’ back into
cosmological motion and structure rely on a highly refined sense of
the difference between apparent motion and structure from true motion
and structure by inserting the reference of the local stars and the
galactic axis rather than placing an ‘observer’ as an
intermediary, this ‘observer-based’ concept is a poor
substitute for discerning celestial features even though they
originated before the scale of the cosmos was known in terms of
galaxies in 1923.There is little point lamenting the emergence of
observer-based relativistic concepts that prohibit the ability to
make the transition to cosmological modeling off the galactic axis
however as cosmological models now shade off into exotic theories that
astronomers cannot use, this increasing dissatisfaction has been noted
on sci.astro.research although the moderator firmly adheres to
relativistic concepts and filters observation through that principle.
Joe, there is always a balance which condition individual approaches,
Newton’s laws compliments the work of the astronomers of his era
and he suffers no historical prejudices by returning to remote
antiquity to search out the tools he needed to accomplish precision
for his theories, today we have a truncated view of history that
attributes everything to the ‘primitive’ Greeks because it
is convenient for the empirical view.
http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm
Those who accomplish most do not necessarily have the greatest
convictions, as far as I can tell it is those with the least
prejudices, this being a fundamental tenet of my Christian faith,
something that is more personal than denominational. Downplaying the
role of the vast sorting and sifting of observation stretching back to
remote antiquity or even attributing to Newton what rightly emerged
from Kepler out of convenience looks small-minded to me likewise the
pigeonholing of areas that do not come under the scientific umbrella.
, In the end I hate nobody, only pretension and perversion to keep the
linguistic ‘relativistic game’ going to maintain an
artificial elite who are more concerned with funding than anything to
do with natural phenomena, I guess everything is relative but the
paycheck is absolute.
I never did get to give the reasons why the geometric phi value
resonates with men through the ages and how it has its roots in the
geometric evolution of the cosmos and by association the cosmoc form
beyond the supernova stage,perhaps that belongs in another time and
place but why anyone should find these current exotic models of the
cosmos based on 'fixed stars' models interesting or enjoyable is
beyond me,not least that they highlight grave errors with observation
and seem only to impress those who are impressed with themselves.
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
:> You are obviously opinionated, nothing can
:> be gained by a biased opinion in physics.
:
: How biased do you have to be to leave dormant or ignore stellar
: rotation around the galactic axis and the consequences that follow on
: observation of the remaining galaxies?
I appreciate the time you spent writing this
response, but have you estimated the number of seconds
of arc galactic rotation would effect the Mercury
departure from Kepler-Newton, and in which direction?
: I can sum up one of the major consequences in a sentence-a greater
: rotation than galactic rotation influenced galactic structure and
: development.
:
: What is the major obstacle?
:
: The sidereal day is the major obstacle.
:
: Why?
:
: It conceals the ability to model positional displacements of galaxies
: to the Milky Way axis by using the local stars and their rotation
: around the galactic axis as a reference just as the old astronomers
: modeled the motion of the primary planets of the solar system against
: the local stars. The modeling off the galactic axis is far more
: complex than heliocentric modeling from geocentric observation; on a
: galactic scale it puts us back at the level of Copernicus in
: cosmological terms.
I think you are underestimating the intelligence
and effort put into modeling the background stars and
relative motion.
This hardly comes under relativity in any
meaningful way. Relativistic cosmology is much
more complicated, mostly at much greater distances,
where the speed of light really affects observation
drastically.
I don't know how you can argue against anything
Einstein did using these assumptions.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
:> I didn't say you have no talent, but you should
:> take what so many other degreed scientists have said
:> about your writings. And state your opinion, not
:> as if it were fact.
:
: I care not about the beliefs of those who claim to be physicists on this
: N.G.
What they claim doesn't matter, it is evident
who is and who isn't.
: But in this specific case, it IS a "fact." Or at least just algebra,
: based on the Gerber/Einstein formula. That "algebraic" truism
: contradicts your repeated, unsupported claims.
In your case it is simply grasping at any little
issue to argue against the strong physical support for
Einstein relativity, hoping that will improve your
bizarre promoting of aetheral engineering.
The people who support LeSage really shouldn't
consider the concept akin to aether, and most finally
eventually realize that any particle theory will not
work, and they never really put much faith in a fixed
aether.
I don't know how you can get so egotistical
over a little high school algebra in opposition to
many thousands of physicists and computer calculations.
You may consider yourself as a progressive
thinker, but you are just fooling yourself, and
wasting the time of other people.
I don't know why you think I blindly support
Einstein relativity, when in fact I have spent most
of my time writing about another model, which just
happens to require the same type of relative motion
modeling as General Relativity.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Ken S. Tucker
>Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
We may be arguing the sematics and definition of the word *theory*.
I hardly think any theoretician would state their theory is
"complete",
so that's non sequitor.
While it must be true that Newton's *theory* of gravity agreed with
empirical results, otherwise it would have been garbage...he
postulated
a speed of gravity that is infinite, by using the field concept.
Gerber (from what you've said) disagrees with Newton's field theory
concept of gravitation by replacing the infinite rate of the field
with
a new theory of gravitational propagation.
>And if one DID attempt further evaluations of Gerber's work, then one
can't
>blame GERBER for failing to get it right. There ARE expansions of
Gerber
>that return the Titius/Bode series for planetary orbits. (See Petr
>Beckmann, "Einstein Plus Two.") Thus, claims that Gerber's delayed
>potential "can't work" are bunk. All that can be claimed is that
>"so-and-so" failed to come up with a stable solution. Stable
solutions
>HAVE been derived.
" the Titius/Bode series for planetary orbits" has more to do with the
harmony of the spheres than any subtlties to found in tiny shifts
relativistic
of otherwise, this notion is non-sequitor.
>> >> When that is applied to a simple system like the Earth
revolving
>> >> around the Sun, the Sun's center of gravitation force will be
equal to
>> >> the Sun's apparent location, and that means it's aberrated
location.
>> >> As a result the Earth undergoes a acceleration in the direction
of
>> >> revolution, and should gain orbital energy. Evidently this does
not occur.
>> >> (Draw a diagram using aberration to verify this simple effect).
>> >If one was so foolish as to ignore all other contributing forces
-- such as
>> >"velocity-dependent back-action."
>>
>> Be kind enough to direct me to some ref to the "back-action" you
>> refer to, perhaps one of your previous posts is fine.
>
>See Carlip's paper, "Aberration and the speed of gravity," _Physics
Letters
>A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000. (As I previously provided in
response
>to Joe Fisher in this thread.)
Yup, Carlip used a lot of GR in this paper. I won't disagree with his
treatment, because the same problem can be solved in a number
of different ways. I solved the same problem with an antisymmetric
approach that is IMO way more elegant.
>> >> To allow GR to have a speed of gravity =c, Carlip accounted for
>> >> this effect.
>> >
>> >Yes, Steve applied Noether's theorem.
>>
>> Thanks greywolf.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>> > From: patrick (netwo...@eircom.net)
>> >Ken,
>> > Gerbers model does not use the abberated location of the
Sun as
>> >the force direction.He still assumes the force is central. There
would be no
>> >tangential force on the planet,and no build up of orbital energy
in that
>> >model.
>> >Not sure if this answers your question.
>> >To assume a speed of propagation c and not use the aberrated
location looks
>> >contradictory. But it works.
>>
>> The whole point of theory is to allow a humble chinese civil
servant
>> to apply the rules unambiguously, and systematically.
>
>Science is not just a cookbook. Contrary to your claim.
The whole of engineering is based on science and the experimental
method, that ultimately creates rules that designers can count on as
being facts. Why you say things like "Contrary to your claim."
indicates to me that I need to explain things to you much better
than I have.
>> How is he
>> supposed to know where g-propagation is c and then not c, in
>> some complicated system like predicting eclipses. Remember he
>> gets balls chopped if wrong.
>
>Ahh, Grasshopper! That is why one must apply science and understand
the
>physical causality of WHY things happen! If you go only by
cookbooks, you
>are limited only to things that have happened before. If you
understand WHY
>things work the way they do, you can predict things that haven't
happened
>before. This more reliably leaves the balls unchopped.
That's naive, a plumber can fix your toilet better than you can
without
knowing near as much as you do about Stokes Equations of fluid flow,
because of codification. 99.99% of humans prefer codified rules, it's
a very small minority (like us) who argue policy.
The Sciencific Method establishs policy.
>Or more historically to the point, it keeps ships off the rocks.
Yup.
>> PS: I posted an explanation of the perehelion advance that does
>> not need the speed of gravity.
>
>As I note in my response to your post, you are incorrect -- because
you
>assume your conclusion to get there.
(details would help)
Regrettably, your "note" is not conclusive, therefore your response is
non-sequitor and that makes 3 non-sequitors in one post.
That's a strike out, however, if you choose which one is foul,
you can get ONE more pitch.
If any readers of this post think I'm being discourteous to
greywolf, kindly correct my ettiqutte.
>greywolf42
>ubi dubium ibi libertas
Regards Ken S. Tucker
pst...@ix.netcom.com
eds...@cooltown.com (Ed Stamm) wrote:
First look at the full derivation... See,
Paul Stowe
Ed Stamm
>>This was Beckmann's key mistake. He carelessly mistook his (8)
>>for being the same as Gerber's (2), overlooking the crucial
>>difference in the power of 1 - r'/c, and then he just appropriated
>>the remainder of Gerber's analysis. The problem is, Beckmann's
>>(8), even neglecting the square root factor as he recommends, is
>>not at all the same as Gerber's (2). If you carry out the orbital
>>analysis based on Beckmann's potential (8), you get just one third
>>of Gerber's (and Einstein's) predicted precession (i.e., about 14
>>sec/century).
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=
> b7c82e%24th9%241%40slb4.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=1
The page you referenced does not mention, let alone contain the
full derivation of, either Beckmann's or Gerber's potentials.
Furthermore, the point at issue is not the derivations, it is
the fact that Beckmann's potential is not the same as Gerber's,
since they differ by a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c), and that therefore
Beckmann's potential gives only 1/3 of Mercury's non-Newtonian
precession. Do you dispute this fact? If you do, then you
should complain to Barry Mingst, because he posted a quote
that he claimed was from Beckmann's book in which Beckmann's
potential was shown to differ by a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c)
from Gerber's.
Paul Stowe
Sorry, it's in one chapter earlier...
See "Einstein Plus Two", Petr Beckmann, Section 3.2, pages 170-175.
Dr Beckmann speaking about Eq 8 says specifically,
"... where t {theta} is the angle between the radius vector r
(centered in the sun) and the velocity of the planet. Thus
(8) differs from Gerber's starting point by the factor of
the square root, which we will now evaluate. By elementary
differential geometry based on the elliptical orbit (15),
Sec. 3.1, one finds
z^2 Sin^2 p
Cos^2 t = ------------------
1 - 2z Cos F + z^2
(z is the symbol epsilon, F the symbol phi...)
where p {psi} is the polar angle (wt); hence the square root
in (8), averaged over the orbit (psi from 0 to 2pi), to
second order in B {beta [v/c]} and z is
< 1 - - (1/2)B^2 Cos^2 >= 1 - (1/4)B^2z^2
For Mercury, with 0 = 1.597 X 10' and c- = 0.2056, the
square root is therefore not only very close to one, but
since the coefficient of 01 in the equation above amounts
to only 1.06%, it is much closer to one than the delay
parenthesis in the denominator. Our potential (8),
therefore, is for all practical purposes equivalent to
Gerber's starting point (2), to which we now return. ..."
Paul Stowe
Ed Stamm
> Sorry, it's in one chapter earlier...
> See "Einstein Plus Two", Petr Beckmann, Section 3.2, pages 170-175.
> Dr Beckmann speaking about Eq 8 says specifically,
Pardon me, Mar Stoew, but you are being incredibly stupid. If you
read the existing messages in the thread, you'll see that the text
you just posted is exactly what Barry Mingst posted to begin with,
which is the text that shows Beckmann's potential differs from
Gerber's by a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c). The excerpt you selected is
just the part where Beckmann argues that the square root factor in
his equations (8) is essentially equal to 1, so all that's left is
the first factor, which he mistakenly thought was the same as Gerber's
potential. For your benefit, here is the relevant quote again.
Please read it this time:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>[quoting Petr Beckmann]
>Gerber started from the delayed potential
>
> K
> U = ------------- (Eq. 2)
> R(1 - r'/c)^2
>
>...let us check how far the present theory is from Gerber's
>starting point (2).... our expression for the potential is
> __________________
> K / 1 - B^2
> U = ----------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
> R(1 - r'/c) v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
>
>Thus (8) differs from Gerber's starting point by the factor of
>the square root, which we now evaluate...
Do you see this, Mr. Stowe?? Can you read? Beckmann says (8)
differs from (2) only by the square root factor, and he then
proceeds to argue that the square root factor is essentially equal
to 1. (That's what he was doing in the text that you stupidly
re-quoted.) Having done this he concludes that (8) is essentially
the same as (2). I repeat that even if we drop the square root
factor as Beckmann advises, equation (8) is NOT the same as equation
(2). They differ by a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c), and as a result the
precession predicted by Beckamnn's potential is only 1/3 of that
predicted by Gerber's potential. Do you have the intellectual
integrity to admit this obvious fact?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ed Stamm" <eds...@cooltown.com> wrote in message news:3ee2c5be...@news.gte.net...
Surely, this must be 1 of the 735 typos in Beckman's book ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Oriel36
> Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
> :> You are obviously opinionated, nothing can
> :> be gained by a biased opinion in physics.
> :
> : How biased do you have to be to leave dormant or ignore stellar
> : rotation around the galactic axis and the consequences that follow on
> : observation of the remaining galaxies?
>
> I appreciate the time you spent writing this
> response, but have you estimated the number of seconds
> of arc galactic rotation would effect the Mercury
> departure from Kepler-Newton, and in which direction?
>
It is automatically assumed that those who do not adhere to relativity
must adhere to some form of relative motion of the Earth to some
substance termed ‘aether’ and I more than anyone else
have been critical of the aetherist’s tendency to dilute the
purpose of Newton’s absolute/relative distinctions for those
ends. Perhaps aetherists themselves are unaware that in his use of
absolute time and relative time, space and motion that Newton was
only outlining how astronomers in his era conditioned heliocentric
models derived from geocentric observations. Insofar as the
relativistic mess makes an enormous effort to harp on those
absolute/relative words that originate with Newton, it may someday
dawn on the aetherist that these distinctions are strictly geometric
yet allow for the study of propagation of forces and their effect on
celestial structure and motion. just as Newton reworked Kepler’s
data, a compromise in other words. What would any intelligent man make
of the author of spacetime’s remark that Newton’s theory
predicts elliptical orbits so he can sell his own gr theory ?.
Kepler could not work without the Equation of Time, a computation that
is necessary to condition heliocentric modeling in terms of diurnal
rotation against annual elliptical motion which causes the days to
vary against a clock day ,it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
sidereal day or the motion of the ‘fixed stars’ which only
act as reference points to the motion of the primary planets of the
solar system, a point that is beyond all relativist and most everyone
else.
“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative,
by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural
days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal
and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality
for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.”
Principia
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm
> : I can sum up one of the major consequences in a sentence-a greater
> : rotation than galactic rotation influenced galactic structure and
> : development.
> :
> : What is the major obstacle?
> :
> : The sidereal day is the major obstacle.
> :
> : Why?
> :
> : It conceals the ability to model positional displacements of galaxies
> : to the Milky Way axis by using the local stars and their rotation
> : around the galactic axis as a reference just as the old astronomers
> : modeled the motion of the primary planets of the solar system against
> : the local stars. The modeling off the galactic axis is far more
> : complex than heliocentric modeling from geocentric observation; on a
> : galactic scale it puts us back at the level of Copernicus in
> : cosmological terms.
>
> I think you are underestimating the intelligence
> and effort put into modeling the background stars and
Ø relative motion.
You are all over the place here, sloppy, careless ,reckless and all
those things which make the author of spacetime and all who follow him
such intellectual freaks yet not one other participant thinks it
worthwhile to return and discuss the means by which astronomers from
Copernicus onwards had to derive heliocentric modeling from
geocentric observations, if you don’t know why the Equation of
Time and by association the distinction between absolute time and
relative time is necessary then you will never know that the basic
premise of relativity is sub-human.
A new model for cosmological structure and motion that strictly
relates to galaxies is staring men straight in the face and they
cannot make the transition from the heliocentric axis for modeling to
the galactic axis which uses the local stars as reference points to
the remaining galaxies via supernovae, a highly developed challenge
that acknowledges the meticulous methods of the old astronomers
without having to return to the specifics of heliocentric modeling
against the local stars.
> This hardly comes under relativity in any
> meaningful way. Relativistic cosmology is much
> more complicated, mostly at much greater distances,
> where the speed of light really affects observation
Ø drastically.
You are all over the place again due to spacetime salesmanship, Ole
Roemer and his determination of the positional displacement of the
orbit of Io due to finite light distance is the only required source
for how light affects observation, if you cannot comprehend or are not
aware of the method by which finite light distance was determined in
the first place, I can hardly expect you to realise why gr’s
pasting of a direct gravitational solution for the motion of Mercury
would be funny if there were not so many who think that it is a
profound accomplishment ,it is not ,it is either a joke or bogus so
take your pick.
An invaluable book to put Roemer's insight of how light affects
observation put in historical context -
http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html
Clocks record the positional displacement of Io where relativity has
this nonsensical ‘addition of velocities’ and all because
an idiot did not understand the Equation of Time as Roemer and Newton
did, again, heliocentric modeling from geocentric observations.
“Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and
magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same.”
Principia
> I don't know how you can argue against anything
> Einstein did using these assumptions.
>
Ø Joe Fischer
For those of us who are living, the following astronomical view by
that guy should be so beneath us that it can only be considered as a
lesson on how not to be a scientist, how not to do heliocentric
modeling, how not to pervert history and this is all within a few
sentences ,whatever anyone else thinks I cannot say, but certainly it
is beneath me.
" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars.
1920 text.
Joe Fischer
:> response, but have you estimated the number of seconds
:> of arc galactic rotation would effect the Mercury
:> departure from Kepler-Newton, and in which direction?
:
: It is automatically assumed that those who do not adhere to relativity
: must adhere to some form of relative motion of the Earth to some
: have been critical of the aetherist&-#-8217;s tendency to dilute the
: purpose of Newton&-#-8217;s absolute/relative distinctions for those
: ends. Perhaps aetherists themselves are unaware that in his use of
: absolute time and relative time, space and motion that Newton was
: only outlining how astronomers in his era conditioned heliocentric
: models derived from geocentric observations.
Does that have anything to do with what I said?
: Insofar as the
: relativistic mess makes an enormous effort to harp on those
: absolute/relative words that originate with Newton, it may someday
: dawn on the aetherist that these distinctions are strictly geometric
: yet allow for the study of propagation of forces and their effect on
: celestial structure and motion. just as Newton reworked Kepler&-#-8217;s
: data, a compromise in other words. What would any intelligent man make
: of the author of spacetime&-#-8217;s remark that Newton&-#-8217;s
: theory predicts elliptical orbits so he can sell his own gr theory ?.
Should I assume you don't like conic sections?
: Kepler could not work without the Equation of Time, a computation that
: is necessary to condition heliocentric modeling in terms of diurnal
: rotation against annual elliptical motion which causes the days to
: vary against a clock day ,it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
: sidereal day or the motion of the -&-#8216;fixed stars&-#-8217; which
: only
: act as reference points to the motion of the primary planets of the
: solar system, a point that is beyond all relativist and most everyone
: else.
Do you mean that there could possibly be at least
one other person who understands things as well as you?
Instead of writing 100 lines, why not just come
right out and say that you know more than anybody else
and that nobody has the intelligence to ever understand
the things you explain, and that
you don't like Einstein or anything he wrote.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Paul Stowe
Ummm, actually Dirk I think you've hit the nail on the head! Given the
rest of the derivation leading to Eq. 15,
K / L^2 \ K pK^2
U = - |1 + ---------| = - --------- (Eq. 15)
r \ (mcr)^2 / r mr(cr)^2
Beckmann's Eq. 8 should be,
__________________
K / 1 - B^2
U = ------------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
R(1 - r'/c)^2 v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
the typo is simply the accidental ommission of the square...
Ed Stamm
>> Surely, this must be 1 of the 735 typos in Beckman's book ;-)
>Ummm, actually Dirk I think you've hit the nail on the head! Given the
>rest of the derivation leading to Eq. 15,
> K / L^2 \ K pK^2
> U = - |1 + ---------| = - --------- (Eq. 15)
> r \ (mcr)^2 / r mr(cr)^2
> Beckmann's Eq. 8 should be,
> __________________
> K / 1 - B^2
> U = ------------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
> R(1 - r'/c)^2 v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
> the typo is simply the accidental ommission of the square...
I honestly can't tell if you are just incredibly dishonest or
incredibly stupid. Equation (15) is derived from GERBER's potential,
not from Beckmanns, you idiot. Are you really unable to READ??? Do
you understand the concluding clause in the sentence
>Our potential (8), therefore, is for all practical purposes
>equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2), TO WHICH WE NOW RETURN.
Everything following this sentence (including equation 15) is just
a re-derivation of the precession for GERBER's potential, which
Beckmann has erroneously concluded was essentially identical
to his own. Thus everything after this point (including 15) is
based on a potential with a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c) SQUARED, but
this in no way changes the fact that Beckmann's potential, which
he derived in a previous section, has only a single power of
1/(1 - r'/c).
Look, if you want to see if Beckmann's equation (8) was a typo,
all you need to do is check the section of the book where he derives
it. He says in the text introducing equation (8):
>The modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given by (19),
>Sec. 1.8; the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must
>be incorporated in the potential as given by (13), Sec. 1.6.
So, what you need to do is post equation (19) from section 1.8, and
equation (13) from section 1.6. Please do so. If those equations
show 1/(1 - r'/c) SQUARED, then we will know that Beckmann's (8) was
a typo. But if they show only a single power of 1/(1 - r'/c), we will
know that Beckmann, Stowe, and Mingst are/were crackpots.
Paul Stowe
> On 8 Jun 2003 08:12:59 -0700, pst...@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) wrote:
>>> Surely, this must be 1 of the 735 typos in Beckman's book ;-)
>>
>> Ummm, actually Dirk I think you've hit the nail on the head! Given the
>> rest of the derivation leading to Eq. 15,
>>
>> K / L^2 \ K pK^2
>> U = - |1 + ---------| = - --------- (Eq. 15)
>> r \ (mcr)^2 / r mr(cr)^2
>> Beckmann's Eq. 8 should be,
>> __________________
>> K / 1 - B^2
>> U = ------------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
>> R(1 - r'/c)^2 v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
>>
>> the typo is simply the accidental ommission of the square...
>
> I honestly can't tell if you are just incredibly dishonest or
> incredibly stupid. Equation (15) is derived from GERBER's
> potential, not from Beckmanns, you idiot. Are you really unable
> to READ??? Do you understand the concluding clause in the sentence
>
>> Our potential (8), therefore, is for all practical purposes
>> equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2), TO WHICH WE NOW RETURN.
Umm, why the hostility Ed? On the preceeding page (174) RIGHT AFTER
Eq 12 we find...
"... This is where we will LEAVE Gerber; integrating HIS
EQUATION (12) will yield the corresponding potential,
and the advance of the perihelion will the follow
imediately from Landau-Lifshits formula. ..."
What is unclear here?
> Everything following this sentence (including equation 15) is just
> a re-derivation of the precession for GERBER's potential, which
> Beckmann has erroneously concluded was essentially identical
> to his own. Thus everything after this point (including 15) is
No, his potential, as illustrated above... He did say that (2) Gerber's
and (8) his equations were equivalent, mentions Gerber, clearly states
when he leaves Gerber's derivation behind, and continues forward with
his. Look, I was just trying to help out. You're right, I missed where
Mingst provided you with most of Chapter 3.2...
> based on a potential with a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c) SQUARED, but
> this in no way changes the fact that Beckmann's potential, which
> he derived in a previous section, has only a single power of
> 1/(1 - r'/c).
>
> Look, if you want to see if Beckmann's equation (8) was a typo,
> all you need to do is check the section of the book where he derives
> it. He says in the text introducing equation (8):
>
>> The modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given by (19),
>> Sec. 1.8; the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must
>> be incorporated in the potential as given by (13), Sec. 1.6.
> So, what you need to do is post equation (19) from section 1.8, and
> equation (13) from section 1.6. Please do so. If those equations
> show 1/(1 - r'/c) SQUARED, then we will know that Beckmann's (8) was
> a typo. But if they show only a single power of 1/(1 - r'/c), we will
> know that Beckmann, Stowe, and Mingst are/were crackpots.
Section 1.8 Eq 19 is,
- -
K | |
F = --------------- |r_o(1 - B^2) + B(theta_o)|
r^2(1 - r'/c)^2 | |
- -
^
|_ NOTE the Square!
Section 1.6 Eq. 13 is,
q 1 Fee_o
Fee = ---- ------------------------------- = -------------------------
4piZ Sqrt(x^2 + (1 - B^2)(y^2 + z^2) Sqrt(1 - B^2 Sin^2 theta)
Now that you've got this, as requested (not nicely I might add) do you see
the square?
Paul Stowe
Ed Stamm
> Section 1.8 Eq 19 is,
> - -
> K | |
> F = --------------- |r_o(1 - B^2) + B(theta_o)|
> r^2(1 - r'/c)^2 | |
> - -
> ^
> |_ NOTE the Square!
Are you really and truly that stupid, Mr. Stowe? This is a FORCE
law, so the effective radial distance r along with any correction
factor appears SQUARED. Beckmann's equation (8) is the POTENTIAL,
which obviously will have just the FIRST power of the effective
radial distance in the denominator. The above equation shows that
Beckmann's "delay factor" gives an effective radial distance of
r*(1 - r'/c), which appears SQUARED in the denominator of his FORCE
law, and to the first power in the denominator of his potential,
perfectly consistent what he gives as equation (8):
>> K
>> U = ------------ (Eq. 8)
>> r(1 - r'/c)
So we've confirmed that Beckmann's equation (8) is NOT a typo, it
is Beckmann's actual potential, which differs from Gerber's by a
factor of (1 - r'/c).
> Now that you've got this, as requested (not nicely I might add)
> do you see the square?
Now that you've had it explained to you, do you see what a moron
you are?
>>> Our potential (8), therefore, is for all practical purposes
>>> equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2), TO WHICH WE NOW RETURN.
>
> On the preceeding page (174) RIGHT AFTER Eq 12 we find..."... This
> is where we will LEAVE Gerber; integrating HIS EQUATION (12) will
> yield the corresponding potential, and the advance of the perihelion
> will the follow imediately from Landau-Lifshits formula. ..." What
> is unclear here?
What's unclear to you (among many other things) is the fact that
when Beckmann says "we will LEAVE Gerber" he just means we will
stop parroting Gerber's derivation at this point and begin
parroting Landau and Lifshits' derivation. But the key point is
that he continues to use GERBER's potential and GERBER's force
law. Look, equation (11) is Gerber's simplified potential and (12)
is his equation of motion, right? Now, the very next sentence
after the one you quoted, where Beckmann says he is "leaving"
Gerber, he continues
> "We will first show that the second term in (11) has no effect.
> It is found by expressing it in terms of r and substituting
> in (12)....
And so on. The entire subsequent derivation is based on (11) and
(12). The only sense in which Beckmann departs from Gerber is in
using the method in Landau and Lifshits rather than Gerber's more
laborious method, i.e., a different mathematical technique. But
none of this has ANYTHING at all to do with the plain and simple
fact (which you have now unwittingly confirmed) that Beckmann's
potential differs from Gerber's by a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c).
Are you really incapable of admitting this obvious fact?
> Look, I was just trying to help out.
I'm not the one who needs the help, Mr. Stowe.
Oriel36
Anyone who has the ability to do heliocentric modelling from
geocentric observations will recognise that the following table of
figures which hold that the perihelion advance for Mercury is 43 "
per century while giving simultaneously a figure for Earth would
conclude that the validatrion for gr is bogus,false,incorrect or
whatever negative term can be applied,this being not a personal
opinion but a mathematical certainty.
[[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
Earth 3.85 3.84
Tom Roberts
> It is significant in that [Gerber] got a correct formula before GR arrived on the
> scene ..1898.
Personally, I don't think it is very significant:
1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other computations
2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
specific approximation to GR (using completely different reasoning)
3. This has a lot in common with numerology -- Gerber got a "hit", and
is remembered for it, but the thousands of papers doing essentially
similar sorts of things are forgotten, because they did not happen
to "hit" -- BEFORE THE FACT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE
FROM GERBER'S PAPER (in the likelihood that they would obtain a
result that would mimic a FUTURE theory that would become generally
accepted in a FUTURE physics community).
If one has 10,000 monkeys banging away on typewriters,
occasionally one will write a sensible English sentence.
Does this really make that particular monkey "smarter"
than the others? Numerologists treat arithmetic analysis
just like those monkeys. Scientists like Gerber are not
monkeys, but the notion of "recognition after the fact"
like this is not science....
(Number 1 above is by far the most important reason.)
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> : Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
> :> I didn't say you have no talent, but you should
> :> take what so many other degreed scientists have said
> :> about your writings. And state your opinion, not
> :> as if it were fact.
> :
> : I care not about the beliefs of those who claim to be physicists on this
> : N.G.
>
> What they claim doesn't matter, it is evident
> who is and who isn't.
Yup. Those who require ad hominem arguments aren't.
> : But in this specific case, it IS a "fact." Or at least just algebra,
> : based on the Gerber/Einstein formula. That "algebraic" truism
> : contradicts your repeated, unsupported claims.
>
> In your case it is simply grasping at any little
> issue to argue against the strong physical support for
> Einstein relativity, hoping that will improve your
> bizarre promoting of aetheral engineering.
Why do you feel the need to divert from the physics? It's just algebra.
Yes or no? It's correct, yes or no.
I care not one whit for your personal, general beliefs about "Einstein
relativity" and whether or not your beliefs have "strong physical support."
For this can only be addressed one argument at a time. We have now
demonstrated that one small portion of your presumed support is wrong.
There may be hundreds of others -- and they may all be correct.
And yet concerning this one argument, your claims for general support of
some other theory are irrelevant.
> The people who support LeSage really shouldn't
> consider the concept akin to aether,
Why not? LeSage did.
Why not? What about LeSage theory differs so significantly from aether
theories?
> and most finally
> eventually realize that any particle theory will not
> work,
Why do you make this claim?
> and they never really put much faith in a fixed
> aether.
No physical aether, or LeSagian aether is a "fixed aether." "Fixed aethers"
are an oxymoron postulated in desperation by relativists.
> I don't know how you can get so egotistical
> over a little high school algebra in opposition to
> many thousands of physicists and computer calculations.
I believe it was Einstein who stated "All the opinions of all the experts
are worth nothing compared to the reasoning of a single, humble individual."
(And I'm going by memory on the quote.)
And I'm not aware that thousands of physicists and computer calculations
have been done on this one issue -- specifically, Gerber's derivation.
> You may consider yourself as a progressive
> thinker, but you are just fooling yourself, and
> wasting the time of other people.
Why do you feel such a need to delve into ad hominem attacks? Why does my
simple demonstration threaten your worldview so?
> I don't know why you think I blindly support
> Einstein relativity, when in fact I have spent most
> of my time writing about another model, which just
> happens to require the same type of relative motion
> modeling as General Relativity.
Which -- because I've just demonstrated that the "type of relative motion"
is not necessary -- is just as "threatened" (or not) as Einsteinian GR.
Oh, and by the way, when Will et al do their "proofs" of GR (via PPN) they
always use the "special" frame of at rest in the CMBR. Does "your" theory
do the same? (If not, you don't use the same "type of relative motion" as
GR.)
But in any case, the NNPA of Mercury is explained by Gerber and by GR
exactly the same -- as a physical result of the finite speed of propagation
of gravity.
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3EE40680...@lucent.com...
> patrick wrote:
> > It is significant in that [Gerber] got a correct formula before GR
arrived on the
> > scene ..1898.
>
> Personally, I don't think it is very significant:
> 1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other computations
This is a valid reason to prefer GR's derivation to Gerber's.
> 2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
> specific approximation to GR (using completely different reasoning)
It is not "similar" and it is not an "approximation" in any respect. It is
the EXACT formula.
Gerber assumed finite propagation speed might affect the NNPA -- so
calculated the speed of gravity. GR assumed a finite speed of propagation
of gravity. They BOTH use finite speed of gravity to produce the NNPA. GR
contains MORE than the NNPA, however. Gerber does not.
> 3. This has a lot in common with numerology -- Gerber got a "hit", and
> is remembered for it, but the thousands of papers doing essentially
> similar sorts of things are forgotten,
Name five.
> because they did not happen
> to "hit" -- BEFORE THE FACT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE
> FROM GERBER'S PAPER (in the likelihood that they would obtain a
> result that would mimic a FUTURE theory that would become generally
> accepted in a FUTURE physics community).
This is pure ad hominem. There is NOTHING in Gerber's work in common with
numerology. Gerber wasn't doing this for no reason. And he wasn't just
juggling numbers. He was specifically using a variation on Newton's
equation to examine the effect on the NNPA.
> If one has 10,000 monkeys banging away on typewriters,
> occasionally one will write a sensible English sentence.
> Does this really make that particular monkey "smarter"
> than the others? Numerologists treat arithmetic analysis
> just like those monkeys. Scientists like Gerber are not
> monkeys, but the notion of "recognition after the fact"
> like this is not science....
But this is not "recognition after the fact!" It is not that Gerber's work
is important only because GR "confirmed" it! Gerber's work is important
because it "explained" the NNPA of Mercury. And it is important for the
SAME REASONS that GR's (17 years later) explanation is important.
> (Number 1 above is by far the most important reason.)
Then why did you feel the need to slander a man who is incapable of
defending himself (because he's dead)?
This is pure relativist lying. Denigrating, making wildly false claims
against someone who beat Einstein to a small portion of GR. Solely to try
to build up Einstein -- and -- by their own warped religion -- themselves.
#1 is sufficient for you. Please apologize (to the shade of Gerber) for the
unnecessary slanders.
greywolf42
We are not discussing "complete" theories. We are talking the minimum
requirements for a "theory."
> While it must be true that Newton's *theory* of gravity agreed with
> empirical results, otherwise it would have been garbage..
Incorrect. Newton had NO *theory* of gravity. Newton had an emirical
equation. "Empirical results" is an oxymoron. And "empirical equation"
correlates experimental (observational) results.
> .he
> postulated
> a speed of gravity that is infinite, by using the field concept.
Your statement is historically incorrect. "Hypothesis non fingo."
Newton made no such postulate.
> Gerber (from what you've said) disagrees with Newton's field theory
> concept of gravitation by replacing the infinite rate of the field
> with
> a new theory of gravitational propagation.
You have just demonstrated anew the process of attributing false deductions
and misunderstanding to someone incapble of defending themselves (Gerber).
Gerber did not *disagree* with Newton. Never did so, never said so. You
misunderstood Newton (and falsely attributed to him postulates that he did
not make). In addition, you now misattribute a modification to Newton's
empirical work (by Gerber) as a "new theory of gravitatitational
propagation."
> >And if one DID attempt further evaluations of Gerber's work, then one
> can't
> >blame GERBER for failing to get it right. There ARE expansions of
> Gerber
> >that return the Titius/Bode series for planetary orbits. (See Petr
> >Beckmann, "Einstein Plus Two.") Thus, claims that Gerber's delayed
> >potential "can't work" are bunk. All that can be claimed is that
> >"so-and-so" failed to come up with a stable solution. Stable
> solutions
> >HAVE been derived.
>
> " the Titius/Bode series for planetary orbits" has more to do with the
> harmony of the spheres than any subtlties to found in tiny shifts
> relativistic
> of otherwise, this notion is non-sequitor.
LOL! It's not a "notion." It's a physical derivation. Thus, your response
is pure attempted misdirection -- claiming (without basis) that this is due
to the "harmony of the spheres."
This is doubly hilarious, because Kepler's laws (the source of Newton's
empirical equation) were developed by Kepler's quest for the harmony of the
spheres.
Then perhaps you can identify the specific, physical source of the "velocity
dependent back action" that counters the (very physical) aberration due to
finite gravity speed in GR. (Steve couldn't.)
> >> >> To allow GR to have a speed of gravity =c, Carlip accounted for
> >> >> this effect.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, Steve applied Noether's theorem.
> >>
> >> Thanks greywolf.
> >
> >You're welcome.
> >
> >> > From: patrick (netwo...@eircom.net)
> >> >Ken,
> >> > Gerbers model does not use the abberated location of the
> Sun as
> >> >the force direction.He still assumes the force is central. There
> would be no
> >> >tangential force on the planet,and no build up of orbital energy
> in that
> >> >model.
> >> >Not sure if this answers your question.
> >> >To assume a speed of propagation c and not use the aberrated
> location looks
> >> >contradictory. But it works.
> >>
> >> The whole point of theory is to allow a humble chinese civil
> servant
> >> to apply the rules unambiguously, and systematically.
> >
> >Science is not just a cookbook. Contrary to your claim.
>
> The whole of engineering is based on science and the experimental
> method,
Engineering existed before the scientific method (hence before science).
Contrary to your claim. (The experimental method is a part of the
scientific method.)
> that ultimately creates rules that designers can count on as
> being facts.
No engineer worth his salt really believes the "rules" that he uses are
"facts." Those kinds of engineers built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the
Kansas City Walkways, operated Chernobyl, ..... "Rule" users are the bane
of real engineers. (Real engineers know the limits to the "rules." Or at
least know when they're "pushing the envelope.")
> Why you say things like "Contrary to your claim."
> indicates to me that I need to explain things to you much better
> than I have.
It may mean your claim is incorrect -- not poorly stated.
> >> How is he
> >> supposed to know where g-propagation is c and then not c, in
> >> some complicated system like predicting eclipses. Remember he
> >> gets balls chopped if wrong.
> >
> >Ahh, Grasshopper! That is why one must apply science and understand
> the
> >physical causality of WHY things happen! If you go only by
> cookbooks, you
> >are limited only to things that have happened before. If you
> understand WHY
> >things work the way they do, you can predict things that haven't
> happened
> >before. This more reliably leaves the balls unchopped.
>
> That's naive, a plumber can fix your toilet better than you can
> without knowing near as much as you do about
> Stokes Equations of fluid flow,
The Plumber relies upon having seen the same kind of problem before.
Suppose our plumber worked in Hawaii for a career of 50 years, and then one
day a highly unusual cold spell hit. All the plumbing in the house stop
working -- though they appear functional, and all the valves are open. He
(as a plumber) won't know from his experience that the mainline may be
frozen. He CAN work it out (by doing some elementary engineering problem
solving) -- but not based on his "rules."
> because of codification. 99.99% of humans prefer codified rules,
The plumber WILL get the job done faster and cheaper than an engineer for
recurring problems. That's why you call a plumber, instead of an engineer
for a stopped toilet. You only call an engineer in if the plumber(s) are
stumped.
> it's
> a very small minority (like us) who argue policy.
> The Sciencific Method establishs policy.
Then it would be a good thing to understand the scientific method.
Specifically what constitutes a "theory," as opposed to an empirical
equation ;)
> >Or more historically to the point, it keeps ships off the rocks.
>
> Yup.
>
> >> PS: I posted an explanation of the perehelion advance that does
> >> not need the speed of gravity.
> >
> >As I note in my response to your post, you are incorrect -- because
> you
> >assume your conclusion to get there.
> (details would help)
>
> Regrettably, your "note" is not conclusive, therefore your response is
> non-sequitor and that makes 3 non-sequitors in one post.
Huh? Even if my respnse in that other thread did not convince you that your
claim was incorrect, it is directly applicable to THIS post -- wherein you
make the claim that youve posted a derivation of the NNPA of Mercury that
does not include the speed of gravity. Hence it is in no way a
"non-sequiteur" -- which is an argument that is not logically connected to
the prior statements.
> That's a strike out, however, if you choose which one is foul,
> you can get ONE more pitch.
And now we drop further into extremely bad allegory. Which usually denotes
the dawning awareness that you've lost the argument.
> If any readers of this post think I'm being discourteous to
> greywolf, kindly correct my ettiqutte.
I've not claimed or even implied that you've been discourteous. I'm merely
noting that the substance of your claims is wrong. Both historically and
scientifically.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vec93bq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3EE40680...@lucent.com...
> > patrick wrote:
> > > It is significant in that [Gerber] got a correct formula before GR
> arrived on the
> > > scene ..1898.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think it is very significant:
> > 1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other computations
>
> This is a valid reason to prefer GR's derivation to Gerber's.
>
> > 2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
> > specific approximation to GR (using completely different reasoning)
>
> It is not "similar" and it is not an "approximation" in any respect. It is
> the EXACT formula.
Not an "approximation" in any respect? Is it the EXACT formula?
Care to tell us how you, Mr Mingst, would obtain an EXACT
solution for something like
(dr/df)^2 + r^2 = r^4/h^2 *
(1+m/2r)^4 *
( k^2*c^2*( (1+m/(2r))/(1-m/(2r)) )^2 - 1 )
Do you think this is EXACLY equivalent with
(dr/df)^2 + r^2 = r^4/h^2 * ( 2m/r +6m^2/r^2 )
?
Here's a little table from my 25 years old GR course:
u=1/r
f='fee'
0 order approximation:
d^2u/df + u = 0
==> u = Acos(f) + Bsin(f)
Galilean inertia - Rectilinear movement
1st order approximation
d^2u/df + u = m/h^2
==> u = m/h^2*(1+e*cos(f))
Newton's law of gravitation - Elliptic
2nd order approximation
d^2u/df + u = m/h^2 + 6m^2/h^2*u
==> u = m/(rho*h)^2*(1+e*cos(rho*f))
rho = sqrt(1-6m^2/h^2)
GR 2nd order - Perihelium precession
Ignorance and arrogance, a deadly combination.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllNeed.html
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3EE40680...@lucent.com...
>> 1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other computations
> This is a valid reason to prefer GR's derivation to Gerber's.
OK.
>> 2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
>> specific approximation to GR (using completely different reasoning)
> It is not "similar" and it is not an "approximation" in any respect. It is
> the EXACT formula.
You misunderstood. It is the GR formula that is the approximation, not
Gerber's -- to obtain it one makes the computation in the post-Newtonian
approximation to GR. So Gerber did not obtain the "true GR formula", he
only obtained an approximation to it.
>> 3. This has a lot in common with numerology -- Gerber got a "hit", and
>> is remembered for it, but the thousands of papers doing essentially
>> similar sorts of things are forgotten,[...]
> This is pure ad hominem. There is NOTHING in Gerber's work in common with
> numerology.
It is not GERBER'S work that is related to numerology, it is the
reactions of people like yourself in "celebrating" Gerber's work because
he "anticipated GR", or "was so smart he predated Einstein", or similar
(my interpretation of other peoples' remarks).
> Gerber wasn't doing this for no reason. And he wasn't just
> juggling numbers. He was specifically using a variation on Newton's
> equation to examine the effect on the NNPA.
Rignt. And he did well. But his efforts have nothing in common with GR,
except for the fact he worked on the same problem. Using completely
different tools, techniques, and concepts.
> But this is not "recognition after the fact!"
See above -- it is not GERBER'S work that is "after the fact", it is the
"celebration" of Gerber for "anticipating" GR that is indeeed after the
fact.
>>(Number 1 above is by far the most important reason.)
> Then why did you feel the need to slander a man who is incapable of
> defending himself (because he's dead)?
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. It was not GERBER
whom I was criticising, it was YOU, and others who "celebrate" Gerber
for "anticipating" GR.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EE40680...@lucent.com...
> >>Personally, I don't think it is very significant:
> >> 1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other computations
> > This is a valid reason to prefer GR's derivation to Gerber's.
>
> OK.
>
>
> >> 2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
> >> specific approximation to GR (using completely different reasoning)
> > It is not "similar" and it is not an "approximation" in any respect. It
is
> > the EXACT formula.
>
> You misunderstood. It is the GR formula that is the approximation, not
> Gerber's -- to obtain it one makes the computation in the post-Newtonian
> approximation to GR. So Gerber did not obtain the "true GR formula", he
> only obtained an approximation to it.
Sigh. "THE" equation used by GR (after Einstein's approximation using
elliptic integrals) -- as posted and written around the world -- is the SAME
formula as that obtained by the approximations used by Gerber
(Lagrangian) -- is the SAME formula as that obtained by Beckmann (using
perturbation theory a la Laundau and Lifshits): {in the presentation of
Gerber and Einstein:
delta theta = 6 pi Gamma M / a v_g^2 (1 - e^2)
The approximations used to obtain the analytic equation, above are all far
below detectable limits (or the approximations wouldn't have been used).
> >> 3. This has a lot in common with numerology -- Gerber got a "hit", and
> >> is remembered for it, but the thousands of papers doing essentially
> >> similar sorts of things are forgotten,[...]
Well, Tom, looks like you were too much of a coward to back up your claim.
Replacing your snip:
==========================
Name five.
> because they did not happen
> to "hit" -- BEFORE THE FACT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE
> FROM GERBER'S PAPER (in the likelihood that they would obtain a
> result that would mimic a FUTURE theory that would become generally
> accepted in a FUTURE physics community).
==========================
Now we return to what I was replying to.....
> > This is pure ad hominem. There is NOTHING in Gerber's work in common
with
> > numerology.
>
> It is not GERBER'S work that is related to numerology, it is the
> reactions of people like yourself in "celebrating" Gerber's work because
> he "anticipated GR", or "was so smart he predated Einstein", or similar
{We see that Tom changed the meaning of my reply, by removing the actual
statement to which I was replying -- and pointing it to a different
statement}
That has nothing to do with numerology. The "reaction" is all on the part
of the relativists. Gerber was first to "explain" the NNPA of Mercury --
simply and undeniably. But RELATIVISTS repeatedly claim that Einstein was
first. You know Einstein wasn't first (for example). Yet you claim that
anyone who acknowledges the existence of Gerber's work is "related to
numerology."
> (my interpretation of other peoples' remarks).
Your "interpretation" are merely slimy strawmen. NO ONE that I've seen
(other than relativists) makes such claims about Gerber.
> > Gerber wasn't doing this for no reason. And he wasn't just
> > juggling numbers. He was specifically using a variation on Newton's
> > equation to examine the effect on the NNPA.
>
> Rignt. And he did well. But his efforts have nothing in common with GR,
> except for the fact he worked on the same problem. Using completely
> different tools, techniques, and concepts.
And got the same answer. :)
{Again, Tom "creatively snips" the post to point my response to a different
statement This time without identification.. And -- not coincidentally --
to hide his prior statements}
====================================
> If one has 10,000 monkeys banging away on typewriters,
> occasionally one will write a sensible English sentence.
> Does this really make that particular monkey "smarter"
> than the others? Numerologists treat arithmetic analysis
> just like those monkeys. Scientists like Gerber are not
> monkeys, but the notion of "recognition after the fact"
> like this is not science....
====================================
> > But this is not "recognition after the fact!"
{Whoopsie! Another relativist "creative snip!" Lets put in my entire
statement, snipped without identification by Tom.}
=============================
But this is not "recognition after the fact!" It is not that Gerber's work
is important only because GR "confirmed" it! Gerber's work is important
because it "explained" the NNPA of Mercury. And it is important for the
SAME REASONS that GR's (17 years later) explanation is important.
=============================
> See above -- it is not GERBER'S work that is "after the fact", it is the
> "celebration" of Gerber for "anticipating" GR that is indeeed after the
> fact.
{So, we see that Tom removed my comments explicitly to be able to claim that
we're discussing the "anticipation of GR." Which is the reverse of my
claim.}
Acknowledging that the RELATIVIST'S claims that "Einstein was first" is a
blatant lie does not equate to "celebration" of Gerber. And Gerber is
acknowledged NOT for "anticipating GR" (that is merely relativistic
narcissum), but for being first to identify a solution for the NNPA.
Relativists always denigrate Gerber (and those who acknowledge his
existence) because it conflicts with their religious views.
> >>(Number 1 above is by far the most important reason.)
> > Then why did you feel the need to slander a man who is incapable of
> > defending himself (because he's dead)?
>
> Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. It was not GERBER
> whom I was criticising, it was YOU, and others who "celebrate" Gerber
> for "anticipating" GR.
Horsefeathers, Tom. Your #2:
"He (Gerber) in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
specific approximation to GR (using completely different reasoning)." See:
"anticipated GR", "merely", "similar", "approximation" This is pure
denigration and criticism.
But the main question remains: WHY did you find it necessary to note more
than the fact that YOU prefer GR because it is complete? Why the need to
sling mud at Gerber and anyone who mentions his name?
Ken S. Tucker
>Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
>> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
[snip]
>> >See Carlip's paper, "Aberration and the speed of gravity," _Physics Letters
>> >A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000. (As I previously provided in response
>> >to Joe Fisher in this thread.)
>> Yup, Carlip used a lot of GR in this paper. I won't disagree with his
>> treatment, because the same problem can be solved in a number
>> of different ways. I solved the same problem with an antisymmetric
>> approach that is IMO way more elegant.
>Then perhaps you can identify the specific, physical source of the "velocity
>dependent back action" that counters the (very physical) aberration due to
>finite gravity speed in GR. (Steve couldn't.)
Consider a circular orbit. The direction of gravitational force is
opposite the direction of centrifugal force. The GR *proof* I
currently accept is posted here....
Subject: Re: light, any objections to the accepted?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2002-06-20 07:39:42 PST
(Sorry, I don't know how to make this a hyperlink)
For any object in free-fall, the gravitational force and
inertial force exactly cancel, this is a rewording of the
Principle of Equivalence. Therefore inertial force
(centrifugal) is in exactly the opposite direction of the
force of gravity.
[snip]
>greywolf42
>ubi dubium ibi libertas
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Jeff Krimmel
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:57:54 -0700, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<vec93e3...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>>Then perhaps you can identify the specific, physical source of the "velocity
>>dependent back action" that counters the (very physical) aberration due to
>>finite gravity speed in GR. (Steve couldn't.)
>
> Consider a circular orbit. The direction of gravitational force is
> opposite the direction of centrifugal force. The GR *proof* I
> currently accept is posted here....
>
> Subject: Re: light, any objections to the accepted?
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> Date: 2002-06-20 07:39:42 PST
>
> (Sorry, I don't know how to make this a hyperlink)
Ken, take a look at Dirk's description here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=YPMG9.31497$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Jeff
P.S. Sorry for the likely line-splitting of the URL.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vec93bq...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EE40680...@lucent.com...
> > > patrick wrote:
> > > > It is significant in that [Gerber] got a correct formula before GR
> > arrived on the
> > > > scene ..1898.
> > >
> > > Personally, I don't think it is very significant:
> > > 1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other
computations
> >
> > This is a valid reason to prefer GR's derivation to Gerber's.
> >
> > > 2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
> > > specific approximation to GR (using completely different
reasoning)
> >
> > It is not "similar" and it is not an "approximation" in any respect. It
is
> > the EXACT formula.
>
> Not an "approximation" in any respect? Is it the EXACT formula?
Yep.
> Care to tell us how you, Mr Mingst, would obtain an EXACT
> solution for something like
> (dr/df)^2 + r^2 = r^4/h^2 *
> (1+m/2r)^4 *
> ( k^2*c^2*( (1+m/(2r))/(1-m/(2r)) )^2 - 1 )
>
> Do you think this is EXACLY equivalent with
> (dr/df)^2 + r^2 = r^4/h^2 * ( 2m/r +6m^2/r^2 )
> ?
Not at all. I'm referring -- of course -- the the equation provided around
the world by GRists to identify the NNPA of Mercury as derived by Gerber:
delta theta = 6 pi Gamma / a v_g^2 (1 - e^2)
As derived by Einstein:
delta theta = 6 pi Gamma / a v_g^2 (1 - e^2)
As derived by Beckmann:
delta theta = 6 pi Gamma / a v_g^2 (1 - e^2)
> Here's a little table from my 25 years old GR course:
>
> u=1/r
> f='fee'
>
> 0 order approximation:
> d^2u/df + u = 0
> ==> u = Acos(f) + Bsin(f)
> Galilean inertia - Rectilinear movement
>
> 1st order approximation
> d^2u/df + u = m/h^2
> ==> u = m/h^2*(1+e*cos(f))
> Newton's law of gravitation - Elliptic
>
> 2nd order approximation
> d^2u/df + u = m/h^2 + 6m^2/h^2*u
> ==> u = m/(rho*h)^2*(1+e*cos(rho*f))
> rho = sqrt(1-6m^2/h^2)
> GR 2nd order - Perihelium precession
>
> Ignorance and arrogance, a deadly combination.
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllNeed.html
Dink, if you had any ability, you'd do more than just post claims of
"fumbles."
Guess Dink also likes slanders.
greywolf42
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >[quoting Petr Beckmann]
> >Gerber started from the delayed potential
> >
> > R(1 - r'/c)^2 r \ c c^2 /
> >
> >...let us check how far the present theory is from Gerber's
> >starting point (2).... our expression for the potential is
> > K / 1 - B^2
> > R(1 - r'/c) v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
> >
> >Thus (8) differs from Gerber's starting point by the factor of
>
> That's not true. Even aside from the square root factor (which
> Beckmann argues is essentially equal to one),
Since Beckmann is performing a modified analysis with perturbation theory --
and not just copying Gerber's paper -- there may be some minor variations
from Gerber's derivation. The question is, is Beckmann's derivation
correct, and does it begin in the same manner as Gerber?
> equation (8) contains
> only one power of (1 - r'/c) in the denominator, whereas Gerber's
> potential (2) contains (1 - r'/c) SQUARED.
Yes. It appears that there is a typo in equation (8). Which can be seen by
following the derivation leading up to equation (8), and the following use
of equation (8), later in the section. Of course, since you snipped the
derivation, it does make it a little harder to see. ;)
We look to the statement by Beckmann (snipped by you) as to the source of
equation (8): "The modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given
by (19), Sec. 1.8." Looking in EP2, page 72, we find:
F = K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [r_0 (1 - beta^2) + beta Theta_0].
So we see that Beckmann DID have a square on the (1 - r'/c) term -- before
the apparent typographical error.
> So, even if we
> agree to ignore the square root factor (a dubious step in itself),
If there's an error in assuming the square root factor is essentially equal
to 1, why the need to resort to snide implication? Let's see if the
ignoring the "aside" square root factor is a "dubious" step. Taking some
data from the derivation that you snipped:
"... the square root in (8), averaged over the orbit (from 0 to 2 pi), to
second order in beta and e is"
"<1 - 1/2 beta^2 cos^2> = 1 - 1/4 beta^2 e^2"
"For Mercury, with beta = 1.597 E-4 and eccentricity = 0.2056..."
So, the square root is 1 - 6.7 E-11. Equal to 1 within 10 decimal places.
That doesn't seem so dubious after all. :)
> Beckmann's potential is definitely NOT the same as Gerber's.
As we've seen, you're frothing at the mouth over a typographical error in
the book.
> >Our potential (8), therefore, is for all practical purposes
> >equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2), to which we now return.
>
> This was Beckmann's key mistake. He carelessly mistook his (8)
> for being the same as Gerber's (2), overlooking the crucial
> difference in the power of 1 - r'/c, and then he just appropriated
> the remainder of Gerber's analysis.
First, were you not so rabid, you might have suspected a typo of the
power -- because of Beckmann's statement that the two terms were equal --
and because the source of the equation DOES contain the proper power of 2.
Second, Beckmann uses Gerber's analysis only up until the potential is
determined. Beckmann then shifts to Landau and Lifshits' method of 1965 to
shorten and tighten up the analysis. Had you bothered to even READ the
posted section, you would have seen this.
> The problem is, Beckmann's
> (8), even neglecting the square root factor as he recommends, is
> not at all the same as Gerber's (2). If you carry out the orbital
> analysis based on Beckmann's potential (8), you get just one third
> of Gerber's (and Einstein's) predicted precession (i.e., about 14
> sec/century).
Of course, this is further evidence that Beckmann's equation (8) IN THE BOOK
contains a typo. Because Beckmann did NOT just copy Gerber's answer. It is
also further evidence of your extreme bias and unwillingness to examine
elementary arguments. (The manuscripts were reviewed by four different
physicists.) You (or someone you're copying) actually went to the trouble
to solve for Beckmann's typo! -- but refused to even examine the derivation
leading up to (8) to notice that the typo existed! Now that's evident bias!
> To be fair, it isn't surprising that Beckmann was unable to come
> up with any rational justification for Gerber's potential (2),
> because no one else has ever been able to come up with one either,
> including Gerber.
LOL! What a pathetic excuse for logic! Because YOU don't accept anyone's
done it yet, that means that it cannot be done.
> >It is shown in theoretical mechanics that there are only two types
> >of central field which give rise to closed orbits: those whose
> >potential is proportional to 1/r (such as the traditional Newton-
> >Coulomb field) and those where it is proportional to l/r^2...
>
> That's wrong, because an inverse square potential corresponds
> to an inverse cube force, which leads to Cotes' spiral orbits,
> not closed orbits. The two potentials (of the form r^k) that
> give closed orbits are actually those proportional to 1/r and
> r^2 (not to 1/r^2). This is covered in Newton's Principia (1687).
>
> >It was observed as early as 1880 that the axis of Mercury's
> >elliptical orbit is turning very slowly in the direction of its
> >rotation about the sun....
>
> That's sloppy scholarship. Le Verrier announced the anomalous
> precession in 1859.
Perhaps he was referring to the Newcomb's derivation that Gerber and
Einstein were working with? "As early as" does not exclude LeVerrier. (It
is a statement equivalent "no later than.") And since both Gerber and
Einstein were working with Newcomb's values (43 arcsec/century) -- not
LeVerrier's -- Beckmann's statement is just fine.
> >...the Mercury formula (I). It had been derived 17 years earlier by
> >Paul Gerber [1898] by classical physics using the same assumption
> >that I am using now - the propagation of gravity with velocity c.
>
> There are multiple errors in that sentence. First, Gerber did not
> derive the formula from classical physics.
It most certainly IS from classical physics. Relativity is not used. QM is
not used. Thus, the physics is classical. It contains only application of
Newton's dynamics.
> No one, including Gerber,
> has ever given a rational justification of (2) based on classical
> physics, or any other physics for that matter.
That's because Gerber was not postulating a "theory of gravity." He was
just duplicating a step from Newton's derivation of Newton's empirical
equation for gravity. Gerber's approach was "hypothesis non fingo." Sound
familiar? NEWTON gave no "rational justification" for his empirical
gravitational equation, either.
> The fallacies and
> errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
> www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.
And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is a
morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies. Why do
you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists nowhere
in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up that
site.
> Second, Beckmann did
> not even succeed in duplicating Gerber's pseudo-derivation (see
> above).
1) Beckmann did not attempt to "duplicate" Gerber's derivation.
2) Gerber's derivation was exact. Why do you feel the need to denigrate it
to a "pseudo" derivation? Just because you don't like the outcome?
> Beckmann's potential differs from Gerber's by a factor
> of 1/(1 - r'/c), which fundamentally alters the nature of the
> perturbation and the resulting orbit.
And -- as noted in prior threads and in this post -- your claim is
incorrect. A typographical error exists in Beckmann's book (typos are not
unique to Beckmann) -- which can easily be identified by someone who
actually reads the derivation, instead of snipping it to hide the evidence.
> >Still think Dr. Beckmann is a "nutter?"
>
> The excerpt from his book (assuming your post is accurate) shows
> clearly that his brain was not functioning very well at the time
> he wrote that book.
>
> >If so, please identifigy specific errors.
>
> Done.
LOL! Such a slimy effort. There's a future for you, writing in gossip
rags.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vef6d62...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip unread]
> > The fallacies and
> > errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
> > www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.
>
> And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is a
> morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies. Why do
> you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists nowhere
> in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up that
> site.
Speicher?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=sci.physics.*%20sci.math.*&as_uauthors=kevin%20brown
You are taking this *way* too emotionally. Poor you.
[snip unread]
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vef6bks...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:IsqFa.46346$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vec93bq...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3EE40680...@lucent.com...
> > > > patrick wrote:
> > > > > It is significant in that [Gerber] got a correct formula before GR
> > > arrived on the
> > > > > scene ..1898.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I don't think it is very significant:
> > > > 1. He did not establish a general theory useful for other
> computations
> > >
> > > This is a valid reason to prefer GR's derivation to Gerber's.
> > >
> > > > 2. He in no way anticipated GR, he merely got a formula similar to a
> > > > specific approximation to GR (using completely different
> reasoning)
> > >
> > > It is not "similar" and it is not an "approximation" in any respect. It
> is
> > > the EXACT formula.
> >
> > Not an "approximation" in any respect? Is it the EXACT formula?
>
> Yep.
Idiot.
and apart from the typos with d^2u/df I forgot to mention that
*even* this square root is additionally approached by
1 - 3m^2/h^2 ;-)
> > GR 2nd order - Perihelium precession
> >
> > Ignorance and arrogance, a deadly combination.
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllNeed.html
>
> Dink, if you had any ability, you'd do more than just post claims of
> "fumbles."
You really haven't got a clue, have you?
Besides, in this thread you said
"Goodbye in this thread"
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=9W3Ea.40527$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Like you said
"Goodbye in this thread"
on http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodBye.html
If you keep lying like that, how do you think people can ever trust you?
Dirk Vdm
Ed Stamm
>We look to the statement by Beckmann (snipped by you) as to the
>source of equation (8): "The modified Newton Law taking into
>account delays is given by (19), Sec. 1.8." Looking in EP2,
>page 72, we find:
>F = K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [r_0 (1 - beta^2) + beta Theta_0].
>So we see that Beckmann DID have a square on the (1 - r'/c) term --
>before the apparent typographical error.
No, this was already explained to Paul Stowe several days ago
when he tried the "typo defense" in this very thread. Beckmann's
effective radial distance, including his time-delay factor, is
r*(1 - r'/c), which he squared upon inserting into Newton's force
law, but which would only appear to the first power in a potential.
And sure enough, when he gives his potential, lo and behold, it
apears to the first power. It is obviously NOT a typo. (It
actually wouldn't surprise me if Beckmann thought Gerber's was
a typo!)
Furthermore, Beckmann's whole approach is idiotic (he makes Gerber
look like a real scientist by comparison), because he starts with
a force law, then uses that to justify a potential, and then derives
a force law *different from the one he started with* from that
potential! Did you honestly not notice this?
Also, the purely radial part of Beckmann's original force law
would give no precession at all, so he imagined that the precession
was due to the aberration angle, BUT when we gets to the point of
deriving the precession he throws away the aberration angle as
insignificant (that's the square root factor), and uses Gerber's
radial potential to give him a completely different force law, from
which the correct precession follows. But he apparently was never
bothered by the fact that this force law is completely different
than the one he supposedly used to derive the potential. In other
words, no one but a hardcore crackpot could take Beckmann seriously.
>The question is, is Beckmann's derivation correct, and does it
>begin in the same manner as Gerber?
As has been explained, the answers are No and No. Beckmann's
"derivation" is gibberish, and he definitely does not begin in
the same manner as Gerber (except in so far as they both begin
in cluelessly). Of course, in mid-stream, Beckmann just adopts
Gerber's potential, discarding his own. But neither of them
ever explained that potential in terms of classical physics or
finite propagation speed.
>> So, even if we agree to ignore the square root factor (a
>> dubious step in itself),
>If there's an error in assuming the square root factor is
>essentially equal to 1, why the need to resort to snide
>implication?
As explained above, the point is that the aberration angle was
Beckmann's only hope of finding any precession at all IF he had
stuck to his own force law rather than switching to Gerber's in
mid-stream, but it is precisely this aberration angle that he
decides is negligible by ignoring the square root factor. The
only way he ends up with the right precession is that he just
appropriates Gerber's potential.
>> Beckmann's potential is definitely NOT the same as Gerber's.
>As we've seen, you're frothing at the mouth over a typographical
>error in the book.
Nope, we've established in this thread (days ago) that it was
NOT a typo.
>Beckmann uses Gerber's analysis only up until the potential is
>determined. Beckmann then shifts to Landau and Lifshits' method
>of 1965 to shorten and tighten up the analysis. Had you bothered
>to even READ the posted section, you would have seen this.
This too has already been covered. (You must have a problem
with your ISP. You're about a week behind the discussion.)
The only thing that needs to be derived is the potential.
Going from there to the precession is just turning the crank
(if you'll excuse the expression). The rap against both
Gerber and Beckmann is that they give no rational justification
for their potentials. If you just apply a radial delay factor
to the potential, you get a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c), which gives
only one third of the correct precession, so you need something
else. Gerber said let's square it, but gave no reason.
Beckmann just carelessly jumped from his own force law to
Gerber's potential, and then back to a completely different
force law!
>> First, Gerber did not derive the formula from classical physics.
>It most certainly IS from classical physics. Relativity is not
>used. QM is not used. Thus, the physics is classical. It
>contains only application of Newton's dynamics.
Not true. Gerber multiplied his delayed potential by an extra
factor of 1/(1 - r'/c) that has no justification whatsoever in
classical or any other kind of physics. Have you actually READ
Gerber's paper? Can you explain where the extra factor of
1/(1 - r'/c) came from?
>That's because Gerber was not postulating a "theory of gravity."
Exactly. That has always been the most damning charge against
Gerber - that he had no theory. In other words, it was just a
curve fit, with no scientific content. In the absence of a theory
or even rationalization, all he had was an ad hoc fiddling with
the formulas the match the precession.
>He was just duplicating a step from Newton's derivation of
>Newton's empirical equation for gravity.
Newton's laws successfully encompass an incredibly vast range of
natural phenomena from a very small set of premises. Gerber's
modification encompasses nothing other than the one empirical
fact that was used to derive it. If you can't see the difference
between these two things, you are a poor judge indeed.
>1) Beckmann did not attempt to "duplicate" Gerber's derivation.
Beckmann explicitly stated that the potential yielded by his
analysis was essentially identical to Gerber's. He was wrong.
He did not succeed in duplicating Gerber's potential.
>2) Gerber's derivation was exact. Why do you feel the need
> to denigrate it to a "pseudo" derivation?
Gerber had no derivation. He had a collection of words and
symbols, but there is no rational thread leading from a set
of premises to a set of conclusions. He just decides at some
point to apply another factor of 1/(1 - r'/c). That is not
a derivation. Even calling it a pseudo-derivation is being
generous. I can only assume you have never read it... but
then again, you have read Beckmann's book, which is even
dumber than Gerber's paper (deriving a potential from a force,
and then inferring a DIFFERENT force from the potential), and
you couldn't see through it, so maybe you wouldn't be able to
see through Gerber.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ed Stamm" <eds...@cooltown.com> wrote in message news:3ee7b9c5...@news.gte.net...
Nice job :-)
If anyone wants to get rid of his copy of this E+2,
I will be glad to take it - but not for $55.00 ;-)
Do not forget to remove the antisperm string from
my e-mail address.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Another relativist incapable of leaving the whole counter-argument intact.
Invisibly snipping without notice (in violation of the N.G. charter),
reformatting and reordering responses, and removing all arguments that he's
lost, or doesn't want to answer.
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
{replacing Ed's snip}
========================================
> >[greywolf42 quoting Petr Beckmann]
> >Gerber started from the delayed potential
> >
> > K K / 2r' 3r^2\
> > U = ------------- = - - |1 + -- + ----| (Eq. 2)
> > R(1 - r'/c)^2 r \ c c^2 /
> >
> >...let us check how far the present theory is from Gerber's
> >starting point (2).... our expression for the potential is
> > __________________
> > K / 1 - B^2
> > U = ----------- / ----------------- (Eq. 8)
> > R(1 - r'/c) v 1 - B^2Sin^2 Fee
> >
> >Thus (8) differs from Gerber's starting point by the factor of
> >the square root...
>
> That's not true. Even aside from the square root factor (which
> Beckmann argues is essentially equal to one),
Since Beckmann is performing a modified analysis with perturbation theory --
and not just copying Gerber's paper -- there may be some minor variations
from Gerber's derivation. The question is, is Beckmann's derivation
correct, and does it begin in the same manner as Gerber?
{Note, Ed retains the last sentence of my above paragraph, out of sequence
and context, later.}
> equation (8) contains
> only one power of (1 - r'/c) in the denominator, whereas Gerber's
> potential (2) contains (1 - r'/c) SQUARED.
Yes. It appears that there is a typo in equation (8). Which can be seen by
following the derivation leading up to equation (8), and the following use
of equation (8), later in the section. Of course, since you snipped the
derivation, it does make it a little harder to see. ;)
========================================
> >We look to the statement by Beckmann (snipped by you) as to the
> >source of equation (8): "The modified Newton Law taking into
> >account delays is given by (19), Sec. 1.8." Looking in EP2,
> >page 72, we find:
> >F = K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [r_0 (1 - beta^2) + beta Theta_0].
> >So we see that Beckmann DID have a square on the (1 - r'/c) term --
> >before the apparent typographical error.
>
> No, this was already explained to Paul Stowe several days ago
> when he tried the "typo defense" in this very thread.
This statement in no way addresses my argument, or the source of Beckmann's
potential. I read your previous claim to Paul. I spent a fair amount of
time checking various angles to see if I could definitively determine
whether the "missing" 2 was a typo, or whether it was "real." Real meaning
that it had some bearing on the calculation. I concluded that your claim
was incorrect. To see why, see below.
> Beckmann's
> effective radial distance, including his time-delay factor, is
> r*(1 - r'/c), which he squared upon inserting into Newton's force
> law, but which would only appear to the first power in a potential.
And the above statement is your error. The time-delay factor is not
"bundled" into an "effective radial distance." Force is -phi / r. This
removes one power of r, but leaves two powers of (1 - r'/c). In other
words, YOU are demanding that Beckmann make a specific theoretical position,
that Beckmann apparently didn't make. Now, you are welcome to discuss your
views of the theoretical shortcomings or effects of this setup or
derivation. However, your claims that Beckmann's equation (8) was incorrect
is still wrong -- for the seven reasons below.
> And sure enough, when he gives his potential, lo and behold, it
> apears to the first power. It is obviously NOT a typo.
Actually, the first power exists -- as an apparent typo -- ONLY in equation
(8).
1) The source of equation (8) contains the (1 - r'/c) squared.
2) It is used as a square in Beckmann's following equations (where he
emulates Gerber).
3) Beckmann makes an explicit effort to compare "his" potential equation
with Gerber's potential equations.
4) Beckmann notes that the only "difference" between the two is the square
root term in Beckmann's work.
5) Beckmann reiterates that the two equations are identical -- since the
square root term is essentially 1.
6) Beckmann follows determines the equations of motion by using Gerber's
method -- which uses a power series expansion for the (1 - r'/c) SQUARED
term.*
Thus clearly indicating that Beckmann was working with a squared term. The
prior equation had a square, Beckmann described equation as the square three
times, and Beckmann used the equation as the square in following effort.
This is not a "back of the envelope" effort. The book was written over a
two-year period, and the manuscript was reviewed by four other physicists.
Sure, it's possible an error could have slipped by. But, we all know that
typos exist in books. However, since this is a key point in Beckmann's
work -- repeatedly described three times as "the same" -- your position
requires an ad hominem attack on Beckmann (which we will see very shortly).
Now, if you wish to show me wrong, please identify EXACTLY where Beckmann
uses the potential WITHOUT the squared (1 - r'/c) term in the following
work. Just in case I missed a spot.
*(This is really funny -- or pathetic. Because in your last post, you
savaged Beckmann for using Gerber's "method", while being "blind" that
Gerber had a square in his potential, while Beckmann didn't. NOW you claim
Beckmann didn't use a square.)
> (It
> actually wouldn't surprise me if Beckmann thought Gerber's was
> a typo!)
That little comment merely demonstrates conclusively that you are attempting
a hatchet job on Beckmann. That is, you are not approaching his analysis
with an open mind -- to say the least.
> Furthermore, Beckmann's whole approach is idiotic (he makes Gerber
> look like a real scientist by comparison),
Again, this comment clearly identifies that your arguments are personal and
spurious -- not scientific.
> because he starts with
> a force law, then uses that to justify a potential, and then derives
> a force law *different from the one he started with* from that
> potential! Did you honestly not notice this?
Of course I didn't notice it. Your statement is a bold-faced lie.
> Also, the purely radial part of Beckmann's original force law
> would give no precession at all,
This is news? Earth to Ed: the source of NNPA here is the aberrated forces.
That is, the "leading" force that arises from the aberrated angle. NOT the
change in radial force.
> so he imagined
There's that ad hominem attack again.
> that the precession
> was due to the aberration angle, BUT when we gets to the point of
> deriving the precession he throws away the aberration angle as
> insignificant (that's the square root factor),
The square root factor (as explicitly described by Beckmann) is the
WEAKENING of the radial force due to the apparent motion. It is not the
aberrated term.
> and uses Gerber's
> radial potential to give him a completely different force law,
This explicitly puts the lie to your earlier claims about Beckmann "using" a
first-power equation.
> from
> which the correct precession follows. But he apparently was never
> bothered by the fact that this force law is completely different
> than the one he supposedly used to derive the potential.
But this "difference" exists only in your own warped mind.
> In other
> words, no one but a hardcore crackpot could take Beckmann seriously.
And we return to the rabid ad hominem attack.
{Now that Ed has elimiated all flow and content, he is willing to include a
morsel from my prior response}
> >The question is, is Beckmann's derivation correct, and does it
> >begin in the same manner as Gerber?
>
> As has been explained, the answers are No and No. Beckmann's
> "derivation" is gibberish, and he definitely does not begin in
> the same manner as Gerber (except in so far as they both begin
> in cluelessly). Of course, in mid-stream, Beckmann just adopts
> Gerber's potential, discarding his own.
The above paragraph is more rabid character assassination.
> But neither of them
> ever explained that potential in terms of classical physics or
> finite propagation speed.
LOL! Both used classical physics, in that they didn't use relativity (SR or
GR) and they didn't use quantum mechanics. Hence, both used classical
physics. And since BOTH explicitly described their results in term s of
finite propagation speed (Gerber's whole effort was directed at deriving the
speed of gravity), you are merely demonstrating your propensity for
bold-faced lies.
> >> So, even if we agree to ignore the square root factor (a
> >> dubious step in itself),
> >If there's an error in assuming the square root factor is
> >essentially equal to 1, why the need to resort to snide
> >implication?
{Another unmarked snip of Ed's replaced: This is part of the above
paragraph.}
==================================
Let's see if the
ignoring the "aside" square root factor is a "dubious" step. Taking some
data from the derivation that you snipped:
"... the square root in (8), averaged over the orbit (from 0 to 2 pi), to
second order in beta and e is"
"<1 - 1/2 beta^2 cos^2> = 1 - 1/4 beta^2 e^2"
"For Mercury, with beta = 1.597 E-4 and eccentricity = 0.2056..."
So, the square root is 1 - 6.7 E-11. Equal to 1 within 10 decimal places.
That doesn't seem so dubious after all. :)
==================================
> As explained above, the point is that the aberration angle was
> Beckmann's only hope of finding any precession at all
Another clear demonstration of a prior bold-faced lie of your own.
> IF he had
> stuck to his own force law rather than switching to Gerber's in
> mid-stream,
Another clear demonstration of a prior bold-faced lie of your own. Make up
your mind -- either Beckmann used Gerber's potential (not force law) WITH
the square, or he used a potential without the square.
> but it is precisely this aberration angle that he
> decides is negligible by ignoring the square root factor.
This merely demonstrates your inability to read.
> The
> only way he ends up with the right precession is that he just
> appropriates Gerber's potential.
Which contains the squared term.
> >> Beckmann's potential is definitely NOT the same as Gerber's.
> >As we've seen, you're frothing at the mouth over a typographical
> >error in the book.
>
> Nope, we've established in this thread (days ago) that it was
> NOT a typo.
And your prior claim -- repeated herein -- was and is purely a bold-faced
lie.
{Another invisible and reformatting snip by Ed}
==============================
> >Our potential (8), therefore, is for all practical purposes
> >equivalent to Gerber's starting point (2), to which we now return.
>
> This was Beckmann's key mistake. He carelessly mistook his (8)
> for being the same as Gerber's (2), overlooking the crucial
> difference in the power of 1 - r'/c, and then he just appropriated
> the remainder of Gerber's analysis.
First, were you not so rabid, you might have suspected a typo of the
power -- because of Beckmann's statement that the two terms were equal --
and because the source of the equation DOES contain the proper power of 2.
Second,
==============================
> >Beckmann uses Gerber's analysis only up until the potential is
> >determined. Beckmann then shifts to Landau and Lifshits' method
> >of 1965 to shorten and tighten up the analysis. Had you bothered
> >to even READ the posted section, you would have seen this.
>
> This too has already been covered.
And your prior claim -- repeated herein -- was and is purely a bold-faced
lie.
> (You must have a problem
> with your ISP. You're about a week behind the discussion.)
This demonstrates that your calendar skills are also weak. Your initial
diatrabe was on Saturday, June 7th, 12:17AM. My response was on Wednesday,
June 11th, at 2:14PM. Some of us have better things to do with weekends
than haunt the newsgroups late at night. I read your initial diatrabe on
Tuesday. And -- despite your evident rabid relativism -- I made an effort
to check through Beckmann to see if I could validate your claims.
I was quite aware of the other posts, thank you. However, it was not
necessary to follow you into the morass, as you had not addressed any
specifics -- just vague allusions to errors. It was much more to the point
to address your initial -- groundless -- claims here.
> The only thing that needs to be derived is the potential.
> Going from there to the precession is just turning the crank
> (if you'll excuse the expression).
I'll admit the parenthetical is cute. Though I wouldn't describe Landau and
Lifshits as cranks.
> The rap against both
> Gerber and Beckmann is that they give no rational justification
> for their potentials.
Earth to Ed: Neither did Newton. And if that's "the rap", why do you feel
the need for all the other garbage?
> If you just apply a radial delay factor
> to the potential, you get a factor of 1/(1 - r'/c),
But neither did so. That YOU want to do it is irrelvant.
> which gives
> only one third of the correct precession, so you need something
> else.
But -- as you have repeatedly pointed out -- both use the square of the
above term.
> Gerber said let's square it, but gave no reason.
> Beckmann just carelessly jumped from his own force law to
> Gerber's potential, and then back to a completely different
> force law!
Another bold-faced lie. How many times do you think you have to repeat
this? Do you think it makes it more true if you state it five times,
instead of one?
{Another invisible snip by Ed, to distance himself from prior lies and Ed's
charges of "sloppy scholarship" -- which resulted from pure bile and errors
on his own part.}
===============================
===============================
{Ed's following statement contines the above paragraph.}
> >> First, Gerber did not derive the formula from classical physics.
> >It most certainly IS from classical physics. Relativity is not
> >used. QM is not used. Thus, the physics is classical. It
> >contains only application of Newton's dynamics.
>
> Not true. Gerber multiplied his delayed potential by an extra
> factor of 1/(1 - r'/c) that has no justification whatsoever in
> classical or any other kind of physics.
In other words, you think that Beckmann and Gerber's theoretical basis is
not stated. Is that what this whole diatrabe is about?
> Have you actually READ
> Gerber's paper? Can you explain where the extra factor of
> 1/(1 - r'/c) came from?
Yes. And did so in the post that you have snipped up. You'll find it at
the top of this post.
{Another invisible, "creative" snip from Ed, of Ed}
================================
> No one, including Gerber,
> has ever given a rational justification of (2) based on classical
> physics, or any other physics for that matter.
================================
> >That's because Gerber was not postulating a "theory of gravity."
>
> Exactly. That has always been the most damning charge against
> Gerber - that he had no theory.
Yep. Just like Newton ("hypothesis non fingo"), Gerber had no "theory".
But contrary to your claim, this is not "damning" in any sense. Empirical
equations are standard fare in the scientific method.
> In other words, it was just a curve fit, with no scientific content.
Gerber's work was wasn't a "curve fit." Because no one had measured the
speed of gravity before Gerber. Gerber was the first to calculate the speed
of gravity from the NNPA of Mercury.
> In the absence of a theory
> or even rationalization, all he had was an ad hoc fiddling with
> the formulas the match the precession.
Just like Planck.
> >He was just duplicating a step from Newton's derivation of
> >Newton's empirical equation for gravity.
{Another invisible, "creative" snip from Ed, of the rest of my paragraph}
================================
Gerber's approach was "hypothesis non fingo." Sound
familiar? NEWTON gave no "rational justification" for his empirical
gravitational equation, either.
================================
> Newton's laws successfully encompass an incredibly vast range of
> natural phenomena from a very small set of premises.
We are talking only about Newton's empirical gravitational equation. Not
"Newton's laws."
> Gerber's
> modification encompasses nothing other than the one empirical
> fact that was used to derive it.
Another bold-faced lie. Gerber DERIVED the speed of gravity from the NNPA.
> If you can't see the difference
> between these two things, you are a poor judge indeed.
I didn't say they were of the same use, or value. I merely pointed out that
your wild flights of invective are equally applicable to Newton. You are
blinded by your religion.
{Another invisible and reformatting snip by Ed.}
=========================
> The fallacies and
> errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
> www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.
And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is a
morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies. Why do
you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists nowhere
in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up that
site.
=========================
Ed, please answer the question: Why did you point to that pathetic, lying
crap?
=========================
> Second, Beckmann did
> not even succeed in duplicating Gerber's pseudo-derivation (see
> above).
=========================
> >1) Beckmann did not attempt to "duplicate" Gerber's derivation.
>
> Beckmann explicitly stated that the potential yielded by his
> analysis was essentially identical to Gerber's. He was wrong.
> He did not succeed in duplicating Gerber's potential.
Repetition does not make it true.
> >2) Gerber's derivation was exact. Why do you feel the need
> > to denigrate it to a "pseudo" derivation?
{Another invisible snip by Ed, finishing the paragraph.}
====================
Just because you don't like the outcome?
====================
> Gerber had no derivation. He had a collection of words and
> symbols, but there is no rational thread leading from a set
> of premises to a set of conclusions. He just decides at some
> point to apply another factor of 1/(1 - r'/c). That is not
> a derivation. Even calling it a pseudo-derivation is being
> generous. I can only assume you have never read it... but
> then again, you have read Beckmann's book, which is even
> dumber than Gerber's paper (deriving a potential from a force,
> and then inferring a DIFFERENT force from the potential), and
> you couldn't see through it, so maybe you wouldn't be able to
> see through Gerber.
{And the final invisible snip by Ed, very apropos to the subject at hand}
====================
> Beckmann's potential differs from Gerber's by a factor
> of 1/(1 - r'/c), which fundamentally alters the nature of the
> perturbation and the resulting orbit.
And -- as noted in prior threads and in this post -- your claim is
incorrect. A typographical error exists in Beckmann's book (typos are not
unique to Beckmann) -- which can easily be identified by someone who
actually reads the derivation, instead of snipping it to hide the evidence.
> >Still think Dr. Beckmann is a "nutter?"
>
> The excerpt from his book (assuming your post is accurate) shows
> clearly that his brain was not functioning very well at the time
> he wrote that book.
>
> >If so, please identifigy specific errors.
>
> Done.
LOL! Such a slimy effort. There's a future for you, writing in gossip
rags.
====================
To repeat what Ed goes to great lengths to hide:
"A typographical error exists in Beckmann's book (typos are not
unique to Beckmann) -- which can easily be identified by someone who
actually reads the derivation, instead of snipping it to hide the evidence."
And so ends another rabid relativistic tirade. Pure sophistry, lies and
slanders. All to cover up the fact that the "origin myth" of GR being the
first to describe the NNPA of Mercury is just that.
Jeff Krimmel
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:16:31 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> Another relativist incapable of leaving the whole counter-argument intact.
> Invisibly snipping without notice...
[SNIP!]
Quit whining you blathering idiot.
Jeff
greywolf42
One wonders what you plan to DO with the book! ;)
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<vec93e3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> >news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
> >> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >See Carlip's paper, "Aberration and the speed of gravity," _Physics
Letters
> >> >A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000. (As I previously provided in
response
> >> >to Joe Fisher in this thread.)
>
> >> Yup, Carlip used a lot of GR in this paper. I won't disagree with his
> >> treatment, because the same problem can be solved in a number
> >> of different ways. I solved the same problem with an antisymmetric
> >> approach that is IMO way more elegant.
>
> >Then perhaps you can identify the specific, physical source of the
"velocity
> >dependent back action" that counters the (very physical) aberration due
to
> >finite gravity speed in GR. (Steve couldn't.)
>
> Consider a circular orbit. The direction of gravitational force is
> opposite the direction of centrifugal force.
I'm not sure what this statement has to do with anything. I asked for a
specific, physical source of the "velocity dependent back-action" that
counters the very physical aberration effect in GR. Centrifugal force has
nothing to do with this.
> The GR *proof* I
> currently accept is posted here....
>
> Subject: Re: light, any objections to the accepted?
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> Date: 2002-06-20 07:39:42 PST
>
> (Sorry, I don't know how to make this a hyperlink)
The easy way is to find it on GoogleGroups. Click on the thread, then view
"this document only." The link will be displayed in your newsreader, for
you to copy.
> For any object in free-fall, the gravitational force and
> inertial force exactly cancel, this is a rewording of the
> Principle of Equivalence. Therefore inertial force
> (centrifugal) is in exactly the opposite direction of the
> force of gravity.
>
> [snip]
This has nothing to do with aberration due to finite speed of gravity. (The
PoE is silent on the speed of gravity.)
greywolf42
Dink has no comment (of course).
> > > Here's a little table from my 25 years old GR course:
> > >
> > > u=1/r
> > > f='fee'
> > >
> > > 0 order approximation:
> > > d^2u/df + u = 0
> > > ==> u = Acos(f) + Bsin(f)
> > > Galilean inertia - Rectilinear movement
> > >
> > > 1st order approximation
> > > d^2u/df + u = m/h^2
> > > ==> u = m/h^2*(1+e*cos(f))
> > > Newton's law of gravitation - Elliptic
> > >
> > > 2nd order approximation
> > > d^2u/df + u = m/h^2 + 6m^2/h^2*u
> > > ==> u = m/(rho*h)^2*(1+e*cos(rho*f))
> > > rho = sqrt(1-6m^2/h^2)
>
> and apart from the typos with d^2u/df I forgot to mention that
> *even* this square root is additionally approached by
> 1 - 3m^2/h^2 ;-)
It's still irrelevant.
> > > GR 2nd order - Perihelium precession
> > >
> > > Ignorance and arrogance, a deadly combination.
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllNeed.html
> >
> > Dink, if you had any ability, you'd do more than just post claims of
> > "fumbles."
>
> You really haven't got a clue, have you?
>
> Besides, in this thread you said
> "Goodbye in this thread"
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=9W3Ea.40527$1u5....@afrodite.telen
et-ops.be
> Like you said
> "Goodbye in this thread"
> on http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodBye.html
>
> If you keep lying like that, how do you think people can ever trust you?
It indicates that I am ceasing discussion on a specific set of claims, with
a specific poster in the thread. Not goodbye to all posters in the thread.
In case you increase your logic skills above the 2nd grade, the point is
that I don't waste my time after a few rounds of repeated idiocy from
specific posters. And sometimes the poster in question opens a new claim
within the thread.
Someday, you might even post some physics. But I won't hold my breath.
You're too much of a coward.
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vef6d62...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> [snip unread]
>
> > > The fallacies and
> > > errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
> > > www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.
> >
> > And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is
a
> > morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies.
Why do
> > you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists
nowhere
> > in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up
that
> > site.
>
> Speicher?
Yes. According to Speicher. It matters not who coded the web page.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=sci.physics.*%20sci.math.*&as_uau
thors=kevin%20brown
??? The slimelink doesn't appear on the first 10 items in this google
search. If you found a different author, please cite the reference, not
some weird search critera.
> You are taking this *way* too emotionally. Poor you.
>
> [snip unread]
Really? Do you think it's proper to provide false allegations, deliberate
distortions and outright lies? Against someone who can't defend themselves?
Exactly how emotional should I be when confronted with such slime?
greywolf42
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:...> news:2202379a.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > >Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:2202379a.03060...@posting.google.com...
> >
{snip -- sent too soon}
> > The GR *proof* I
> > currently accept is posted here....
> >
> > Subject: Re: light, any objections to the accepted?
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> > Date: 2002-06-20 07:39:42 PST
> >
> > (Sorry, I don't know how to make this a hyperlink)
>
> The easy way is to find it on GoogleGroups. Click on the thread, then
view
> "this document only." The link will be displayed in your newsreader, for
> you to copy.
There are several posts on 6/20/2002. The one posted by you is:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3413092797d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=3d11fc4c_3%40news.iglou.com
There is zero content on aberration or "velocity-dependent back-action" in
this post.
However, you are responding to your own post in the above post. Your prior
post (that the above is "responding" to) is:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3413092797d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=2202379a.0206190628.2df2f0b1%40posting.google.com
And in neither case, did you actually address any of TVF's statements. Nor
did TVF or anyone else followup. Your statemtents therefore do no
constitute a "proof". Especially as aberration is not addressed in either
post. You seem to confuse aberration with acceleration.
"Ha ha..Very true, do you think 'I agree with Einstein' is too short? Do you
really want a complete proof? " Such was not provided.
{snip}
greywolf42
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3413092797d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=3d11fc4c_3%40news.iglou.com
Your statements therefore do not constitute a "proof". As aberration is not
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vehk3m5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:ngNFa.48184$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
[snip]
> > Besides, in this thread you said
> > "Goodbye in this thread"
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=9W3Ea.40527$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
> > Like you said
> > "Goodbye in this thread"
> > on http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodBye.html
> >
> > If you keep lying like that, how do you think people can ever trust you?
>
> It indicates that I am ceasing discussion on a specific set of claims, with
> a specific poster in the thread. Not goodbye to all posters in the thread.
You said goodbye to me. And still answered in the same thread.
To me.
Just like the other time.
> In case you increase your logic skills above the 2nd grade, the point is
> that I don't waste my time after a few rounds of repeated idiocy from
> specific posters. And sometimes the poster in question opens a new claim
> within the thread.
It was the same claim from the same person: that you are dense.
But of course, you'll be the last person to understand. Poor you.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vehk3oa...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:k1NFa.48156$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vef6d62...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > [snip unread]
> >
> > > > The fallacies and
> > > > errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
> > > > www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.
> > >
> > > And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is
> a
> > > morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies.
> Why do
> > > you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists
> nowhere
> > > in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up
> that
> > > site.
> >
> > Speicher?
>
> Yes. According to Speicher. It matters not who coded the web page.
The author is Kevin Brown. Not Speicher.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=sci.physics.*%20sci.math.*&as_uau
> thors=kevin%20brown
>
> ??? The slimelink doesn't appear on the first 10 items in this google
> search. If you found a different author, please cite the reference, not
> some weird search critera.
>
> > You are taking this *way* too emotionally. Poor you.
> >
> > [snip unread]
>
> Really? Do you think it's proper to provide false allegations, deliberate
> distortions and outright lies? Against someone who can't defend themselves?
> Exactly how emotional should I be when confronted with such slime?
Way way way too emotionally.
Almost personally.
Poor you.
Dirk Vdm
Ed Stamm
>The time-delay factor is not "bundled" into an "effective
>radial distance."
Can you post Beckmann's derivation of his force law so we can
see for ourselves?
>Force is -phi / r.
Um, no. Given a velocity-dependent potential V(r,r'), the specific
radial force is d(dV/dr')/dt - dV/dr. If you insert Gerber's
potential into this you get Gerber's force law. But Gerber's force
law is NOT the same as Beckmann's. Beckmann's force law is (if we
set c=1 for ease of typing) -(m/r^2)/(1-r')^2, whereas Gerber's force
law is -(m/r^2)[6rr"-2r'(1-r')+(1-r')^2]/(1 - r'/c)^4. (This is
equivalent to equations (10) and (11) in Beckmann.) This force law
gives the right orbital precession, but it is obviously not Beckmann's
law, it is Gerber's. Beckmann's force law is equation (19) from the
earlier section. Doesn't this discrepancy trouble you? It is direct
and irrefutable proof that Beckmann's force law does NOT correspond
to Gerber's potential.
>...your claim that Beckmann's equation (8) was incorrect is still
>wrong -- for the seven reasons below.
>
>1) The source of equation (8) contains the (1 - r'/c) squared.
The has already been explained. The "source equation" is Beckmann's
force law, from which he claims to deduce a potential, but the only
thing he does with the potential is determine the force law! Since
Beckmann BEGINS with a force law, he had no reason to even consider a
potential. Of course, as an academic exercise he can, if he chooses,
infer the potential that corresponds to his force law, and he can then
reverse the process and determine the force law that corresponds to
this potential, but if he does this correctly, he better end up with
his original force law! Beckmann doesn't.
Actually, he doesn't do either of those steps. He doesn't derive
a potential from his force law, he simply points to his force law
and says "here's the potential", and then writes down a potential
that you say is not what he meant to write. Then he takes Gerber's
potential, which he claims is the same as his own, and derives the
corresponding force law, and never bats an eye when it turns out
that this force law bears no resemblence to his own (Beckmann's)
force law. Without wanting to be mean-spirited, that is simply
nuts.
>2) It is used as a square in Beckmann's following equations
>(where he emulates Gerber).
The "it" that is used in those equations is Gerber's potential
and Gerber's force law, not Beckmann's. Beckmann writes down a
potential, supposedly based on a force law but with no derivation,
and what he wrote down does NOT have a square. (Whether or not
that was a typo will become apparent when he derives the force
law from that potential.) Then he says his potential is the same
as Gerber's, which DOES have a square. Then he uses Gerber's
potential to derive Gerber's force law, which turns out to be
nothing like Beckmann's force law, and then he uses Gerber's
force law to determine the orbital precession.
What Beckmann needed to do was to determine the precession from
HIS OWN force law, but he does not do this (and for good reason,
because his force law doesn't give the right answer).
>3) Beckmann makes an explicit effort to compare "his" potential
>equation with Gerber's potential equations.
Indeed he does, and the care with which he conducted this
comparison is obvious. We can compare them ourselves, and
we can decide if the potential he wrote was just a typo by
comparing the force law corresponding to that potential with
Beckmann's force law. They don't match.
>4) Beckmann notes that the only "difference" between the two is
>the square root term in Beckmann's work.
It is more correct to say that Beckmann erroneously claims that
the only difference is the square root factor. The most important
difference escaped his notice, namely, the missing factor of
1/(1 - r'/c). Obviously Beckmann WANTED his potential to be the
same as Gerber's, because Gerber's potential is known to give the
right precession. Unfortunately for Beckmann, his potential (and
more importantly his force law) is not the same as Gerber's.
>5) Beckmann reiterates that the two equations are identical --
>since the square root term is essentially 1.
Beckmann was grossly in error. The proof is easy. Determine the
force law corresponding to Gerber's potential. If it is the same
as Beckmann's force law, then we must conceed that Beckmann had
the same potential, BUT if the force laws are different, then
obviously the potentials are different. (Force law and potential
field are just two different ways of expressing the same thing.)
What are the facts? The force law from Gerber's potential is
nothing like Beckmann's force law, from which he supposedly
derived Gerber's potential! Conclusion: Beckmann was totally
screwed up.
>6) Beckmann follows determines the equations of motion by using
>Gerber's method -- which uses a power series expansion for the
>(1 - r'/c) SQUARED term.*
Of COURSE he does. He is using Gerber's potential. No one is
disputing that Gerber's potential has a squared factor. And no
one is disputing that Beckmann had deluded himself into thinking
his force law led to Gerber's potential. The problem is, it
doesn't. The proof has just been given. If Beckmann's force law
corresponded to Gerber's potential, then Gerber's potential must
correspond to Beckmann's force law (duh!). But it doesn't.
By the way, you promised seven reasons, but only gave six. To
paraphrase a well-known physicist, "If you were right, one would
have been enough".
>Now, if you wish to show me wrong, please identify EXACTLY where
>Beckmann uses the potential WITHOUT the squared (1 - r'/c) term
>in the following work.
You're completely missing the point. Beckmann took Gerber's
potential, which has a squared term. The problem is, this
potential does not correspond to Beckmann's force law, from
which he claims to have derived it. Doesn't that trouble you?
>Earth to Ed: the source of NNPA here is the aberrated forces.
>That is, the "leading" force that arises from the aberrated
>angle. NOT the change in radial force.
You're mistaken. Gerber's force law is a purely central force.
His delay factor applies only radially, and he assumes the Sun
is stationary anyway. (Have you ever considered investing in
a clue?)
>[quoting Beckmann]
>>> It is shown in theoretical mechanics that there are only two
>>> types of central field which give rise to closed orbits: those
>>> whose potential is proportional to 1/r (such as the traditional
>>> Newton-Coulomb field) and those where it is proportional to
>>> l/r^2...
>>
>> That's wrong, because an inverse square potential corresponds
>> to an inverse cube force, which leads to Cotes' spiral orbits,
>> not closed orbits. The two potentials (of the form r^k) that
>> give closed orbits are actually those proportional to 1/r and
>> r^2 (not to 1/r^2). This is covered in Newton's Principia (1687).
I'm surprised you haven't informed us that this was another typo.
Presumably it was just a slip of the pen when Beckmann wrote 1/r^2
instead of r^2 ? He certainly had a knack for typos at key points.
>[quoting Beckmann again]
>>>It was observed as early as 1880 that the axis of Mercury's
>>>elliptical orbit is turning very slowly in the direction of its
>>>rotation about the sun....
>>
>> That's sloppy scholarship. Le Verrier announced the anomalous
>> precession in 1859.
>
>"As early as" does not exclude LeVerrier. (It is a statement
>equivalent "no later than.")... Beckmann's statement is just fine.
The same excuse could be made for saying "as early as 1890", or
even "as early as 2003". I repeat, it was sloppy scholarship.
>{Another invisible snip by Ed, to distance himself from ...
>charges of "sloppy scholarship" -- which resulted from pure bile
>and errors on his own part.}
If something happenned in 1859, and a historical account says
it happenned "as early as 1880", that is a textbook example of
what is called 'sloppy scholarship'. Why would I wish to distance
myself from this observation? Honestly, Barry, you posted a
long quote from someone and challenged anyone to criticize
it, so I did. Now you come back with this "bile" stuff. If
you weren't prepared for criticism, you shouldn't have posted
it and asked for criticism. I stand by my observation: saying
the anomalous precession of Mercury was known "as early as 1880"
is sloppy scholarship.
>...you think that Beckmann and Gerber's theoretical basis is
>not stated. Is that what this whole diatrabe is about?
It's not a diatrabe. You posted something by Beckmann, and asked
anyone who still thinks Beckmann was a "nutter" to identify
specific errors in it. I did so. They are numerous, fundamental
and glaring. Now it turns out you really didn't want to hear
about them.
>> Have you actually READ Gerber's paper? Can you explain
>> where the extra factor of 1/(1 - r'/c) came from?
>
>Yes. And did so in the post that you have snipped up.
No you did not. Nothing in this thread has given any hint of
GERBER's derivation of his potential. (By the way, I notice
that you declined to say whether you have actually read Gerber's
paper. I think that answers my question.) You have posted some
quotes from BECKMANN, and those have been shown to be totally
screwed up and non-sensical. He started with a force law, then
claimed that it corresponds to a certain potential (without
giving any explanation of the alleged correspondence), then
said it was essentially identical to a different potential
(despite the fact that it manifestly is not), and then derives
from this other potential a force law that differs radically
from the force law from which he supposedly derived it!
greywolf42
And your basis for this claim is what?
> >
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=sci.physics.*%20sci.math.*&as_uau
> > thors=kevin%20brown
> >
> > ??? The slimelink doesn't appear on the first 10 items in this google
> > search. If you found a different author, please cite the reference, not
> > some weird search critera.
Dink van der coward again refuses to back up his claim.
> > > You are taking this *way* too emotionally. Poor you.
> > >
> > > [snip unread]
> >
> > Really? Do you think it's proper to provide false allegations,
deliberate
> > distortions and outright lies? Against someone who can't defend
themselves?
> > Exactly how emotional should I be when confronted with such slime?
>
> Way way way too emotionally.
> Almost personally.
> Poor you.
The coward posts again! Phyics-free, as always.