Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Einstein's biggest mistakes
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Koobee Wublee
Jun 4, 2013, 2:05:27 AM6/4/13
to
On May 27, 5:11 pm, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes#.UaPz90jnitI
You can add the following to the list. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/55838215db63f7ba
Another one is the pre-1915 derivation of the perihelion advance of
Mercury. Previously, Paul Gerber had derived this same thing by
modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (dr/dt)
terms. Before GR, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
modified the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (1/r^2)
terms instead of (dr/dt) terms. He should have easily found the right
gravitational potential, but he fvcked up really bad. <shrug>
Now, does the Schwarzschild metric really predicts a 43” seconds of
perihelion advance per century? Besides the Euler-Lagrange equation,
associated with the angular displacement, that deals with the
conservation of angular momentum, there is another one that deals with
r. From the latter Euler-Lagrange equation derived using the same
method as Gerber, it only yields half of the so-called accepted
number. The self-styled physicists are guilty of cherry-picking the
equation of their very choice to derive the desired results. <shrug>
Of course, the loudest mouth to support SR or GR are the ones who
cannot do any math to save their Einstein Dingleberry asses. Does
anyone what to go there? <shrug>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes#.UaPz90jnitI
You can add the following to the list. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/55838215db63f7ba
Another one is the pre-1915 derivation of the perihelion advance of
Mercury. Previously, Paul Gerber had derived this same thing by
modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (dr/dt)
terms. Before GR, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
modified the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (1/r^2)
terms instead of (dr/dt) terms. He should have easily found the right
gravitational potential, but he fvcked up really bad. <shrug>
Now, does the Schwarzschild metric really predicts a 43” seconds of
perihelion advance per century? Besides the Euler-Lagrange equation,
associated with the angular displacement, that deals with the
conservation of angular momentum, there is another one that deals with
r. From the latter Euler-Lagrange equation derived using the same
method as Gerber, it only yields half of the so-called accepted
number. The self-styled physicists are guilty of cherry-picking the
equation of their very choice to derive the desired results. <shrug>
Of course, the loudest mouth to support SR or GR are the ones who
cannot do any math to save their Einstein Dingleberry asses. Does
anyone what to go there? <shrug>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 4, 2013, 6:20:42 AM6/4/13
to
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
general?
Henry Wilson DSc.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 4, 2013, 1:15:49 PM6/4/13
to
shrugometer read-out suggests a book,
_Einstein's Mistakes_; it's all about collaboration/corroboration,
which koobydoobydoo is nto proficient @
_Einstein's Mistakes_; it's all about collaboration/corroboration,
which koobydoobydoo is nto proficient @
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 4, 2013, 4:52:47 PM6/4/13
to
On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
> all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
> general?
What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.
>
> What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
> all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
> general?
The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
Relativity hasn't changed that.
According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.
There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
but this effect is minute.
And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
are precessing by the same reasons.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 4, 2013, 7:02:36 PM6/4/13
to
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:52:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
wrote:
>On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
>> all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
>> general?
>
>What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.
>
>The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
>(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
>it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
>Relativity hasn't changed that.
Maybe they all got it wrong.
In the frame of mercury, all the planets move in ellipses that appear to be
precessing because of their own orbital motion. Right?
Why should that have a nett force on Mercury over a long period of time?
Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?
>According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
>per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
>of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
>Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
>too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
>precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
>per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
>the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
>cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
>(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
>It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
>GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.
Only after Einstein added the infamous factor of 2 after he found his original
prediction was wrong.
>There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
>but this effect is minute.
The effect of the speed of gravity isn 't.
>And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
>are precessing by the same reasons.
Something doesn't add up. I don't see that the fact that all planets are
orbiting in the same sense should cause precession. Where is the evidence of a
one way 'tug'? If some are pulled one way, others must be pulled the other
way.
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
>> all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
>> general?
>
>What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.
>
>The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
>(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
>it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
>Relativity hasn't changed that.
In the frame of mercury, all the planets move in ellipses that appear to be
precessing because of their own orbital motion. Right?
Why should that have a nett force on Mercury over a long period of time?
Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?
>According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
>per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
>of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
>Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
>too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
>precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
>per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
>the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
>cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
>(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
>It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
>GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.
prediction was wrong.
>There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
>but this effect is minute.
>And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
>are precessing by the same reasons.
orbiting in the same sense should cause precession. Where is the evidence of a
one way 'tug'? If some are pulled one way, others must be pulled the other
way.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Jun 4, 2013, 7:50:57 PM6/4/13
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:kolk33$8qs$1...@news.albasani.net...
======================================================
Porkie Andersen is displaying just how gullible he really is.
One century is 415 orbits of Mercury.
Each orbit is 360 * 60 * 60 arc seconds
43/ (415 * 360 * 60 *60) = 43/537840000 = 7.995e-8
and so from 1815 to 1915 Einstein carefully aimed
his wooden telescope at Mercury to find its exact
position every night, and then with his trusty slide
rule and book of Naperian log tables exactly fitted
the numbers to his crackpot algebra.
Pork pies is Cockney rhyming slang for lies, and Porkie
Andersen isn't just a liar, he's a STOOOPID liar.
Porkie Andersen is displaying just how gullible he really is.
One century is 415 orbits of Mercury.
Each orbit is 360 * 60 * 60 arc seconds
43/ (415 * 360 * 60 *60) = 43/537840000 = 7.995e-8
and so from 1815 to 1915 Einstein carefully aimed
his wooden telescope at Mercury to find its exact
position every night, and then with his trusty slide
rule and book of Naperian log tables exactly fitted
the numbers to his crackpot algebra.
Pork pies is Cockney rhyming slang for lies, and Porkie
Andersen isn't just a liar, he's a STOOOPID liar.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 5, 2013, 5:33:47 PM6/5/13
to
On 05.06.2013 01:02, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:52:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>> What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
>>> all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
>>> general?
>>
>> What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.
>>
>> The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
>> (NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
>> it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
>> Relativity hasn't changed that.
>
> Maybe they all got it wrong.
Not likely. Remember that Le Verrier calculated the Newtonian
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:52:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>> What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
>>> all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
>>> general?
>>
>> What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.
>>
>> The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
>> (NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
>> it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
>> Relativity hasn't changed that.
>
> Maybe they all got it wrong.
prediction back in the mid 19. century (without computer. Impressive!),
and since then a lot of people have repeated it with better precision,
lately with the aid of computers.
Multi body calculations like this are very complex to do analytically,
but shouldn't be very hard to simulate on a computer, which
I am sure is done.
I think the Newtonian prediction is very well established.
> In the frame of mercury, all the planets move in ellipses that appear to be
> precessing because of their own orbital motion. Right?
> Why should that have a nett force on Mercury over a long period of time?
'pulling' Mercury. A ring of tiny stationary planets with
the same total mass as Jupiter would do the same job.
Since we are talking of a tiny precession, Jupiter will make
thousands of orbits before the precession becomes 360 degrees.
The (Mercury) annual precession will vary depending on Jupiter's
position, but the long term average precession will be as if Jupiter
were distributed in a continuous ring with the same mass as Jupiter.
This 'ring' will perturb the gravitational potential around
the Sun, so it isn't quite proportional to -1/r, and the speed
of Mercury at the aphelion will be a bit higher than it should
be according to Kepler's laws. This will have the effect of
rotating the (somewhat perturbed) ellipse a little.
Consider this:
Solar system seen from 'above'.
S - Sun, M - Mercury at aphelion. J - Jupiter
S M J
M's speed is higher than if Jupiter weren't there.
(The ellipse is distorted)
J S M
M's speed is lower than if Jupiter weren't there.
But since the distance to J is bigger, this doesn't
quite cancel the former case, so the average is
that M's speed at aphelion is higher than it would
have been without J.
> Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?
to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
with retarded gravity. None has been successful.
Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.
>> According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
>> per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
>> of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
>> Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
>> too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
>> precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
>> per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
>> the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
>> cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
>> (Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
Maybe an Earth twin was hiding behind the Sun?
>> It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
>> GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.
>
> Only after Einstein added the infamous factor of 2 after he found his original
> prediction was wrong.
We are not talking about gravitational bending of light.
And Einstein never "added a factor of two" to anything.
GR correctly predicts the gravitational bending of light.
Period.
His 1911 prediction for the bending of light was plain
wrong, because he basically used "falling light", and thus got
the same wrong answer as Newtonian gravitation gives.
And the Newtonian prediction happens to be wrong by a factor 2.
>> There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
>> but this effect is minute.
>
> The effect of the speed of gravity isn 't.
>> And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
>> are precessing by the same reasons.
>
> Something doesn't add up. I don't see that the fact that all planets are
> orbiting in the same sense should cause precession. Where is the evidence of a
> one way 'tug'? If some are pulled one way, others must be pulled the other
> way.
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
That you don't understand it right away doesn't mean that it
doesn't add up.
What's your point anyway?
Are you claiming that since you don't understand it, Newton
doesn't predict a precession of the perihelion of Mercury? :-)
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Koobee Wublee
Jun 5, 2013, 8:45:26 PM6/5/13
to
On Jun 5, 2:33 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> Not likely. Remember that Le Verrier calculated the Newtonian
> prediction back in the mid 19. century (without computer. Impressive!),
> and since then a lot of people have repeated it with better precision,
> lately with the aid of computers.
> Multi body calculations like this are very complex to do analytically,
> but shouldn't be very hard to simulate on a computer, which
> I am sure is done.
Le Verrier reported to have observed 5,600 seconds of perihelion
> Not likely. Remember that Le Verrier calculated the Newtonian
> prediction back in the mid 19. century (without computer. Impressive!),
> and since then a lot of people have repeated it with better precision,
> lately with the aid of computers.
> Multi body calculations like this are very complex to do analytically,
> but shouldn't be very hard to simulate on a computer, which
> I am sure is done.
advance per century. You are trying to make the case where the last
digit is indeed significant. Is that a coincidence that the last
digit of significance is 0? Out of these, 5,025 is supposed to have
come from the wobbling of earth’s rotational axis which completes a
cycle in 25,800 years that is about a third of known history. The
claimed accuracy in his observation is somewhat fishy. Why should any
serious person give Le Verrier the benefit of doubt? <shrug>
> I think the Newtonian prediction is very well established.
> It will have an effect, and many anti-relativists have tried
> to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
> with retarded gravity. None has been successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber
The only objection is the way he put that modified gravitational
potential together. This is within the same inquiry as Koobee Wublee
objects to using the Schwarzschild metric as the representation to
GR. <shrug>
> Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
> be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
> you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.
without (dr/dt) term just like what Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar had done before GR. The modified terms are
in the second order effect where they do not affect the orbit per
Newtonian discussions. <shrug>
> Le Verrier needed another planet to account for the anomaly.
> Maybe an Earth twin was hiding behind the Sun?
further into the sun. <shrug>
> And Einstein never "added a factor of two" to anything.
> GR correctly predicts the gravitational bending of light.
> Period.
between cannot be observed to bend since curved space does not result
in gravity. Does Paul wish to take an opposite stand on that? :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/011e3a0a976d4006
<shrug>
> His 1911 prediction for the bending of light was plain
> wrong, because he basically used "falling light", and thus got
> the same wrong answer as Newtonian gravitation gives.
> And the Newtonian prediction happens to be wrong by a factor 2.
that factor of 2 but guessed. See the link provided above. Under the
Schwarzschild metric, there is no way in hell that curved space would
result in permanent photon bending. The only bend would come from
gravitational time dilation which agrees with Newtonian result if
photons are treated like classical particles. This means all
calculations of photon bending by self-styled physicists have all been
shamelessly fudged. <shrug>
What are you afraid of? Want to pick one and start discussing about
it, Paul? :-)
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 5, 2013, 9:52:48 PM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:33:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
According to that theory, the orbit should be continually expanding and
changing eccentricity as well.
What is wrong with this counter argument?
Mercury orbits around the J-S centre of gravity.
Over time, any consequent change in the direction of the major axis should be
balanced, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Any precession should be cyclical,
averaging zero.
>> Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?
>
>It will have an effect, and many anti-relativists have tried
>to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
>with retarded gravity. None has been successful.
>
>Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
>be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
>you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.
As you know, the precession of other planets is almost immeasurable small.
The bending of light by the sun has not been measured accurately enough to
deterimine whether the factor of 2 exists or doesn't exist.
>See above.
>
>That you don't understand it right away doesn't mean that it
>doesn't add up.
>
>What's your point anyway?
>Are you claiming that since you don't understand it, Newton
>doesn't predict a precession of the perihelion of Mercury? :-)
Henry Wilson DSc.
changing eccentricity as well.
What is wrong with this counter argument?
Mercury orbits around the J-S centre of gravity.
Over time, any consequent change in the direction of the major axis should be
balanced, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Any precession should be cyclical,
averaging zero.
>> Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?
>
>It will have an effect, and many anti-relativists have tried
>to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
>with retarded gravity. None has been successful.
>
>Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
>be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
>you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.
deterimine whether the factor of 2 exists or doesn't exist.
>See above.
>
>That you don't understand it right away doesn't mean that it
>doesn't add up.
>
>What's your point anyway?
>Are you claiming that since you don't understand it, Newton
>doesn't predict a precession of the perihelion of Mercury? :-)
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 6, 2013, 4:23:34 AM6/6/13
to
are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
> Over time, any consequent change in the direction of the major axis should be
> balanced, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Any precession should be cyclical,
> averaging zero.
I note with interest that according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge,
Newtonian mechanics/gravitation predicts no precession
of the perihelion of Mercury.
Let's leave it at that.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 6, 2013, 6:08:01 AM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
remembering that the C of G continually moves.
The acceleration of the space station at any instant is determined by the
vector sum of ALL forces acting on it. Even YOU should know that.
What is more, both the Earth and the moon have actually acquired small wobbles
due to the existence of the space station....but the sun has not.
>> Over time, any consequent change in the direction of the major axis should be
>> balanced, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Any precession should be cyclical,
>> averaging zero.
>
>OK.
>I note with interest that according to Henry George Wilson ,
shouldn't I?
I have suggested that there should be a cyclically varying wobble of the major
axis as well as a continually changing orbit shape. Even if all the planets
are orbiting in the same sense, when viewed in Mercury's frame, there appears
to be no grounds for claiming that there exists a long term directional bias
in all the forces exerted on the planet.
>Let's leave it at that.
Henry Wilson DSc.
remembering that the C of G continually moves.
The acceleration of the space station at any instant is determined by the
vector sum of ALL forces acting on it. Even YOU should know that.
What is more, both the Earth and the moon have actually acquired small wobbles
due to the existence of the space station....but the sun has not.
>> Over time, any consequent change in the direction of the major axis should be
>> balanced, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Any precession should be cyclical,
>> averaging zero.
>
>OK.
>Newtonian mechanics/gravitation predicts no precession
>of the perihelion of Mercury.
Nothing you have said suggests that it should. You claim Newton is wrong, why
>of the perihelion of Mercury.
shouldn't I?
I have suggested that there should be a cyclically varying wobble of the major
axis as well as a continually changing orbit shape. Even if all the planets
are orbiting in the same sense, when viewed in Mercury's frame, there appears
to be no grounds for claiming that there exists a long term directional bias
in all the forces exerted on the planet.
>Let's leave it at that.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 6, 2013, 3:35:21 PM6/6/13
to
On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
>> are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
>
> Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
> remembering that the C of G continually moves.
Good grief, Ralph.
>> And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
>> are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
>
> Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
> remembering that the C of G continually moves.
Do you never think before posting? :-)
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 6, 2013, 3:41:26 PM6/6/13
to
Paul B. Andersen <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
> On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.
>>>
>>> And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
>>> are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
>>
>> Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to
>> that, remembering that the C of G continually moves.
>
> Good grief, Ralph.
> Do you never think before posting? :-)
What he writes is of no importance.
> On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.
>>>
>>> And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
>>> are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
>>
>> Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to
>> that, remembering that the C of G continually moves.
>
> Good grief, Ralph.
> Do you never think before posting? :-)
What you reply is of no importance.
The only thing he cares about is that someone replies.
Dirk Vdm
Koobee Wublee
Jun 6, 2013, 8:04:42 PM6/6/13
to
On Jun 6, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 06.06.2013 18:33, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am really curious here : you mean GR predicts exactly 43"
> > per century? What are the limits of error here: if we improve
> > the accuracy of measurements in the future and it turns out
> > to be 43.0001" per century does it mean GR is invalidated or
> > just simply not accurate, or do we blame the other effects
> > for this?
>
> According to:
> Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
> GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>
> According to:
> Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions".
> Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
> (both relative to 'stationary space')
>
> So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more closely?
<shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772 years (with no
error bar given) which translates to 257.72 centuries.
360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0” (with no
error bar given and with unknown digits of significance but at least
2).
5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”
It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the Schwarzschild
metric. So, it looks like the data is fudged as well as the
prediction. <shrug>
Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
your elderly age? :-)
> On 06.06.2013 18:33, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am really curious here : you mean GR predicts exactly 43"
> > per century? What are the limits of error here: if we improve
> > the accuracy of measurements in the future and it turns out
> > to be 43.0001" per century does it mean GR is invalidated or
> > just simply not accurate, or do we blame the other effects
> > for this?
>
> According to:
> Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
> GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>
> According to:
> Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions".
> Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
> (both relative to 'stationary space')
>
> So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more closely?
<shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772 years (with no
error bar given) which translates to 257.72 centuries.
360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0” (with no
error bar given and with unknown digits of significance but at least
2).
5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”
It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the Schwarzschild
metric. So, it looks like the data is fudged as well as the
prediction. <shrug>
Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
your elderly age? :-)
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 6, 2013, 8:11:18 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:35:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
Norway, no matter how big or little, could be so ignorant of basic
physics....but then, this current one is he who invented curved light,
painless body stretching and who keeps a team of tick eating fairies which is
also responsible for adjusting the speed of every photon in the universe to be
exactly c relative to little planet Earth....so he can't be completely
stupid...
>>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.
>>>
>>> And the International Space Station and other man made satellites are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
>>
>> Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
>> remembering that the C of G continually moves.
>
>Good grief, Ralph.
>Do you never think before posting? :-)
Yes. Right now I'm thinking how surprising it is that any professor from
>On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.
>>>
>>> And the International Space Station and other man made satellites are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)
>>
>> Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
>> remembering that the C of G continually moves.
>
>Good grief, Ralph.
>Do you never think before posting? :-)
Norway, no matter how big or little, could be so ignorant of basic
physics....but then, this current one is he who invented curved light,
painless body stretching and who keeps a team of tick eating fairies which is
also responsible for adjusting the speed of every photon in the universe to be
exactly c relative to little planet Earth....so he can't be completely
stupid...
>>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 6, 2013, 8:14:00 PM6/6/13
to
wrong?
>
>Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson DSc.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 6, 2013, 10:43:51 PM6/6/13
to
haha; no
<shrugometer>
>
> - Show quoted text -
<shrugometer>
>
> Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
> your elderly age? :-)- Hide quoted text -
> Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
>
> - Show quoted text -
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 7, 2013, 7:40:11 AM6/7/13
to
On 6/6/2013 7:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0� (with no
fascinating that you do this calculation with unknown precision (but at
least two digits of significance in the first number -- that is, the 5
and the 6 but nothing after that), and then you claim an uncertainty in
the final sum of 0.7".
did you learn this skill in junior high, or did you miss those years?
> As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0� (with no
> error bar given and with unknown digits of significance but at least
> 2).
>
> 5,600.0� � 5,028.7� � (531.63� � 0.69�) = 39.7� � 0.7�
> 2).
>
fascinating that you do this calculation with unknown precision (but at
least two digits of significance in the first number -- that is, the 5
and the 6 but nothing after that), and then you claim an uncertainty in
the final sum of 0.7".
did you learn this skill in junior high, or did you miss those years?
Koobee Wublee
Jun 7, 2013, 12:45:08 PM6/7/13
to
On Jun 7, 4:40 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> On 6/6/2013 7:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On 6/6/2013 7:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> > > According to:
> > > Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
> > > GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>
> > > According to:
> > > Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
> > > Planetary Motions".
> > > Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
> > > The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> > > and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
> > > (both relative to 'stationary space')
>
> > > So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> > > GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>
> > Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
> > closely? <shrug>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
>
> > According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772
> > years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
> > centuries.
>
> > 360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
>
> > As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0”
> > > According to:
> > > Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
> > > GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>
> > > According to:
> > > Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
> > > Planetary Motions".
> > > Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
> > > The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> > > and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
> > > (both relative to 'stationary space')
>
> > > So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> > > GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>
> > Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
> > closely? <shrug>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
>
> > According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772
> > years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
> > centuries.
>
> > 360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
>
> > (with no error bar given and with unknown digits of
> > significance but at least 2).
>
> > significance but at least 2).
>
> > 5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”
>
> > It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the
> > Schwarzschild metric. So, it looks like the data is
> > fudged as well as the prediction. <shrug>
>
>
> > It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the
> > Schwarzschild metric. So, it looks like the data is
> > fudged as well as the prediction. <shrug>
>
> fascinating that you do this calculation with unknown precision (but at
> least two digits of significance in the first number -- that is, the 5
> and the 6 but nothing after that), and then you claim an uncertainty in
> the final sum of 0.7".
PD aka absolutely imbecile needs to reread what Koobee Wublee has
> least two digits of significance in the first number -- that is, the 5
> and the 6 but nothing after that), and then you claim an uncertainty in
> the final sum of 0.7".
written. Koobee Wublee was pointing that there is no accuracy data of
Le Verrier’s observation which is suspiciously good to 5 digits of
significance, and yet the self-styled physics like PD aka absolutely
imbecile are able to see the high precision in the making. <shrug>
> did you learn this skill in junior high, or did you miss
> those years?
bullshitting accuracy out of noise? <shrug>
Ps. Koobee Wublee notices PD aka absolutely imbecile is still 2 times
zones ahead of Koobee Wublee. So, PD aka absolutely imbecile is still
in Texas. His bullshit skills allows PD aka absolutely imbecile to
brag being a world class traveler since PD aka absolutely imbecile is
able to bounce off servers from different corners of the globe.
<shrug>
Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated
among the self-styled physicists?
** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NOISE IS COHERENCY
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION
<shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 7, 2013, 3:39:37 PM6/7/13
to
The more gigantic blunder you make, the more stupid I am.
This time I was very stupid.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 7, 2013, 5:12:30 PM6/7/13
to
According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
"within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
So what?
Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
but now they are mostly of historical interest.
And note that the more resent data I gave above were
relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Jun 7, 2013, 5:42:30 PM6/7/13
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:kotic3$bpf$1...@news.albasani.net...
============================================
Yeah, but how many angels DO dance on the head of a pin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
Yeah, but how many angels DO dance on the head of a pin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 7, 2013, 6:24:10 PM6/7/13
to
On Jun 7, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> What's your point?
The self-styled physicists just ran with Le Verrier’s data without any
rigorous evaluations per Tom’s own standard. What a hypocrite, no?
<shrug>
> According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
> "within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
Never mind the number (38”) that Le Verrier had computed. What is
important is the overall perihelion advance of Mercury which according
to Le Verrier is 5,600” per century because we know how to compute for
the anomaly from known effects of perihelion advance/retardation.
<shrug>
> So what?
> Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
> but now they are mostly of historical interest.
The 38” is considered as historical interest like what you said, but
the 5,600” is of great importance to modern science. The accuracy of
the latter number cannot be handwaved away since the accuracy of the
said anomaly is thoroughly dependent on the accuracy of this 5,600”.
<shrug>
> And note that the more resent data I gave above were
> relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
> a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.
This is impossible. The earth’s rotational axis is wobbling, and over
time it will show up in every single terrestrial measurement of
astronomical interests. shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”
Among them, the precession of the equinox has been the most accurately
measured besides the human history has only spanned a third of the
period of the precession. The anomaly due to the processor of the
equinox should be constant over time. <shrug>
Le Verrier was a great astronomer, and there is no doubt about that.
He was able to observe Uranus’s orbital anomaly to deduce the presence
of Neptune from calculations dependent on the positions of both
planets at a given amount of time. That is why he was able to guide
the observatory to look for Neptune at the right place and the right
moment. <shrug>
If Le Verrier had modeled Neptune as a ring, then there would be no
anomaly in Uranus’s orbit due to that ring outside of Uranus’s orbit.
With that said, if you have modeled all planets into rings, there
would be no orbital anomaly to Mercury. Why? Koobee Wublee senses
another great debate with Paul if Paul wishes to challenge Koobee
Wublee on that one. :-)
Thus, tugs from other solar objects have to be time dependent with
dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
the number you quoted (531.63” +/- 0.69”) would vary somewhat
drastically depending for example if all planets are lined up.
Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
532” from the gravitational effect of other planets. <shrug>
That 43” is just a myth conjured up by self-styled physicists to sell
their garbage in SR and GR just because Paul Gerber was able to do it
first. <shrug>
Is Paul really that much out of touch with reality after the
professorship? :-)
The self-styled physicists just ran with Le Verrier’s data without any
rigorous evaluations per Tom’s own standard. What a hypocrite, no?
<shrug>
> According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
> "within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
important is the overall perihelion advance of Mercury which according
to Le Verrier is 5,600” per century because we know how to compute for
the anomaly from known effects of perihelion advance/retardation.
<shrug>
> So what?
> Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
> but now they are mostly of historical interest.
the 5,600” is of great importance to modern science. The accuracy of
the latter number cannot be handwaved away since the accuracy of the
said anomaly is thoroughly dependent on the accuracy of this 5,600”.
<shrug>
> And note that the more resent data I gave above were
> relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
> a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.
time it will show up in every single terrestrial measurement of
astronomical interests. shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”
Among them, the precession of the equinox has been the most accurately
measured besides the human history has only spanned a third of the
period of the precession. The anomaly due to the processor of the
equinox should be constant over time. <shrug>
Le Verrier was a great astronomer, and there is no doubt about that.
He was able to observe Uranus’s orbital anomaly to deduce the presence
of Neptune from calculations dependent on the positions of both
planets at a given amount of time. That is why he was able to guide
the observatory to look for Neptune at the right place and the right
moment. <shrug>
If Le Verrier had modeled Neptune as a ring, then there would be no
anomaly in Uranus’s orbit due to that ring outside of Uranus’s orbit.
With that said, if you have modeled all planets into rings, there
would be no orbital anomaly to Mercury. Why? Koobee Wublee senses
another great debate with Paul if Paul wishes to challenge Koobee
Wublee on that one. :-)
Thus, tugs from other solar objects have to be time dependent with
dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
the number you quoted (531.63” +/- 0.69”) would vary somewhat
drastically depending for example if all planets are lined up.
Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
532” from the gravitational effect of other planets. <shrug>
That 43” is just a myth conjured up by self-styled physicists to sell
their garbage in SR and GR just because Paul Gerber was able to do it
first. <shrug>
Is Paul really that much out of touch with reality after the
professorship? :-)
oriel36
Jun 8, 2013, 3:53:02 AM6/8/13
to
doing.
The precession of the equinoxes is a long term orbital trait and has
nothing whatsoever to do with an axial orientation feature regardless
of how entrenched the opinion is and even if it comes from Copernicus.
A change in axial precession would alter the relationship of axial
orientation to the orbital points of the solstices and equinoxes yet
the data from 5200 years ago where these astronomers aligned their
monuments to the December or June solstices when the polar coordinates
are at a maximum distance from the circle of illumination,indicate no
change in orientation.The light shines down the passageways of those
solar alignments even though they were constructed 5200 years ago or
20% of a precessional cycle.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/grace_notes/one_moment_in_t.php
Empiricists have a habit of using precession as an excuse to bury
their voodoo much like all the other things,something has to be moving
exceptionally fast or exceptionally far away or exceptionally tiny but
that con job has always been recognized for what it is by genuine
empiricists such as Von Humboldt.You are all in on the game,using
terms you barely understand or not at all and only a few people like
Von Humboldt have given their lives to counter this blight on
Western civilization -
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos
You all try to set yourselves apart by shrugging,laughing and swearing
but the more you all try to sound different the more you all look the
same.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 8, 2013, 5:46:02 PM6/8/13
to
Clemence made his measurement during the years 1943-1947.
He observed a shift extrapolated to a century: 5599.74" +/- 0.41
> ** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
to be: 5025.645" +/- 0.5"
So the shift observed by Clemence is 574.10" +/- 0.65"per century
relative to 'stationary space'.
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Koobee Wublee
Jun 8, 2013, 7:05:01 PM6/8/13
to
On Jun 8, 2:46 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
adding an error bar. Did Tom read through Clemence justification for
the claimed accuracy on Le Verrier’s observation? That is assuming we
still trust Tom’s professionalism. <shrug>
> > ** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
>
> Clemence evaluated the precession of the equinox per century
> to be: 5025.645" +/- 0.5"
Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
precession known at that time during Le Verrier’s time. However,
modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
This number suggests to Koobee Wublee that Clemence was just using Le
Verrier’s observation. So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
<shrug>
Assuming Le Verrier’s 5,600” and 532” are right on and due to modern
placement on the accuracy of the period to 25,772 years, the final
anomaly number is off by 10% or so which is still not bad, but it
certainly shatters the blind faith among the self-styled physicists,
no? <shrug>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > > According to:
> > > Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
> > > GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>
> > > According to:
> > > Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
> > > Planetary Motions".
> > > Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
> > > The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> > > and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
> > > (both relative to 'stationary space')
>
> > > So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> > > GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>
> > Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
> > closely? <shrug>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
>
> > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > > According to:
> > > Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
> > > GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>
> > > According to:
> > > Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
> > > Planetary Motions".
> > > Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
> > > The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> > > and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
> > > (both relative to 'stationary space')
>
> > > So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> > > GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>
> > Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
> > closely? <shrug>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
>
> > According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772
> > years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
> > centuries.
>
> > 360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
>
> > As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0”
> > (with no error bar given and with unknown digits of
> > significance but at least 2).
>
> > 5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”
>
> > It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the
> > Schwarzschild metric. So, it looks like the data is
> > fudged as well as the prediction. <shrug>
>
> > years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
> > centuries.
>
> > 360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
>
> > As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0”
> > (with no error bar given and with unknown digits of
> > significance but at least 2).
>
> > 5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”
>
> > It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the
> > Schwarzschild metric. So, it looks like the data is
> > fudged as well as the prediction. <shrug>
>
> > Never mind the number (38”) that Le Verrier had computed. What is
> > important is the overall perihelion advance of Mercury which according
> > to Le Verrier is 5,600” per century because we know how to compute for
> > the anomaly from known effects of perihelion advance/retardation.
> > <shrug>
>
> > important is the overall perihelion advance of Mercury which according
> > to Le Verrier is 5,600” per century because we know how to compute for
> > the anomaly from known effects of perihelion advance/retardation.
> > <shrug>
>
> > The 38” is considered as historical interest like what you said, but
> > the 5,600” is of great importance to modern science. The accuracy of
> > the latter number cannot be handwaved away since the accuracy of the
> > said anomaly is thoroughly dependent on the accuracy of this 5,600”.
> > <shrug>
>
> > > And note that the more resent data I gave above were
> > > relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
> > > a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.
>
> > This is impossible. The earth’s rotational axis is wobbling, and over
> > time it will show up in every single terrestrial measurement of
> > astronomical interests. shrug>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
>
> > To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
> > the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
> > the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>
> > ** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
>
> Why are you so obsessed with Le Verrier's observations?
>
> Clemence made his measurement during the years 1943-1947.
> He observed a shift extrapolated to a century: 5599.74" +/- 0.41
It looks like Clemence was just repeating Le Verrier’s observation by
> > the 5,600” is of great importance to modern science. The accuracy of
> > the latter number cannot be handwaved away since the accuracy of the
> > said anomaly is thoroughly dependent on the accuracy of this 5,600”.
> > <shrug>
>
> > > And note that the more resent data I gave above were
> > > relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
> > > a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.
>
> > This is impossible. The earth’s rotational axis is wobbling, and over
> > time it will show up in every single terrestrial measurement of
> > astronomical interests. shrug>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
>
> > To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
> > the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
> > the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>
> > ** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
>
> Why are you so obsessed with Le Verrier's observations?
>
> Clemence made his measurement during the years 1943-1947.
> He observed a shift extrapolated to a century: 5599.74" +/- 0.41
adding an error bar. Did Tom read through Clemence justification for
the claimed accuracy on Le Verrier’s observation? That is assuming we
still trust Tom’s professionalism. <shrug>
> > ** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
>
> Clemence evaluated the precession of the equinox per century
> to be: 5025.645" +/- 0.5"
precession known at that time during Le Verrier’s time. However,
modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
Verrier’s observation. So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
<shrug>
Assuming Le Verrier’s 5,600” and 532” are right on and due to modern
placement on the accuracy of the period to 25,772 years, the final
anomaly number is off by 10% or so which is still not bad, but it
certainly shatters the blind faith among the self-styled physicists,
no? <shrug>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 9, 2013, 1:46:50 AM6/9/13
to
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:46:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
wrote:
IF Mercury's precession happened to be caused by the presence and movement of
the planets, it should be quite obvious that the process MUST BE chaotic. The
amount of precession AND ITS DIRECTION would be expected to vary widely from
year to year, depending on the relative positions of all the other bodies. An
average over a particular span of ten years could be very different from that
over another ten years. With Jupiter orbiting every ~12 years, averages over
even 100 years would be expected to vary by considerable amounts.
There is no solution to a three body problem. What you are discussing is a
nine body problem. You should look for more realistic causes of precession.
After all, radiation pressure from the sun should have a similarly biased
influence on Mercury's ELLIPTICAL orbit as that which you attribute to the
pull of the planets.
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
the planets, it should be quite obvious that the process MUST BE chaotic. The
amount of precession AND ITS DIRECTION would be expected to vary widely from
year to year, depending on the relative positions of all the other bodies. An
average over a particular span of ten years could be very different from that
over another ten years. With Jupiter orbiting every ~12 years, averages over
even 100 years would be expected to vary by considerable amounts.
There is no solution to a three body problem. What you are discussing is a
nine body problem. You should look for more realistic causes of precession.
After all, radiation pressure from the sun should have a similarly biased
influence on Mercury's ELLIPTICAL orbit as that which you attribute to the
pull of the planets.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 9, 2013, 4:45:27 PM6/9/13
to
> However,
> modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
> affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
As far as I can understand, this paper from 2003 contains
the values now commonly used:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
is given for the precession of the equinox:
p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
The rate of the precession is the derivative:
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
However, Clemence's measurments were done some
0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
p = 5027".58.. per century
I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.
If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"
So GR's prediction is some 1".4 outside of the error bar.
But I am pretty sure the last word isn't said about the precession
of the equinoxes. And there is a comment in the paper above which I
find a bit puzzling:
"The classical "general precession" which mixes the motion of
the equator in the GCRS and the motion of the ecliptic in the
ICRS (and moreover may not be defined in the framework of
General Relativity without fundamental problems) should no
longer be regarded as a primary precession quantity. It is
considered here as a derived quantity,.."
I wonder if there isn't any newer measurements of the precession
of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
find any.
Anybody know?
not enough to falsify GR.
I would question Clemence's measurements. How precise were
they really? His measurements were done during only four years.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Koobee Wublee
Jun 9, 2013, 11:30:21 PM6/9/13
to
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
>
> > To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
> > the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
> > the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>
> > ** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
>
>
> > To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
> > the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
> > the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>
> > ** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
>
> > ** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
>
>
> > Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
> > precession known at that time during Le Verrier’s time. However,
> > modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
> > affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
>
> > affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
>
> As far as I can understand, this paper from 2003 contains
> the values now commonly used:
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
> is given for the precession of the equinox:
> p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
> where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
> The rate of the precession is the derivative:
> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
> This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
> However, Clemence's measurments were done some
> 0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
> p = 5027".58.. per century
>
> I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
> but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.
>
> If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
> we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"
With 38”, 39”, or 40” per 100 years, Le Verrier had weak justification
> the values now commonly used:
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
> is given for the precession of the equinox:
> p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
> where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
> The rate of the precession is the derivative:
> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
> This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
> However, Clemence's measurments were done some
> 0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
> p = 5027".58.. per century
>
> I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
> but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.
>
> If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
> we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"
to search for another planet. The anomaly is not as obvious as
Uranus’s case. <shrug>
> So GR's prediction is some 1".4 outside of the error bar.
>
> I would question Clemence's measurements. How precise were
> they really? His measurements were done during only four years.
Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of Le Verrier’s
> they really? His measurements were done during only four years.
observation about 8 decades prior. Le Verrier was not set out to
measure the accuracy down to the last second, but his motivation was
to find a sum of anomaly for him to justify whether if there is
another planet further inside the orbit of Mercury. He did not find
it. Thus, most of astronomers, and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at
that time just attributed the lack of the extra planet to Le Verrier’s
own observation accuracy. <shrug>
Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier’s observation with
better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be definitively
claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence’s justification is to
claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier’s observation 8 decades
prior. <shrug>
> But I am pretty sure the last word isn't said about the precession
> of the equinoxes. And there is a comment in the paper above which I
> find a bit puzzling:
> "The classical "general precession" which mixes the motion of
> the equator in the GCRS and the motion of the ecliptic in the
> ICRS (and moreover may not be defined in the framework of
> General Relativity without fundamental problems) should no
> longer be regarded as a primary precession quantity. It is
> considered here as a derived quantity,.."
precession of the equinox might be slightly more pronounced as it is
today, but for the large part, the precession of the equinox should be
very a constant given a span of several hundred years. With global
warming in the past few decades where ice from the polar regions are
melting at an unprecedented level, the precession value might be a
little bit higher during Le Verrier’s time. However, Koobee Wublee
does not have the authority to claim 25787 years as did by Le
Verrier. <shrug>
> > ** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”
>
> > Among them, the precession of the equinox has been the most accurately
> > measured besides the human history has only spanned a third of the
> > period of the precession. The anomaly due to the processor of the
> > equinox should be constant over time. <shrug>
>
> > Thus, tugs from other solar objects have to be time dependent with
> > dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
> > throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
> > the number you quoted (531.63” +/- 0.69”) would vary somewhat
> > drastically depending for example if all planets are lined up.
> > Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
> > In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
> > 532” from the gravitational effect of other planets. <shrug>
>
> > dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
> > throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
> > the number you quoted (531.63” +/- 0.69”) would vary somewhat
> > drastically depending for example if all planets are lined up.
> > Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
> > In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
> > 532” from the gravitational effect of other planets. <shrug>
>
> I wonder if there isn't any newer measurements of the precession
> of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
> find any.
With better computer simulation, the tugs from other planets should be
> of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
> find any.
a piece of cake to pin down, and measuring the overall Mercury’s
perihelion since Le Verrier’s time should also be a piece of cake.
The numbers would, of course, be drastically different from Le
Verrier’s. Koobee Wublee thinks it had been done many timed before,
but each time the net result showed great disappoint to the self-
styled physicists. Le Verrier’s 140-year-old observation
embarrassingly seems to be the best and only support to GR regarding
Mercury’s orbital anomaly. Sad for self-styled physicists but very
close to be true. Koobee Wublee would certainly like to know what the
real value of this anomaly is. It does not look like it is anywhere
close to +43” per 100 years from the lack of reports by the self-
styled physicists. Koobee Wublee suspects it is more like null.
<shrug>
> > That 43” is just a myth conjured up by self-styled physicists to sell
> > their garbage in SR and GR just because Paul Gerber was able to do it
> > first. <shrug>
>
> > That 43” is just a myth conjured up by self-styled physicists to sell
> > their garbage in SR and GR just because Paul Gerber was able to do it
> > first. <shrug>
>
> The anomaly is less that 4% off the GR prediction, surely
> not enough to falsify GR.
Clemence tried to justify the validity of GR by placing such precision
> not enough to falsify GR.
on Le Verrier’s observation but instead shot himself in the foot where
he fumbled with the precession of the equinox. The accuracy remains
to be outside of GR’s prediction, and GR’s such prediction is very
much “quantized” which leaves no room to negotiate with that extra 10%
difference. Besides the Schwarzschild metric predicts only +20” to
+30” (1 significant digit) per 100 years. The self-styled physicists
are not interested to do anything for science but to prolong their
elite status quo. Another example of fiasco is the GPS. Remember?
<shrug>
With that said, it is Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. Is Paul
ready for more adventures in differential equations where Koobee
Wublee has buried Paul every single time on simpler mathematics? :-)
Is Paul beginning to wake up? <shrug>
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 10, 2013, 11:50:45 AM6/10/13
to
On 6/8/2013 6:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> This number suggests to Koobee Wublee that Clemence was just using Le
> Verrier’s observation. So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
> <shrug>
it doesn't matter what these things 'suggest to koobee wublee', since
> This number suggests to Koobee Wublee that Clemence was just using Le
> Verrier’s observation. So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
> <shrug>
koobee wublee is an insane attention whore who has a serious detachment
from reality.
hanson
Jun 10, 2013, 1:25:25 PM6/10/13
to
Fatso cranked himself "Absolutely Vertical"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> when he wrote:
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Clemence was just using Le Verrier’s observation.
So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
<shrug>
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Clemence was just using Le Verrier’s observation.
So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
<shrug>
>
Fatso wrote:
it doesn't matter what these things 'suggest to
koobee wublee', since koobee wublee is an insane
attention whore who has a serious detachment
from reality.
>
hanson wrote:
it doesn't matter what these things 'suggest to
koobee wublee', since koobee wublee is an insane
attention whore who has a serious detachment
from reality.
>
but Fatso, your response looks like you are the
"insane attention whore" who got aroused over
KW's <shrug> ...
>
[[[[ KW 1 -:- Fatso 0, zero, nil nada ]]]]
>
Thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahanson
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 10, 2013, 2:40:06 PM6/10/13
to
On 10.06.2013 05:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>
>>>> According to:
>>>> Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
>>>> GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>>
>>>> According to:
>>>> Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
>>>> Planetary Motions".
>>>> Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361�364.
> On Jun 9, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>
>>>> According to:
>>>> Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
>>>> GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
>>
>>>> According to:
>>>> Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
>>>> Planetary Motions".
>>>> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
>>>> and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
>>>> (both relative to 'stationary space')
>>
>>>> So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>>
>>>> GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>>
>>> Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
>>> closely? <shrug>
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
>>
>>> According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772
>>> years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
>>> centuries.
>>
>>> 360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7�
>>>> and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
>>>> (both relative to 'stationary space')
>>
>>>> So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>>
>>>> GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>>
>>> Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
>>> closely? <shrug>
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
>>
>>> According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772
>>> years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
>>> centuries.
>>
>>
>>> As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0�
>>> (with no error bar given and with unknown digits of
>>> significance but at least 2).
>>
>>> 5,600.0� � 5,028.7� � (531.63� +/- 0.69�) = 39.7� +/- 0.7�
>>> significance but at least 2).
>>
>>
>>> It is about 3� less than the fudged prediction of the
>>> Schwarzschild metric. So, it looks like the data is
>>> fudged as well as the prediction. <shrug>
>>
>>> Never mind the number (38�) that Le Verrier had computed. What is
>>> fudged as well as the prediction. <shrug>
>>
>>> important is the overall perihelion advance of Mercury which according
>>> to Le Verrier is 5,600� per century because we know how to compute for
>>> the anomaly from known effects of perihelion advance/retardation.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>> The 38� is considered as historical interest like what you said, but
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>> the 5,600� is of great importance to modern science. The accuracy of
>>> the latter number cannot be handwaved away since the accuracy of the
>>> said anomaly is thoroughly dependent on the accuracy of this 5,600�.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)
>>
>>> To get to (42.45� +/- 1.13�) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
>>> the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
>>> the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>>
>>> ** Le Verrier�s observation = 5,600.00� +/- ?
>>> the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>>
>>
>>> ** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7� +/- ?
>>
>>> Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
>>> precession known at that time during Le Verrier�s time. However,
>>> Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
>>> modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
>>> affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
>>
>> As far as I can understand, this paper from 2003 contains
>> the values now commonly used:
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>> On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
>> is given for the precession of the equinox:
>> p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
>> where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
>> The rate of the precession is the derivative:
>> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
>> This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
>> However, Clemence's measurments were done some
>> 0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
>> p = 5027".58.. per century
>>
>> I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
>> but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.
>>
>> If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
>> we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"
>
> With 38�, 39�, or 40� per 100 years, Le Verrier had weak justification
>>> affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. <shrug>
>>
>> As far as I can understand, this paper from 2003 contains
>> the values now commonly used:
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>> On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
>> is given for the precession of the equinox:
>> p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
>> where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
>> The rate of the precession is the derivative:
>> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
>> This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
>> However, Clemence's measurments were done some
>> 0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
>> p = 5027".58.. per century
>>
>> I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
>> but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.
>>
>> If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
>> we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"
>
> to search for another planet. The anomaly is not as obvious as
> Uranus�s case. <shrug>
>
>> So GR's prediction is some 1".4 outside of the error bar.
>>
>> I would question Clemence's measurements. How precise were
>> they really? His measurements were done during only four years.
I was very wrong about the four years. See below.
>> So GR's prediction is some 1".4 outside of the error bar.
>>
>> I would question Clemence's measurements. How precise were
>> they really? His measurements were done during only four years.
> Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of Le Verrier�s
> observation about 8 decades prior.
Not quite true.
Here is Clemence's paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.
This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!
So to sum it up:
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.
> Le Verrier was not set out to
> measure the accuracy down to the last second, but his motivation was
> to find a sum of anomaly for him to justify whether if there is
> another planet further inside the orbit of Mercury. He did not find
> it. Thus, most of astronomers, and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at
> own observation accuracy. <shrug>
>
> Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier�s observation with
> better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be definitively
> claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence�s justification is to
> claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier�s observation 8 decades
> prior. <shrug>
>
>> But I am pretty sure the last word isn't said about the precession
>> of the equinoxes. And there is a comment in the paper above which I
>> find a bit puzzling:
>> "The classical "general precession" which mixes the motion of
>> the equator in the GCRS and the motion of the ecliptic in the
>> ICRS (and moreover may not be defined in the framework of
>> General Relativity without fundamental problems) should no
>> longer be regarded as a primary precession quantity. It is
>> considered here as a derived quantity,.."
>
> During glacial periods with more ice tapped in the polar regions, the
> precession of the equinox might be slightly more pronounced as it is
> today, but for the large part, the precession of the equinox should be
> very a constant given a span of several hundred years. With global
> warming in the past few decades where ice from the polar regions are
> melting at an unprecedented level, the precession value might be a
> little bit higher during Le Verrier�s time. However, Koobee Wublee
>
>> But I am pretty sure the last word isn't said about the precession
>> of the equinoxes. And there is a comment in the paper above which I
>> find a bit puzzling:
>> "The classical "general precession" which mixes the motion of
>> the equator in the GCRS and the motion of the ecliptic in the
>> ICRS (and moreover may not be defined in the framework of
>> General Relativity without fundamental problems) should no
>> longer be regarded as a primary precession quantity. It is
>> considered here as a derived quantity,.."
>
> During glacial periods with more ice tapped in the polar regions, the
> precession of the equinox might be slightly more pronounced as it is
> today, but for the large part, the precession of the equinox should be
> very a constant given a span of several hundred years. With global
> warming in the past few decades where ice from the polar regions are
> melting at an unprecedented level, the precession value might be a
> does not have the authority to claim 25787 years as did by Le
> Verrier. <shrug>
>
>>> ** Tugs from other planets = 531.63� +/- 0.69�
> Verrier. <shrug>
>
>>
>>> Among them, the precession of the equinox has been the most accurately
>>> measured besides the human history has only spanned a third of the
>>> period of the precession. The anomaly due to the processor of the
>>> equinox should be constant over time. <shrug>
>>
>>> Thus, tugs from other solar objects have to be time dependent with
>>> dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
>>> throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
>>> the number you quoted (531.63� +/- 0.69�) would vary somewhat
>>> Among them, the precession of the equinox has been the most accurately
>>> measured besides the human history has only spanned a third of the
>>> period of the precession. The anomaly due to the processor of the
>>> equinox should be constant over time. <shrug>
>>
>>> Thus, tugs from other solar objects have to be time dependent with
>>> dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
>>> throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
>>> drastically depending for example if all planets are lined up.
>>> Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
>>> In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
>>> 532� from the gravitational effect of other planets. <shrug>
>>> Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
>>> In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
>>
>> I wonder if there isn't any newer measurements of the precession
>> of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
>> find any.
>
> With better computer simulation, the tugs from other planets should be
> a piece of cake to pin down, and measuring the overall Mercury�s
>> I wonder if there isn't any newer measurements of the precession
>> of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
>> find any.
>
> With better computer simulation, the tugs from other planets should be
> perihelion since Le Verrier�s time should also be a piece of cake.
> The numbers would, of course, be drastically different from Le
> Verrier�s. Koobee Wublee thinks it had been done many timed before,
> but each time the net result showed great disappoint to the self-
> styled physicists. Le Verrier�s 140-year-old observation
> embarrassingly seems to be the best and only support to GR regarding
> Mercury�s orbital anomaly. Sad for self-styled physicists but very
> close to be true. Koobee Wublee would certainly like to know what the
> real value of this anomaly is. It does not look like it is anywhere
> close to +43� per 100 years from the lack of reports by the self-
> real value of this anomaly is. It does not look like it is anywhere
> styled physicists. Koobee Wublee suspects it is more like null.
> <shrug>
>
>>> That 43� is just a myth conjured up by self-styled physicists to sell
> <shrug>
>
>>> their garbage in SR and GR just because Paul Gerber was able to do it
>>> first. <shrug>
>>
>> The anomaly is less that 4% off the GR prediction, surely
>> not enough to falsify GR.
>
> Clemence tried to justify the validity of GR by placing such precision
> on Le Verrier�s observation but instead shot himself in the foot where
>>> first. <shrug>
>>
>> The anomaly is less that 4% off the GR prediction, surely
>> not enough to falsify GR.
>
> Clemence tried to justify the validity of GR by placing such precision
> he fumbled with the precession of the equinox. The accuracy remains
> to be outside of GR�s prediction, and GR�s such prediction is very
> much �quantized� which leaves no room to negotiate with that extra 10%
> difference. Besides the Schwarzschild metric predicts only +20� to
> +30� (1 significant digit) per 100 years. The self-styled physicists
> are not interested to do anything for science but to prolong their
> elite status quo. Another example of fiasco is the GPS. Remember?
> <shrug>
>
> With that said, it is Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. Is Paul
> ready for more adventures in differential equations where Koobee
> Wublee has buried Paul every single time on simpler mathematics? :-)
> Is Paul beginning to wake up? <shrug>
>
--
> elite status quo. Another example of fiasco is the GPS. Remember?
> <shrug>
>
> With that said, it is Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. Is Paul
> ready for more adventures in differential equations where Koobee
> Wublee has buried Paul every single time on simpler mathematics? :-)
> Is Paul beginning to wake up? <shrug>
>
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 10, 2013, 3:28:20 PM6/10/13
to
On 10.06.2013 20:40, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Here is Clemence's paper:
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
>
> He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
> of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
> from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
> but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
> which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.
>
> This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
> the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
> were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
> yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
> close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!
>
> So to sum it up:
> Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
> Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
> Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
Should (obviously) be:
>
> Here is Clemence's paper:
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
>
> He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
> of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
> from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
> but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
> which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.
>
> This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
> the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
> were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
> yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
> close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!
>
> So to sum it up:
> Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
> Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
> Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
Precession of the perihelion of Mercury relative to
'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
>
> Conclusion:
> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
> is well inside the error bar.
--
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
>
> Conclusion:
> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
> is well inside the error bar.
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 10, 2013, 3:31:06 PM6/10/13
to
that was expostulatory; no need to <<readmore.com>>
> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
> is well inside the error bar.
> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
> is well inside the error bar.
> >> The anomaly is less that 4% off the GR prediction, surely
> >> not enough to falsify GR.
> read more »
> >> not enough to falsify GR.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 10, 2013, 4:10:44 PM6/10/13
to
On 10.06.2013 05:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>
> With that said, it is Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. Is Paul
> ready for more adventures in differential equations where Koobee
> Wublee has buried Paul every single time on simpler mathematics? :-)
> Is Paul beginning to wake up? <shrug>
>
See Koobee Wublee bury Paul:
> ready for more adventures in differential equations where Koobee
> Wublee has buried Paul every single time on simpler mathematics? :-)
> Is Paul beginning to wake up? <shrug>
>
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Koobees_blunder.pdf
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Koobee Wublee
Jun 10, 2013, 6:44:04 PM6/10/13
to
On Jun 10, 11:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > > So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> > > GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>
> > To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul,
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > > So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
>
> > > GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
>
> > the precision of the following three quantities must be
> > called out to the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>
> > ** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
> > called out to the second digit after the decimal. <shrug>
>
>
> > ** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
>
> > ** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”
>
> > Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of
> > Le Verrier’s observation about 8 decades prior. Le Verrier
> > Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of
> > was not set out to measure the accuracy down to the last second,
> > but his motivation was to find a sum of anomaly for him to
> > justify whether if there is another planet further inside the
> > orbit of Mercury. He did not find it. Thus, most of astronomers,
> > and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at that time just attributed the
> > lack of the extra planet to Le Verrier’s own observation accuracy.
> > but his motivation was to find a sum of anomaly for him to
> > justify whether if there is another planet further inside the
> > orbit of Mercury. He did not find it. Thus, most of astronomers,
> > and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at that time just attributed the
> > <shrug>
>
> > Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier’s observation
> > with better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be
> > definitively claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence’s
> > justification is to claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier’s
> > observation 8 decades prior. <shrug>
>
It only contains the final results. <shrug>
>
> He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
> of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
> from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
> but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
> which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.
Verrier’s data, how many years did Clemence use? It is not clear from
the paragraph above. The overall number of 5,599.74 that Clemence
came up with can only be Le Verrier’s data and nothing else. The
paper does not justify the such great precision to Le Verrier’s
observation. <shrug>
> This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
> the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
> were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
> yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
> close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!
just made up bullshit. According to this paper, the amount of
precession measured in seconds can be calculated according to the
following formula. <shrug>
** 5,208”79695 t – 1”11113 t^2 – 0”000006 t^3
Where
** t = (days – 2,000 Jan 1 noon) / 36525
Thus, on that day of January 1, 2,000, a tare (setting to null) on the
precession angle is performed. A hundred years from now, you can add
1”1 to the rate which means the precession is getting worse (period
getting longer). There is no qualification for you to extrapolate
that backwards. In 1947, Clemence was merely using the same number as
he knew then. <shrug>
Besides with global warming if true, less ice will be trapped in the
polar regions, and that would make the precession less severe (shorter
period). <shrug>
> So to sum it up:
> Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
> Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
> Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:
“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”
Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
<shrug>
> Conclusion:
> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
> is well inside the error bar.
indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
realize this if you actually study the differential equations
involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
** Simulation on the entire system
The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. <shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 11, 2013, 9:19:18 AM6/11/13
to
On 11.06.2013 00:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 10, 11:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
>> the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
>> were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
>> yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
>> close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!
>
> Has Paul really read that paper? Koobee Wublee suspects not. Paul
> just made up bullshit. According to this paper, the amount of
> precession measured in seconds can be calculated according to the
> following formula. <shrug>
>
> ** 5,208”79695 t – 1”11113 t^2 – 0”000006 t^3
>
> Where
>
> ** t = (days – 2,000 Jan 1 noon) / 36525
>
> Thus, on that day of January 1, 2,000, a tare (setting to null) on the
> precession angle is performed. A hundred years from now, you can add
> 1”1 to the rate which means the precession is getting worse (period
> getting longer). There is no qualification for you to extrapolate
> that backwards.
Did someone mention bullshit? :-)
> On Jun 10, 11:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
>> the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
>> were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>> p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
>> yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
>> close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!
>
> Has Paul really read that paper? Koobee Wublee suspects not. Paul
> just made up bullshit. According to this paper, the amount of
> precession measured in seconds can be calculated according to the
> following formula. <shrug>
>
> ** 5,208”79695 t – 1”11113 t^2 – 0”000006 t^3
>
> Where
>
> ** t = (days – 2,000 Jan 1 noon) / 36525
>
> Thus, on that day of January 1, 2,000, a tare (setting to null) on the
> precession angle is performed. A hundred years from now, you can add
> 1”1 to the rate which means the precession is getting worse (period
> getting longer). There is no qualification for you to extrapolate
> that backwards.
According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)
Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
This is a phase.
But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:
p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..
This is an angular frequency.
The rate of change of the precession of the equinoxes
at J2000 is 5028".796195 per century, or 50".28796195 per year.
So the period of the precession is at J2000: (T = 2pi/w)
(360*60*60)"/(50".28796195 per year) ~= 25772 years.
This is the period you claimed to be the "correct one".
It is - at J2000.
But no dramatic change happened in the solar system
at J2000, so there is no reason to claim that the equation
above can't be used for the centuries prior to J2000.
So the 'most modern' estimate of the rate of precession of
the equinoxes at J1850 is:
p(1850) = 5028".796195 - 2".2108696 1.5 ~= 5025".48 per century
(second order terms and higher ignored)
So to sum it up:
is found in Clemence's paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
The tug from other planets is 531.63 ± 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 ± ~1.2
Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 ± 0.04
is well inside the error bar.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Koobee Wublee
Jun 11, 2013, 12:44:13 PM6/11/13
to
> Did someone mention bullshit? :-)
From Paul, yes. :-)
> According to this paper:
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>
> The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
> with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>
> p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)
>
> Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
the precession period ought to get longer. <shrug>
> This is a phase.
This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. <shrug>
> But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:
>
> p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..
>
> This is an angular frequency.
<shrug>
Let’s see if that equation agree with you. Say t is indeed -1.5 (150
years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury’s
orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier’s data started).
pA at -1 .5 = 5028”8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544”5
pA at -2 .5 = 5028”8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578”9
The rate ought to be (12578”9 – 7544”5 = 5034”4) which is not
probable. Paul is a joker. Paul is a mathemagician. <shrug>
> So to sum it up:
> Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
> Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
> Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
> Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
It is still inconclusive. The justification to why Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:
“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”
Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
<shrug>
> Conclusion:
> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
> Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
It is still inconclusive. The justification to why Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:
“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”
Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
<shrug>
> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
> is well inside the error bar.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 11, 2013, 1:54:20 PM6/11/13
to
Kepler discovered the curvature of space,
with his three orbital constraints;
Gauss measured it with a theodolite of his own construction
in Allsace-Lorraine -- it is not perfectly convex.
GR is "just" a manifestation of gravity,
what ever it really is. what it is definitely not, though,
is any perfect "pascalian" vacuum (with no pascals .-)
with his three orbital constraints;
Gauss measured it with a theodolite of his own construction
in Allsace-Lorraine -- it is not perfectly convex.
GR is "just" a manifestation of gravity,
what ever it really is. what it is definitely not, though,
is any perfect "pascalian" vacuum (with no pascals .-)
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 11, 2013, 6:28:05 PM6/11/13
to
On 11.06.2013 18:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> According to this paper:
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>>
>> The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
>> with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>>
>> p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)
>>
>> Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
>
> This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
> the precession period ought to get longer. <shrug>
>
>> This is a phase.
>
> This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. <shrug>
Not at all. The J000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
> On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> According to this paper:
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>>
>> The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
>> with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>>
>> p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)
>>
>> Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
>
> This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
> the precession period ought to get longer. <shrug>
>
>> This is a phase.
>
> This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. <shrug>
chosen reference point.
As you possibly know, the equatorial coordinate system is used
by astronomers to give the position of stars and other objects.
This is a spherical coordinate system with the coordinates
declination (Dec) and Right ascension (RA).
The Dec is the angle from the equatorial plane, and the RA
is the 'horizontal' angle from the vernal equinox.
Since the vernal equinox is moving, and it would be very
impractical to continuously rework the star charts, it must be
specified which year (epoch) a set of coordinates is valid for.
Standard years are chosen, usually every 50 years or so.
The currently used epoch is J2000.
This is the reason why J2000 is used in the Equation for pA
above. So when you find the coordinates of the star in
a EPOCH2000 star chart, the angle pA for the current year
is what you have to add to the charted RA to find its real
position.
The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.
>> But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:
>>
>> p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..
>>
>> This is an angular frequency.
>
> So, according to Paul, 230k years ago, the precession was null.
> <shrug>
The result would be ridiculous, though.
It would be equally ridiculous for 230k years in the future.
> Let�s see if that equation agree with you. Say t is indeed -1.5 (150
> years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury�s
> orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier�s data started).
>
> pA at -1 .5 = 5028�8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544�5
> pA at -2 .5 = 5028�8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578�9
Correct numbers:
pA(J1850) = -7540.7074534702 arcsecs
pA(J1750) = -12565.0836925488 arcsecs
>
> The rate ought to be (12578�9 � 7544�5 = 5034�4) which is not
> probable. Paul is a joker. Paul is a mathemagician. <shrug>
Correct numbers:
pA(J1850)-pA(J1750) = 5024.3762390786 arcsecs per century
p(J1800) = 5024.3761718400 arcsecs per century
(the two are not exactly equal because the curve isn't linear)
What's your problem with this?
However, Clemence estimate is based on observations
from 1765 to 1940, so 1850 is a more reasonable middle year.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
p(1850) = 5025.4807492700 arcsecs per century
And if you wonder if your way of calculating agrees with this:
pA(J1900) = -5027.6908636587 arcsecs
pA(J1800) = -10053.1716684064 arcsecs
pA(1900)- pA(1800) = 5025.4808047477 arcsecs per century
>> So to sum it up:
>> Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
>> Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
>> Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
>> The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
>> Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2
>
> measurement of 5,600� is actually 5,599�74 +/- 0�5 remains not
> justified. According to Clemence�s paper, he said:
>
> �The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
> several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
> The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
> masses, the sun�s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
> The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
> errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
> theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
> planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
> of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
> orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
> contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...�
> theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
> planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
> of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
> orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
>
> Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury�s orbit due to
> other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
> of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
> Le Verrier�s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
> of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
> calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
> <shrug>
>
>> Conclusion:
>> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
>> is well inside the error bar.
>
> Not quite. All these effects on Mercury�s orbit including GR one if
> <shrug>
>
>> Conclusion:
>> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
>> is well inside the error bar.
>
> indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
> the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
> realize this if you actually study the differential equations
> involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
> Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
>
> ** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
>
> ** Simulation on the entire system
>
> The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
> equinox. <shrug>
>
--
> the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
> realize this if you actually study the differential equations
> involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
> Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
>
> ** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
>
> ** Simulation on the entire system
>
> The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
> equinox. <shrug>
>
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 11, 2013, 6:45:08 PM6/11/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:28:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
wrote:
>> Let�s see if that equation agree with you. Say t is indeed -1.5 (150
>> years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury�s
>> orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier�s data started).
>>
>> pA at -1 .5 = 5028�8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544�5
>> pA at -2 .5 = 5028�8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578�9
Mercury's orbit was presumed to continuously precess for no apparent reason
and a couple of crazed scifi fanatics made wild guesses down to twenty eight
decimal places as to how much it did so each century.
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING!
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>> years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury�s
>> orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier�s data started).
>>
>> pA at -1 .5 = 5028�8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544�5
>> pA at -2 .5 = 5028�8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578�9
>
>Correct numbers:
>pA(J1850) = -7540.7074534702 arcsecs
>pA(J1750) = -12565.0836925488 arcsecs
>
>>
>> The rate ought to be (12578�9 � 7544�5 = 5034�4) which is not
>Correct numbers:
>pA(J1850) = -7540.7074534702 arcsecs
>pA(J1750) = -12565.0836925488 arcsecs
>
>>
>> probable. Paul is a joker. Paul is a mathemagician. <shrug>
>
>Correct numbers:
>pA(J1850)-pA(J1750) = 5024.3762390786 arcsecs per century
>p(J1800) = 5024.3761718400 arcsecs per century
>
>(the two are not exactly equal because the curve isn't linear)
>
>What's your problem with this?
>
>
>However, Clemence estimate is based on observations
>from 1765 to 1940, so 1850 is a more reasonable middle year.
>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
>
>p(1850) = 5025.4807492700 arcsecs per century
>
>And if you wonder if your way of calculating agrees with this:
>pA(J1900) = -5027.6908636587 arcsecs
>pA(J1800) = -10053.1716684064 arcsecs
>pA(1900)- pA(1800) = 5025.4808047477 arcsecs per century
>
>
>> Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury�s orbit due to
>
>Correct numbers:
>pA(J1850)-pA(J1750) = 5024.3762390786 arcsecs per century
>p(J1800) = 5024.3761718400 arcsecs per century
>
>(the two are not exactly equal because the curve isn't linear)
>
>What's your problem with this?
>
>
>However, Clemence estimate is based on observations
>from 1765 to 1940, so 1850 is a more reasonable middle year.
>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
>
>p(1850) = 5025.4807492700 arcsecs per century
>
>And if you wonder if your way of calculating agrees with this:
>pA(J1900) = -5027.6908636587 arcsecs
>pA(J1800) = -10053.1716684064 arcsecs
>pA(1900)- pA(1800) = 5025.4808047477 arcsecs per century
>
>
>> other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
>> of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
>> Le Verrier�s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
>> of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
>> calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
>> <shrug>
>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
>>> is well inside the error bar.
>>
>> Not quite. All these effects on Mercury�s orbit including GR one if
>> <shrug>
>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>> GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
>>> is well inside the error bar.
>>
>> indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
>> the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
>> realize this if you actually study the differential equations
>> involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
>> Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
>>
>> ** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
>>
>> ** Simulation on the entire system
>>
>> The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
>> equinox. <shrug>
>>
Conclusion: the whole of physics came to a standstill 100 years ago because
>> the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
>> realize this if you actually study the differential equations
>> involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
>> Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
>>
>> ** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
>>
>> ** Simulation on the entire system
>>
>> The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
>> equinox. <shrug>
>>
Mercury's orbit was presumed to continuously precess for no apparent reason
and a couple of crazed scifi fanatics made wild guesses down to twenty eight
decimal places as to how much it did so each century.
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING!
Henry Wilson DSc.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 12, 2013, 3:21:03 AM6/12/13
to
> > > According to this paper:
> > > http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>
> > > The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the
> > > equinoxes with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>
> > > pA = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3
> > > http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>
> > > The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the
> > > equinoxes with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>
> > > + .. (up to t^5)
>
> > > Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
>
>
> > > Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
>
> > This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. <shrug>
>
> Not at all. The J[2]000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
>
> chosen reference point.
> [... accuracy good for] 50 years or so.
> The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.
According to the paper, it says clearly that:
“The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”
There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? <shrug>
The motivation for the paper is that the authors felt the established
precession value then was not adequate to carry forward. The polar
ice caps experienced their greatest retreat in the past two decades.
Thus, there is no way that the precession would be linear in several
centuries. Besides, Le Verrier called out for 5025” per century then
with somewhat relatively primitive instrumentations. Koobee Wublee
thinks Paul just happens to find an arithmetic sweet spot and tries to
take the advantage of arguing for his beloved GR hypothesis. Of
course, Paul’s argument has no basis. Even the authors of the paper
specifically specified that the information is good from 2000 and on.
<shrug>
What supports Koobee Wublee’s interpretation of the author’s
intention? Well, the goal of the paper written in 2003 is to replace
the accepted model of 2000 where the formula says:
** PA = 5028”797 t – 1”111 t^2 – 0.000 t^3
If Paul bothers to work out the retroactive precession value, it is
embarrassingly out of the ball park. Thus, it can only mean that the
value is to be carried forward and not backwards. <shrug>
Clemence has also failed to justify why Le Verrier’s numbers are such
accurate, and Paul so far has failed to argument for Clemence. So, is
Paul disputing that any orbital anomaly is position dependent?
<shrug>
Thus, the justification to why Le Verrier’s measurement of 5,600” is
actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not justified. According to
Clemence’s paper, he said:
“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
Clemence’s paper, he said:
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
<shrug>
Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if indeed
<shrug>
exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect the final
outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will realize this
if you actually study the differential equations involved. Paul
Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks he
was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
** Simulation on the entire system
The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. <shrug>
Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will realize this
if you actually study the differential equations involved. Paul
Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks he
was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:
** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
** Simulation on the entire system
The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. <shrug>
as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
closure. <shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 12, 2013, 5:39:55 AM6/12/13
to
On 12.06.2013 09:21, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 11, 3:28 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>
>> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> On Jun 11, 3:28 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>
>>
>> The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.
>
> According to the paper, it says clearly that:
>
> “The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
> below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”
>
> There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
> did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
> centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? <shrug>
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>> The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.
>
> According to the paper, it says clearly that:
>
> “The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
> below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”
>
> There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
> did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
> centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? <shrug>
<<
The results are quite consistent at the microarcsecond
level over several centuries.
. . .
The following series with 0.1 uas level of precision matches
the canonical 4-rotation series to sub-microarcsecond accuracy
over 4 centuries
>>
If you look at figs 4-7 it is pretty clear that these four
centuries are from 1800 - 2200.
Bottom line:
The rate of precession of the equinoxes at 1850 is
according to this paper 5025.48 arcsecs per century.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
oriel36
Jun 12, 2013, 6:38:29 AM6/12/13
to
On Jun 11, 11:28 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:
> On 11.06.2013 18:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> >> According to this paper:
> >>http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>
> >> The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
> >> with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>
> >> p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)
>
> >> Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
>
> > This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
> > the precession period ought to get longer. <shrug>
>
> >> This is a phase.
>
> > This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. <shrug>
>
> Not at all. The J000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
> chosen reference point.
> As you possibly know, the equatorial coordinate system is used
> by astronomers to give the position of stars and other objects.
> This is a spherical coordinate system with the coordinates
> declination (Dec) and Right ascension (RA).
Let me help you out here and correct a mistake that runs through
> On 11.06.2013 18:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> >> According to this paper:
> >>http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
>
> >> The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
> >> with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:
>
> >> p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)
>
> >> Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.
>
> > This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
> > the precession period ought to get longer. <shrug>
>
> >> This is a phase.
>
> > This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. <shrug>
>
> Not at all. The J000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
> chosen reference point.
> As you possibly know, the equatorial coordinate system is used
> by astronomers to give the position of stars and other objects.
> This is a spherical coordinate system with the coordinates
> declination (Dec) and Right ascension (RA).
empirical science since the vicious strain of empiricism arose with
Newton in the late 17th century.
The framework you are trying to describe requires more than a few
qualifiers such as the predictive element of Ra/Dec is founded on the
24 hour AM/PM cycle within the 365/366 day format hence the mistake
Flamsteed made was assigning significance to stellar circumpolar
motion in terms of the Earth planetary dynamics and specifically daily
rotation -
http://californiamapsociety.org/historic/flamsteed.php
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed to Moore
Whereas the great astronomers used the motions of the planets AGAINST
the stellar background ,the equatorial coordinate system has the
planets move WITH the stellar circumpolar background in a grotesque
rotating celestial sphere diorama.The is the first and last time I
will capitalize words in any thread in all these years so important is
the distinction .When Kepler registered the motion of Mars from a
moving Earth,he is using the background constellations as a marker for
orbital motions and orbital motions alone -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
Even to this day empiricists still think it is a geocentric
description and the basis for Newton's heliocentric/geocentric
equivalency by virtue that he uses the rotating celestial sphere of Ra/
Dec to transfer what he imagines are geocentric observations to
heliocentric descriptions without any loss of information -
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is
now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton
The guys in the early 20th century couldn't make heads nor tails of
Sir Isaac's absolute/relative space and motion backed up by the
equatorial coordinate system with its exceptionally flawed conclusion
of Flamsteed in jumping the gun with the Ra/Dec framework in that is
is great for predicting astronomical events such as eclipses,transits
and the time of the Solstices as a time and date within the 24 hour AM/
PM system and the 365/366 day calendar system but useless for proving
the Earth's motions which in turn affect observations in the celestial
arena.
I guess it is too intellectually tough for mathematicians just like
Leibniz said it would be -
"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make
space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by
devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the
playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning"
Leibniz
I see a lot of people scrambling around with terms they barely
comprehend and that is dismaying insofar as empiricists were
responsible for this problem they also must be part of the solution.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 12, 2013, 1:29:48 PM6/12/13
to
could someone give a precis of teh "argument" per se?
koobydoobydoo is tiresomely opaque
with his equationary, although there is some hope that
Snell's law of refraction will eventually be used --
by the IPCC, not koobydoobydoo!
koobydoobydoo is tiresomely opaque
with his equationary, although there is some hope that
Snell's law of refraction will eventually be used --
by the IPCC, not koobydoobydoo!
Message has been deleted
Koobee Wublee
Jun 12, 2013, 3:54:42 PM6/12/13
to
> > “The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
> > below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”
>
> > There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
> > did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
> > centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? <shrug>
>
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> <<
> The results are quite consistent at the microarcsecond
> level over several centuries.
> . . .
> The following series with 0.1 uas level of precision matches
> the canonical 4-rotation series to sub-microarcsecond accuracy
> over 4 centuries
> >>
>
> If you look at figs 4-7 it is pretty clear that these four
> centuries are from 1800 - 2200.
So, someone just drew a straight line from Le Verrier’s number with
> > below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”
>
> > There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
> > did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
> > centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? <shrug>
>
> http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
> <<
> The results are quite consistent at the microarcsecond
> level over several centuries.
> . . .
> The following series with 0.1 uas level of precision matches
> the canonical 4-rotation series to sub-microarcsecond accuracy
> over 4 centuries
> >>
>
> If you look at figs 4-7 it is pretty clear that these four
> centuries are from 1800 - 2200.
today’s number. It does not say anything about the accuracy of Le
Verrier’s calculation. <shrug>
> Bottom line:
> The rate of precession of the equinoxes at 1850 is
> according to this paper 5025.48 arcsecs per century.
phase difference between 1750 and 1850. In the meantime, Le Verrier’s
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. The reason is most
likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild
metric. <shrug>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 12, 2013, 5:02:08 PM6/12/13
to
I shrug the body electric
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 12, 2013, 6:30:25 PM6/12/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 2:39 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
>equinox. <shrug>
>
You guessed it Koobee. It's all part of one gigantic conspiracy.
Henry Wilson DSc.
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 2:39 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
>equinox. <shrug>
>
>Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
>as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
>closure. <shrug>
>
>as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
>closure. <shrug>
>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 12, 2013, 6:34:21 PM6/12/13
to
hanson
Jun 12, 2013, 6:55:23 PM6/12/13
to
Harlow "HVAC" <harlowc...@gmail.com> wrote:
why folks feel the need to "have an aether,"
when atoms are prepared to do "electronics;
how thing works just say, atoms are aetheric, and use it.
Harlow, do you have an "aether theory that allevieates
the need for electronic orbital conventions?"
>
Harlow wrote:
Quincy, did they ever put a name on
the mental disability you suffer from?
Quincy, I think you left your brain in the petrified forest.
>
hanson write:
... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" resides in Santa Monica,
CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he
was a door-to-door salesman for the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Having been unsuccessful at that Quincy became
a Rest-room attendant-apprentice at UCLA with/thru
which Quincy strenuously tries to create the impression
that he is one of those eternal students at UCLA, who
never graduate, not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...
>
To Quincy's credit though, he has perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang to demonstrate & exhibit his
sub-intellectual prowess, by strutting around with an
Einstein hair mop under his donated JR Oppenheimer
hat, which he conned out of the sales-girl at the Goodwill
store in Santa Monica, him claiming to be a refugee from
Madagascar & a "bona fide Pascalian relative per se"
so Quincy said.
>
>
Quincy @ "1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote:
I shrug the body electric
harlow, it's your intelligence plus a zillionths (how's that?)
Quincy @ "1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote:
I shrug the body electric
why folks feel the need to "have an aether,"
when atoms are prepared to do "electronics;
how thing works just say, atoms are aetheric, and use it.
Harlow, do you have an "aether theory that allevieates
the need for electronic orbital conventions?"
>
Harlow wrote:
Quincy, did they ever put a name on
the mental disability you suffer from?
Quincy, I think you left your brain in the petrified forest.
>
hanson write:
... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" resides in Santa Monica,
CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he
was a door-to-door salesman for the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Having been unsuccessful at that Quincy became
a Rest-room attendant-apprentice at UCLA with/thru
which Quincy strenuously tries to create the impression
that he is one of those eternal students at UCLA, who
never graduate, not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...
>
To Quincy's credit though, he has perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang to demonstrate & exhibit his
sub-intellectual prowess, by strutting around with an
Einstein hair mop under his donated JR Oppenheimer
hat, which he conned out of the sales-girl at the Goodwill
store in Santa Monica, him claiming to be a refugee from
Madagascar & a "bona fide Pascalian relative per se"
so Quincy said.
>
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 13, 2013, 2:53:04 AM6/13/13
to
On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
> anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.
Since you know better, this is a blatant lie.
>
> The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
> anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
> The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not
> agree with the Schwarzschild metric.
of the perihelion advance of Mercury.
The data are available for anybody who wants them.
From
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets
and a number of other sources.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Koobee Wublee
Jun 13, 2013, 4:26:00 AM6/13/13
to
On Jun 12, 11:53 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
> > anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.
>
> Since you know better, this is a blatant lie.
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
The result is nothing new. Kip Thorne’s Gravitation already cited
> On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
> > anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.
>
> Since you know better, this is a blatant lie.
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf
Clemence’s work to justify how precise the Schwarzschild metric is
able to predict anything. All thanks to Paul though for bringing up
the source, the above article did not offer anything new. In fact, it
shows that Clemence did not make any observations himself but instead
recycled Le Verrier’s data for the 1850’s or 1860’s. Clemence merely
added such ungodly precision to Le Verrier’s numbers in which Le
Verrier did not brag about the divine act. <shrug>
Realizing Koobee Wublee is correct, Paul quickly brought out a paper
with a formula able to predict the precession of the equinoxes from
1800 to 2200. <shrug>
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
Taking merit of the paper, Koobee Wublee dug into it until Paul
pointed out a few subtle hints that the prediction is actually a
linear function with exactly 0.22” increase every 10 years. The
authors were simply trying to showcase their second order finding, but
the first order result is merely to draw a straight line from what Le
Verrier knew to today’s more precise measurement of 25772 years period
of this precession. Of course, you are going to arrive at Le Verrier,
or perhaps Newcomb’s, number every single time which would justify
GR’s prediction of Mercury’s orbital anomaly if assuming all other
parameters are right on. Duh! <shrug>
> > The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not
> > agree with the Schwarzschild metric.
>
> If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study
> of the perihelion advance of Mercury.
> The data are available for anybody who wants them.
>
> and a number of other sources.
What is that, Paul? JPL’s resume? Perhaps you should be the one
taking up on that since you are no longer employed --- as a professor
of electrical engineering at the University of Trondheim in Norway.
<shrug>
In the meantime, the fact remains. The so-called precise measurements
on Mercury’s orbital anomaly are still more than 150 years old where
no new data has come forth to support the Schwarzschild metric. In
1947, Clemence regurgitated Le Verrier’s findings from the middle of
the 19th century by placing tremendous precisions to them where the
self-styled physicists since then have mistook (most likely
deliberately) for new data with great precision. <shrug>
Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit (namely gravitational pull
from other planets) including GR one if indeed exist are not linearly
additive. Any parameter will affect the final outcome depending on
what other anomalies are. You will realize this if you actually study
the differential equations involved in which Paul has refused to do so
in very attempt by Koobee Wublee. Paul Gerber simplified the system
as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks Gerber was wrong, and the only way
to address this issue is to do:
** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data
** Simulation on the entire system
Koobee Wublee’s post, and Koobee Wublee bet you did not have a good
night’s sleep. Don’t you want to live to brag about being the oldest
man ever lived? <shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura
Well, licking up every droppings of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar is certainly not a good way to start. It
will create nightmares just like last night for Paul. <shrug>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 13, 2013, 6:58:56 AM6/13/13
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:53:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no>
wrote:
Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "
Say no more.....
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "
Say no more.....
Henry Wilson DSc.
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 13, 2013, 2:32:27 PM6/13/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 13, 2013, 9:15:44 PM6/13/13
to
what is a "mean orbital element" do?
Koobee Wublee
Jun 14, 2013, 3:37:53 AM6/14/13
to
barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
the Mercury. <shrug>
All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
<shrug>
Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr.
Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So,
essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate ---
according to SR’s jargon. <shrug>
oriel36
Jun 14, 2013, 3:56:12 AM6/14/13
to
On Jun 14, 8:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 11:32 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > > Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
> > > "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
> > > you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
> > > as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "
>
> > And what does it reveal?
>
> As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
> barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
> including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
> nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
> scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
> the Mercury. <shrug>
>
> All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
> and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
> pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
> closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
> <shrug>
This cracks me up,the motions of the planets and even the stars are
> On Jun 13, 11:32 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > > Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
> > > "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
> > > you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
> > > as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "
>
> > And what does it reveal?
>
> As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
> barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
> including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
> nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
> scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
> the Mercury. <shrug>
>
> All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
> and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
> pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
> closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
> <shrug>
line-of-sight observations but because the dummies in the late 17th
century created a homocentric spinning celestial sphere framework
known as the equatorial coordinate system,the line of sight
observations were lost to parallax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg
The reference for the orbital cycle was based on the disappearance of
Sirius behind the glare of the Sun due to the orbital motion of the
Earth,the Egyptians spotted that the reappearance of Sirius from
behind the glare of the Sun coincided with the flooding of the Nile
hence we have the system of timekeeping reflecting 1461 days to 4
annual cycles or the dynamical equivalent of 1461 rotations to 4
orbital circuits.
".. that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so
one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5
epagomenae before the new year, whereby all men shall learn, that what
was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the
year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the
learned on the heavenly orbits," Canopus decree
The ephemerides system is based on homocentricity in that it tries to
squeeze the daily and orbital motions of the Earth into a projection
of the Earth's rotation into space.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZp0lEEpsc
It is a shame that there is nobody around to see the whole point of
relativity ,whether people are for or against it,in that it is really
protecting Sir Isaac and his late 17th century mob who didn't know
enough about astronomy to spot the flaw in Flamsteed's coordinate
system -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
Ah,a bunch of mathematicians flailing around with astronomical terms
was bound to cause serious mischief yet it is not without hope.You
should listen to Leibniz guys,you really should -
"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make
space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by
devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the
playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning"
Leibniz
in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is
the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as
though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it
truly is.
oriel36
Jun 14, 2013, 6:08:19 AM6/14/13
to
On Jun 14, 10:30 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> history?
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
You unfortunate people are lost in a labyrinth that is not of your own
making but what is certain is that history will record you are the
spinning celestial sphere cult that began with Flamsteed,snowballed
with Sir Isaac's agenda and made worse by the early 20th century guys.
Rule number one - Do not,I repeat,do not reference the motion of the
stellar background through parallax like so -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg
The line of sight observation for the orbital cycle uses a reference
that does not go through the central Sun and your entire ephemerides
data does exactly the wrong thing in this respect.The quote from the
Egyptians which gives you ungrateful people the whole basis for human
timekeeping involves the apparent motion of Sirius as it is lost
annually behind the glare of the Sun and reappears -
" on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sirius by
one day in the course of 4 years ..therefore it shall be, that the
It is a gift to be capable of putting references in order instead of
mixing them like you poor mathematicians,kind of like those eidetic
memories where you can 'see' the motions in front of you as those they
were as real as you see the motions of all objects.I don't blame the
guys in the early 20th century for trying to escape Newton's rotating
celestial sphere agenda while retaining its 'predictive' value but
this generation are merely voodoo chanters ,one no better than the
other.
The empirical community/cult doesn't like hearing dictates from
genuine astronomers and will try to muddle on believing they have some
insight into the celestial arena but ultimately it is a spinning
celestial sphere culture without merit,integrity,intelligence or any
of the positive attributes of human endeavor.
Sorry.
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:56:12 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I need participators and not half dead spectators who rely on the guys
> >in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is
> >the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as
> >though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it
> >truly is.
>
> When are you going to contribute something positive instead of quoting
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I need participators and not half dead spectators who rely on the guys
> >in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is
> >the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as
> >though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it
> >truly is.
>
> history?
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
You unfortunate people are lost in a labyrinth that is not of your own
making but what is certain is that history will record you are the
spinning celestial sphere cult that began with Flamsteed,snowballed
with Sir Isaac's agenda and made worse by the early 20th century guys.
Rule number one - Do not,I repeat,do not reference the motion of the
stellar background through parallax like so -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg
The line of sight observation for the orbital cycle uses a reference
that does not go through the central Sun and your entire ephemerides
data does exactly the wrong thing in this respect.The quote from the
Egyptians which gives you ungrateful people the whole basis for human
timekeeping involves the apparent motion of Sirius as it is lost
annually behind the glare of the Sun and reappears -
" on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sirius by
one day in the course of 4 years ..therefore it shall be, that the
year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall
be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before
the New Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little
be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before
defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also
the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the
heavenly orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus decree
the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the
It is a gift to be capable of putting references in order instead of
mixing them like you poor mathematicians,kind of like those eidetic
memories where you can 'see' the motions in front of you as those they
were as real as you see the motions of all objects.I don't blame the
guys in the early 20th century for trying to escape Newton's rotating
celestial sphere agenda while retaining its 'predictive' value but
this generation are merely voodoo chanters ,one no better than the
other.
The empirical community/cult doesn't like hearing dictates from
genuine astronomers and will try to muddle on believing they have some
insight into the celestial arena but ultimately it is a spinning
celestial sphere culture without merit,integrity,intelligence or any
of the positive attributes of human endeavor.
Sorry.
hanson
Jun 14, 2013, 1:45:44 PM6/14/13
to
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most
> > revealing,
> > "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary
> > satellites,
> > you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own
> > ephemerides,
> > as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "
>
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> And what does it reveal?
>
> And what does it reveal?
>
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
the Mercury. <shrug>
All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
<shrug>
Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr.
Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So,
essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate ---
according to SR’s jargon. <shrug>
>
hanson wrote:
As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
the Mercury. <shrug>
All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
<shrug>
Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr.
Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So,
essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate ---
according to SR’s jargon. <shrug>
>
A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>
Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 14, 2013, 1:52:28 PM6/14/13
to
On 6/14/2013 12:45 PM, hanson wrote:
> hanson wrote:
> A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
> a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
> Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
> produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>>
> Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
> a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
> description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
> D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
> metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link?
> hanson wrote:
> A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
> a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
> Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
> produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>>
> Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
> a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
> description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
> D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
> metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
hanson
Jun 14, 2013, 2:26:12 PM6/14/13
to
Fatso lamented "Absolutely Vertical" <absolutel...@gmail.com>
when he wrote :
Fatso, you lazy bastard, do your own research. But I give
you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches
past your standard old text book crap-repeats.
There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on.
when he wrote :
>
>> hanson wrote:
>> A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
>> a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
>> Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
>> produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>>>
>> Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
>> a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
>> description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
>> D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
>> metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
>
>> hanson wrote:
>> A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
>> a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
>> Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
>> produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>>>
>> Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
>> a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
>> description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
>> D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
>> metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
>
Fatso wrote:
> hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link?
>
hanson wrote:
> hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link?
>
Fatso, you lazy bastard, do your own research. But I give
you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches
past your standard old text book crap-repeats.
There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 14, 2013, 3:37:40 PM6/14/13
to
so you can't back up your statement. well, say anything then. like
guppies have hooves -- prove me wrong!
well, since there are lots and lots and lots of links that point to the
newtonian calculation done correctly (and which leads to the anomaly
that is filled by general relativity), then it is harder to find the
link that does the calculation incorrectly. but this may be it:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/
now -- since the web pages that have the correct calculations are much
easier to find than this one, then it shouldn't be too difficult to
identify the location of the error, and that's left as an exercise to you.
of course, you can also take the approach that, since both correct and
incorrect web pages can be found and nobody has policed the web to
remove the incorrect one, then it must still be a controversial topic.
much like the flat earth society, the young-earth creationists, the
apollo-hoax conspiracy fans, etc.
oriel36
Jun 14, 2013, 5:18:30 PM6/14/13
to
Even when it is possible to see orbital dynamics directly and the need
to partition the effects of local solar system dynamics from galactic
orbital dynamics you cut each other to pieces over a rotating
celestial sphere ideology that is effectively a train wreck.
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~echiang/fomalhaut/fom.html
Circular orbits may be back on the menu by virtue of a default
geometry partitioning the solar system's galactic orbital motion from
internal dynamics of the planets with variations in orbital speeds a
consequence of electromagnetic signatures just as two like poles of a
magnet being brought close to each other would cause an acceleration
due to repulsion.
Of course this is speculative but imaging is on my side presently that
there is orbital partitioning.
to partition the effects of local solar system dynamics from galactic
orbital dynamics you cut each other to pieces over a rotating
celestial sphere ideology that is effectively a train wreck.
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~echiang/fomalhaut/fom.html
Circular orbits may be back on the menu by virtue of a default
geometry partitioning the solar system's galactic orbital motion from
internal dynamics of the planets with variations in orbital speeds a
consequence of electromagnetic signatures just as two like poles of a
magnet being brought close to each other would cause an acceleration
due to repulsion.
Of course this is speculative but imaging is on my side presently that
there is orbital partitioning.
Wayne Throop
Jun 14, 2013, 6:24:36 PM6/14/13
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Even when it is possible to see orbital dynamics directly and the need
celestial sphere" in practical terms. Specifically, he claims the earth's
axis makes a rotation (which he calls "precession") once a year. The
only way that can be so is if the stars rotate at exactly the same rate.
Even more amusing, origel makes the same claim about Uranus' axis.
That is rotates once a Uranian year. But that's only true in a frame
in which the "celestial sphere" also rotates once a Uranian year. So,
the celestial sphere rotates at entirely different rates (according to
origel; he may not recognize it, but it's an inevitable implication
of his claims about axial precession) for different planets, all at
the same time. All in the name of removing Newtonian (and subsequent)
"complications" and/or "obvious mistakes".
Even more amusing than that, in the frame in which the earth's axis
precesses once a year, earth has no orbital velocity. All these
trivial implications of origel's bafflegab apparently whoosh right
over his head.
Newton, Einstein, and everybody sensible, supposes that the
"celestial sphere" (an abstract construct with the distant stars
projected to a spherical surface) does in fact *not* rotate.
: Even when it is possible to see orbital dynamics directly and the need
: to partition the effects of local solar system dynamics from galactic
: orbital dynamics you cut each other to pieces over a rotating
: celestial sphere ideology that is effectively a train wreck.
The funny thing here is, that origel is the one who uses a "rotating
: orbital dynamics you cut each other to pieces over a rotating
: celestial sphere ideology that is effectively a train wreck.
celestial sphere" in practical terms. Specifically, he claims the earth's
axis makes a rotation (which he calls "precession") once a year. The
only way that can be so is if the stars rotate at exactly the same rate.
Even more amusing, origel makes the same claim about Uranus' axis.
That is rotates once a Uranian year. But that's only true in a frame
in which the "celestial sphere" also rotates once a Uranian year. So,
the celestial sphere rotates at entirely different rates (according to
origel; he may not recognize it, but it's an inevitable implication
of his claims about axial precession) for different planets, all at
the same time. All in the name of removing Newtonian (and subsequent)
"complications" and/or "obvious mistakes".
Even more amusing than that, in the frame in which the earth's axis
precesses once a year, earth has no orbital velocity. All these
trivial implications of origel's bafflegab apparently whoosh right
over his head.
Newton, Einstein, and everybody sensible, supposes that the
"celestial sphere" (an abstract construct with the distant stars
projected to a spherical surface) does in fact *not* rotate.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 15, 2013, 12:04:55 AM6/15/13
to
doesn't quite parse; but,
I would be happy to see precession fitted
to barycenters.
I would be happy to see precession fitted
to barycenters.
hanson
Jun 15, 2013, 12:13:15 AM6/15/13
to
Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso, kept on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> & vigorously fanatical when he wrote:
>>>
>>>> hanson wrote:
>>>> A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
>>>> a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
>>>> Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
>>>> produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>>>>>
>>>> Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
>>>> a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
>>>> description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
>>>> D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
>>>> metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
>>>
>> Fatso wrote:
>>> hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link?
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Fatso, you lazy bastard, do your own research. But I give
>> you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches
>> past your standard old text book crap-repeats.
>> There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on.
>>
>>>
>>>> hanson wrote:
>>>> A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
>>>> a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
>>>> Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
>>>> produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.
>>>>>
>>>> Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
>>>> a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
>>>> description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
>>>> D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
>>>> metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.
>>>
>> Fatso wrote:
>>> hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link?
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Fatso, you lazy bastard, do your own research. But I give
>> you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches
>> past your standard old text book crap-repeats.
>> There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on.
>>
Fatso wrote:
> :)
> so you can't back up your statement.
>
hanson wrote:
> :)
> so you can't back up your statement.
>
.... Fatso, you just extinguished the candle of hope
I had for you. Fatso, there is a incisive and decisive
difference between "can't" & "won't", yet you sorry
sad sack "can't" see the difference...<snipped some
more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>
Fatso wrote:.
... anything then ... is filled by general relativity...
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, GR does not fill anything, except that it drowns
your senile brain in Gedanken farts, which you proselytize
for, religiously, even now, 60+ years after
_ Einstein himself became a SR/GR Relativity denier _
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Fatso wrote:
... this link ...may be it:
> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/
>
hanson wrote:
While I am glad that you are given still a modicum of
curiosity in your nether world of textbook crap, your
link is not what I was referring to. The article in question
only dealt, elegantly, with the Barycenter-including
Newtonian calcs which give the observed result.
>
Hopefully, the OP who posted it will come forth to help
and show you, but since you piss off most folks, he might
let you dangle as the Einstein Dingleberry that you are, &
let you sway in the warm breeze of Einstein's useless farts:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
<snipped the rest of Fatso's silly exculpation attempts where
Fatso sings about "the flat earth society, the young-earth
creationists & the apollo-hoax conspiracy fans"> ... ahahaha...
>
Fatso listen, get a hold of yourself and carry on searching.
And... Fatso, you are always good for a chuckle. Thanks...
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 15, 2013, 12:37:03 AM6/15/13
to
ahaha; Kepler uncovered teh cosmical curvature, although
it took Gauss to put the idea into mathematical practice
(curvature is the reciprocal of diameter, or
the product of two orhtogonal (linear curve).curvatures.
it took Gauss to put the idea into mathematical practice
(curvature is the reciprocal of diameter, or
the product of two orhtogonal (linear curve).curvatures.
hanson
Jun 15, 2013, 12:41:37 AM6/15/13
to
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" resides in Santa Monica,
CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he
was once an unsuccessful door-to-door salesman
CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he
for the Encyclopedia Britannica.
>
So, Quincy switched jobs and became a promising
Rest-room attendant-apprentice at UCLA with/thru
which Quincy strenuously tries to create the impression
that he is one of those eternal students at UCLA, who
never graduate, not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...
>
To Quincy's credit though, he has perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang to demonstrate & exhibit his
sub-intellectual prowess, by saying stuff like:
which Quincy strenuously tries to create the impression
that he is one of those eternal students at UCLA, who
never graduate, not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...
>
To Quincy's credit though, he has perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang to demonstrate & exhibit his
>
:::: "a wave is a wave; is wavey" and "I would be
:::: happy to see precession fitted to barycenters. [1]
>
& then he strutts around with an Einstein hair mop under
his beat up JR Oppenheimer hat, which he conned out
of the sales-girl at the Goodwill store in Santa Monica,
him claiming to be a refugee from Madagascar & a
"bona fide Pascalian relative per se"... Quincy said.
him claiming to be a refugee from Madagascar & a
>
>
[1]: "Quincy, put your 5 gallon cardboard box of wine
that you have guzzled today back into the reefer,
and ask the posters who know, nicely.. and Quincy
the Barycenter do not fit into any precession.
That only seems to you to be that way because
your head is heavy and feels like spinning... AHAHAHA...
weezer919.com (=) (=) weezer919.com (=) (=) weezer919.com
Jun 15, 2013, 1:16:57 AM6/15/13
to
The June 13 - 2013 Edition Of weezer919.com Has Been Published ......
http://weezer919.com/ ......
Please Take A Few Moments To Visit This Website ......
Please Read This Website ......
Please Click The ...... (((Facebook))) ...... (((SHARE))) ......
Button At The Top Of The weezer919.com Homepage ......
Please Email This Website To Your Friends ......
-----------------------------------------
If You Know How To Build Websites ......
Please Copy And Re-Publish This Website ......
You Can Call It ... "Your Website" ......
I Do Not Care ......
All I Want Is A Voice ......
-----------------------------------------
Undermine Their Pompous Authority ...... Reject Their Moral
Standards ...... Make Anarchy And Disorder Your Trademarks ......
Cause As Much Chaos And Disruption As Possible ...... But Don't Let
Them Take You ALIVE.
Sid Vicious
http://weezer919.com/ ......
Please Take A Few Moments To Visit This Website ......
Please Read This Website ......
Please Click The ...... (((Facebook))) ...... (((SHARE))) ......
Button At The Top Of The weezer919.com Homepage ......
Please Email This Website To Your Friends ......
-----------------------------------------
If You Know How To Build Websites ......
Please Copy And Re-Publish This Website ......
You Can Call It ... "Your Website" ......
I Do Not Care ......
All I Want Is A Voice ......
-----------------------------------------
Undermine Their Pompous Authority ...... Reject Their Moral
Standards ...... Make Anarchy And Disorder Your Trademarks ......
Cause As Much Chaos And Disruption As Possible ...... But Don't Let
Them Take You ALIVE.
Sid Vicious
oriel36
Jun 15, 2013, 3:12:33 AM6/15/13
to
You get a top post Hanson by virtue of your tragic attempt to
distinguish yourself by becoming a hyena because,whatever else you may
care to believe,you are just another cookie cutter youth popping out
of the empirical indoctrination system that some call 'education'.Many
tyrants knew this all too well as a central platform for maintaining a
grip on society -
"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! "Adolf Hitler, speech
at the Reichsparteitag, 1935
You are trapped in a fable passed off as history and while you are
allowed to argue for and against the early 20th century ideologies and
their attempt to escape a clockwork solar system,you are prohibited
from ever inquiring how Sir Isaac stacks up against the original
methods and insights of the astronomers insofar as students are
suffocated with voodoo before they ever get to see what
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo actually did and how they did it.
Your 'laugh' is a cancerous one,knowing you have to go with the mob
flow in a river to nowhere or a race to oblivion.On your way Hanson.
distinguish yourself by becoming a hyena because,whatever else you may
care to believe,you are just another cookie cutter youth popping out
of the empirical indoctrination system that some call 'education'.Many
tyrants knew this all too well as a central platform for maintaining a
grip on society -
"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! "Adolf Hitler, speech
at the Reichsparteitag, 1935
You are trapped in a fable passed off as history and while you are
allowed to argue for and against the early 20th century ideologies and
their attempt to escape a clockwork solar system,you are prohibited
from ever inquiring how Sir Isaac stacks up against the original
methods and insights of the astronomers insofar as students are
suffocated with voodoo before they ever get to see what
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo actually did and how they did it.
Your 'laugh' is a cancerous one,knowing you have to go with the mob
flow in a river to nowhere or a race to oblivion.On your way Hanson.
hanson
Jun 15, 2013, 7:30:27 AM6/15/13
to
ahahahaa... AHAHAHAHA... This is rich!... AHAHAHA
>
> Fatso, you keep on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> like all Einstein
Dingleberries habitually do, and so...
>
hanson wrote
For reasons only clear to Fat Gerald, in order to promote
the search for "Fat Gerald's epic lost second" that he will
never find, uptight Neo Nazi corporal Kelleher aka "oriel36"
<kellehe...@gmail.com> tried to find absolution from
his Freudian, cocaine-induced sleep disorder, by attempting,
unsuccessfully, to convince himself that his salvation must
lay in a speech from his idol Adolf Hitler, and so Fat Gerald
wrote:
ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald, listen:
hanson travels alone, makes his own music and
marches to his own beat, unlike you, Fat Gerald, who
needs to ride the coat-tail and bandwagon of Hitler.
ROTFLMAO, Fat Gerald, you senile Quatschkopf,
thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahanson
>
> Fatso, you keep on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> like all Einstein
Dingleberries habitually do, and so...
>
> hanson wrote:
> While I am glad that you are given still a modicum of
> curiosity in your nether world of textbook crap, your
> link is not what I was referring to. The article in question
> only dealt, elegantly, with the Barycenter-including
> Newtonian calcs which give the observed result.
>
<Enter "oral36" in lieu of Fatso, "oralizing" in earnest>
> hanson wrote:
> While I am glad that you are given still a modicum of
> curiosity in your nether world of textbook crap, your
> link is not what I was referring to. The article in question
> only dealt, elegantly, with the Barycenter-including
> Newtonian calcs which give the observed result.
>
>
hanson wrote
For reasons only clear to Fat Gerald, in order to promote
the search for "Fat Gerald's epic lost second" that he will
never find, uptight Neo Nazi corporal Kelleher aka "oriel36"
<kellehe...@gmail.com> tried to find absolution from
his Freudian, cocaine-induced sleep disorder, by attempting,
unsuccessfully, to convince himself that his salvation must
lay in a speech from his idol Adolf Hitler, and so Fat Gerald
wrote:
>
Fat Gerald "oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You get a top post Hanson by virtue of your tragic
> attempt to distinguish yourself by becoming a hyena
> because,whatever else you may care to believe,you are
> just another cookie cutter youth popping out of the
> empirical indoctrination system that some call 'education'.
> Many tyrants knew this all too well as a central platform
> for maintaining a grip on society - Fat Gerald now cites:
Fat Gerald "oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You get a top post Hanson by virtue of your tragic
> attempt to distinguish yourself by becoming a hyena
> because,whatever else you may care to believe,you are
> just another cookie cutter youth popping out of the
> empirical indoctrination system that some call 'education'.
> Many tyrants knew this all too well as a central platform
>
> "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!"
> Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935
> You are trapped in a fable passed off as history and
> while you are allowed to argue for and against the
> early 20th century ideologies and their attempt to
> escape a clockwork solar system,you are prohibited
> from ever inquiring how Sir Isaac stacks up against
> the original methods and insights of the astronomers
> insofar as students are suffocated with voodoo before
> they ever get to see what Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo
> actually did and how they did it.
> Your 'laugh' is a cancerous one, knowing you have to
> "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!"
> Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935
> You are trapped in a fable passed off as history and
> while you are allowed to argue for and against the
> early 20th century ideologies and their attempt to
> escape a clockwork solar system,you are prohibited
> from ever inquiring how Sir Isaac stacks up against
> the original methods and insights of the astronomers
> insofar as students are suffocated with voodoo before
> they ever get to see what Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo
> actually did and how they did it.
> go with the mob flow in a river to nowhere or a race to
> oblivion.On your way Hanson.
>
hanson wrote:
> oblivion.On your way Hanson.
>
ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald, listen:
hanson travels alone, makes his own music and
marches to his own beat, unlike you, Fat Gerald, who
needs to ride the coat-tail and bandwagon of Hitler.
ROTFLMAO, Fat Gerald, you senile Quatschkopf,
thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahanson
oriel36
Jun 15, 2013, 8:11:36 AM6/15/13
to
On Jun 15, 12:30 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald, listen:
> hanson travels alone, makes his own music and
> marches to his own beat, unlike you, Fat Gerald, who
> needs to ride the coat-tail and bandwagon of Hitler.
> ROTFLMAO, Fat Gerald, you senile Quatschkopf,
> thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahanson
Son,someone should tell you that you are just another cookie cutter
> ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald, listen:
> hanson travels alone, makes his own music and
> marches to his own beat, unlike you, Fat Gerald, who
> needs to ride the coat-tail and bandwagon of Hitler.
> ROTFLMAO, Fat Gerald, you senile Quatschkopf,
> thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahanson
empiricist looking for attention, basically another indoctrinated
youth who was instructed who to like and who not to like but all the
time within a fictional narrative that exists only in your poor
head.Hanson travels alone indeed !,the more you try to sound different
the more you stay the same.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 17, 2013, 10:17:02 AM6/17/13
to
>>
> Fatso wrote:.
> ... anything then ... is filled by general relativity...
how shamelessly dishonest!
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, GR does not fill anything, except that it drowns
> your senile brain in Gedanken farts, which you proselytize
> for, religiously, even now, 60+ years after
> _ Einstein himself became a SR/GR Relativity denier _
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>>
> Fatso wrote:
> ... this link ...may be it:
>> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/
>>
> hanson wrote:
> While I am glad that you are given still a modicum of
> curiosity in your nether world of textbook crap, your
> link is not what I was referring to.
to keep your reference mysterious and mystical. like a griffin or a
leprechaun.
> The article in question only dealt,
> elegantly, with the Barycenter-including
> Newtonian calcs which give the observed result.
>>
> Hopefully, the OP who posted it will come forth to help and show you,
posts. as it is, you _won't_ come forth with anything to back up your
statements. noted.
hanson
Jun 17, 2013, 2:29:45 PM6/17/13
to
>
Fatso wrote:
> fine, so ...
<snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>
[...]
>
> hanson wrote
>> but since you, Fatso, piss off most folks, the OP might let you dangle as
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 17, 2013, 8:28:16 PM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:29:45 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso, kept on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> & vigorously fanatical when he wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hanson wrote:
>Fatso wrote:
>> fine, so ...
><snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>>
>hanson wrote:
>Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
>stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
>But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
>like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
>ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>>
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground moves northward when you drop
>Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso, kept on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> & vigorously fanatical when he wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hanson wrote:
>Fatso wrote:
>> fine, so ...
><snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>>
>hanson wrote:
>Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
>stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
>But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
>like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
>ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>>
a ball on it....
Henry Wilson DSc.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 17, 2013, 9:09:31 PM6/17/13
to
hanson
Jun 18, 2013, 12:06:34 AM6/18/13
to
Quincy from "1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
plagiaried from Henry Wilson and wrote:
Re: didn't know that, but what is its trajectory, not a parabola.
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground
moves northward when you drop a ball on it....
>
hanson wrote:
moves northward when you drop a ball on it....
>
... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Did Fatso really say that?....
Maybe it's true in his mind especially if he drops the ball,
PD -- Paul Draper style, and "Absolutely Vertical"...
hanson
Jun 18, 2013, 12:09:36 AM6/18/13
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." <hw@....> wrote:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>>Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso, kept on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> & vigorously fanatical when he wrote:
>>> fine, so ...
>><snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
>>stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
>>But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
>>like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
>>ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>>>
>
Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>>Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso, kept on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical"
>> <absolutel...@gmail.com> & vigorously fanatical when he wrote:
>>> fine, so ...
>><snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
>>stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
>>But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
>>like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
>>ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>>>
>
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground moves
northward when you drop a ball on it....
>
northward when you drop a ball on it....
>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 18, 2013, 7:40:32 AM6/18/13
to
released, the ground will continue to move to the east but also start
moving to the _north_."
Looks like we'll soon have lots of mountains on the North Pole.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 18, 2013, 10:21:09 AM6/18/13
to
swallow the vomit coming out of henrywilson's mouth as soon as you see it?
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 18, 2013, 10:22:45 AM6/18/13
to
stopped reading?
>
> Looks like we'll soon have lots of mountains on the North Pole.
try reading the next sentence tomorrow. maybe there will be a rested
neuron available then.
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
antilockwise
Jun 18, 2013, 10:38:37 AM6/18/13
to
On 6/17/2013 11:06 PM, hanson wrote:
>
>
--
It ain't noways permanent!
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Jun 18, 2013, 11:27:01 AM6/18/13
to
"antilockwise" wrote in message news:kppr3u$doc$1...@dont-email.me...
===================================
If I want to unlock a padlock, do I turn the key
lockwise or counter-lockwise?
If I want to unlock a padlock, do I turn the key
lockwise or counter-lockwise?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 18, 2013, 12:10:12 PM6/18/13
to
yes, one can conduct the Origel experiment of throwing, or
just dropping the ball, provided there is some ice to stand up on
> At the North Pole?
just dropping the ball, provided there is some ice to stand up on
> At the North Pole?
hanson
Jun 18, 2013, 12:07:45 PM6/18/13
to
Paul Draper is "Absolutely Vertical" senile and uptight now
So, that vignette made you crank yourself that grievously.
ROFLMAO. Fatso Draper, your tripe maybe important
to you, but to most folks here its just text-book vomit.
Carry on, Fatso Draper, and keep cranking yourself....
and ... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
<absolutel...@gmail.com>, wined & wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 11:06 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
Quincy from "1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
plagiaried from Henry Wilson and wrote:
Re: didn't know that, but what is its trajectory, not a parabola.
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground moves
northward when you drop a ball on it....
>>>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Did Fatso really say that?....
Maybe it's true in his mind especially if he drops the ball,
PD -- Paul Draper style, and "Absolutely Vertical"...
>
> On 6/17/2013 11:06 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
Quincy from "1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com>
plagiaried from Henry Wilson and wrote:
Re: didn't know that, but what is its trajectory, not a parabola.
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground moves
northward when you drop a ball on it....
>>>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Did Fatso really say that?....
Maybe it's true in his mind especially if he drops the ball,
PD -- Paul Draper style, and "Absolutely Vertical"...
>
Fatso Paul Draoper wrote:
gee, hanson, why don't you look up what i really said,
rather than just swallow the vomit coming out of
henrywilson's mouth as soon as you see it?
>
hanson wrote:
gee, hanson, why don't you look up what i really said,
rather than just swallow the vomit coming out of
henrywilson's mouth as soon as you see it?
>
So, that vignette made you crank yourself that grievously.
ROFLMAO. Fatso Draper, your tripe maybe important
to you, but to most folks here its just text-book vomit.
Carry on, Fatso Draper, and keep cranking yourself....
and ... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 18, 2013, 12:25:38 PM6/18/13
to
two much effing macro-doody. anyway,
why is the trajectory "not a parabola," and
where is the other God-am focus?
why is the trajectory "not a parabola," and
where is the other God-am focus?
hanson
Jun 18, 2013, 12:39:58 PM6/18/13
to
Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso Paul Draper, kept on lamenting
"Absolutely Vertical"<absolutel...@gmail.com> and
nah. can't help it if you, Henry, can't digest more than a
But Fatso, your thought train of suspected to be to
mountains on the North pole doesn't say too much for
the quality of your moron-neurons. Listen though, Fatso:
>
If you, a fanatical Einstein Dingleberry, would tell Henry
that your soon to be mountains at the North pole will be
called the "Einstein Mountains", and that you know so,
because well, PD is short for Pole Dancer, ... then
>
that will certainly take the wind out of Henry's sail,
and he might slide South down under again to where
he came from.
>
Fatso & Henry, thanks for the laughs... ahahahahanson
"Absolutely Vertical"<absolutel...@gmail.com> and
vigorously fanatical when he wrote:
fine, so ...
<snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>>>>>>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>>>>>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground moves
northward when you drop a ball on it....
>>>>
hanson wrote:
>... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Did Fatso really say that?....
Maybe it's true in his mind especially if he drops the ball,
PD -- Paul Draper style, and does it "Absolutely Vertical"...
fine, so ...
<snipped more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment>
>>>>>>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, right after your "fine, so ..." you should have
stopped. Fatso, your are really slow on the uptake.
But that's the Hallmark of all Einstein Dingleberries
like yourself. Pity. Thanks for the laughs though
ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>>>>>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Do you know that Fatso believes that the ground moves
northward when you drop a ball on it....
>>>>
hanson wrote:
>... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Did Fatso really say that?....
Maybe it's true in his mind especially if he drops the ball,
>>
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
These were his words,"interestingly, when the ball is
released, the ground will continue to move to the east
but also start moving to the _north_."
>
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
These were his words,"interestingly, when the ball is
released, the ground will continue to move to the east
but also start moving to the _north_."
>
Fatso Paul Draper wrote:
yes, indeed. and what else did i say following the point
where you stopped reading?
>
yes, indeed. and what else did i say following the point
where you stopped reading?
>
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Looks like we'll soon have lots of mountains on the North Pole.
>
Fatso Paul Draper wrote:
Looks like we'll soon have lots of mountains on the North Pole.
>
nah. can't help it if you, Henry, can't digest more than a
sentence at a time. try reading the next sentence tomorrow.
maybe there will be a rested neuron available then.
>
hanson wrote:
maybe there will be a rested neuron available then.
>
But Fatso, your thought train of suspected to be to
mountains on the North pole doesn't say too much for
the quality of your moron-neurons. Listen though, Fatso:
>
If you, a fanatical Einstein Dingleberry, would tell Henry
that your soon to be mountains at the North pole will be
called the "Einstein Mountains", and that you know so,
because well, PD is short for Pole Dancer, ... then
>
that will certainly take the wind out of Henry's sail,
and he might slide South down under again to where
he came from.
>
Fatso & Henry, thanks for the laughs... ahahahahanson
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 18, 2013, 3:59:38 PM6/18/13
to
have only one meaning no matter how much of your nonsense I read.
"THE GROUND MOVES NORTH......TOWARDS THE NORTH POLE".
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 18, 2013, 4:22:04 PM6/18/13
to
On 6/18/2013 2:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Hey Fatso, your statement, "the ground moves North when you drop a ball", can
> have only one meaning no matter how much of your nonsense I read.
already laughed at this contention.
> Hey Fatso, your statement, "the ground moves North when you drop a ball", can
> have only one meaning no matter how much of your nonsense I read.
'i'll read what i want, and i'll interpret it any way i want, and that's
the _only_ way to see it. nyah. thbpbpbpbtt!!'
i thought the only thing funnier than a half-wit was a half-wit setting
himself on fire, but you manage to be a half-wit whose pants fall down
when you set yourself on fire.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 19, 2013, 5:18:07 AM6/19/13
to
everyone else.
"THE GROUND MOVES NORTH!"
DELUSIONAL'S ACTUAL WORDS.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 19, 2013, 8:43:17 AM6/19/13
to
'the', in bold-faced all-caps, followed by hysterical spittle-flinging.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 19, 2013, 12:20:55 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:43:17 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
T-H-E G-R-O-U-N-D M-O-V-E-S N-O-R-T-H
...I wonder what that means....
Delusional, your massive blunder is surpassed only by your inability to
recognize that you made it.
Henry Wilson DSc.
...I wonder what that means....
Delusional, your massive blunder is surpassed only by your inability to
recognize that you made it.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 19, 2013, 1:55:03 PM6/19/13
to
On 6/19/2013 11:20 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> Delusional, ... inability to
> recognize ....
i-n-a-b-i-l-i-t-y t-o r-e-c-o-g-n-i-z-e
you confessed it, ralph, no way to take it back
>
> Delusional, ... inability to
> recognize ....
i-n-a-b-i-l-i-t-y t-o r-e-c-o-g-n-i-z-e
you confessed it, ralph, no way to take it back
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 19, 2013, 2:09:30 PM6/19/13
to
was this so-called fatso referring to the Coriolis componentry
Henry Wilson DSc.
Jun 19, 2013, 2:30:06 PM6/19/13
to
mountains at the north pole by dropping balls on the equator.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 19, 2013, 3:05:01 PM6/19/13
to
On 6/19/2013 1:09 PM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> was this so-called fatso referring to the Coriolis componentry
exactly
> was this so-called fatso referring to the Coriolis componentry
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 19, 2013, 3:05:49 PM6/19/13
to
remember it any way your propaganda-machine-between-ears tells you.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 19, 2013, 8:30:49 PM6/19/13
to
now, how are corriolis effects to be distinguished
from corriolis forces, if they are both operative?
from corriolis forces, if they are both operative?
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 20, 2013, 12:52:09 PM6/20/13
to
On 6/18/2013 6:40 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> These were his words,"interestingly, when the ball is
> released, the ground will continue to move to the east but also start
> moving to the _north_."
>
> Looks like we'll soon have lots of mountains on the North Pole.
>
since you have difficulty following simple sentences, i'll use simpler ones.
>
> These were his words,"interestingly, when the ball is
> released, the ground will continue to move to the east but also start
> moving to the _north_."
>
> Looks like we'll soon have lots of mountains on the North Pole.
>
suppose you are traveling in a circle, with the center of the circle to
your left. at any given moment, your velocity vector points tangent to
the circle. however, you are turning (obviously) to the left. the
direction of the change in your velocity is toward the center. this is
what gives rise to the term 'centripetal acceleration'. the word
'centripetal' literally means 'center seeking' and this acceleration
points directly toward the center of the circle.
now if you were pushing a wagon while doing this and then let it go, the
wagon would proceed in a straight line while you continued to turn in a
circle. because your acceleration is toward the center of the circle,
remember, you will move away from the wagon. relative to the wagon, you
will begin moving toward the center of the circle. this is, after all,
what centripetal acceleration means.
now, suppose you are standing 20 yard from the north pole facing east,
and you stand there for a day. during those 24 hours, you will
circumscribe a circle, with the center of that circle lying to your
left. this means that, during the course of standing there, your
acceleration points to your left. left of east (the direction you're
facing) is north. your acceleration is toward the north.
now if you drop a ball at some point while standing on that spot, the
ball will behave like the wagon. it will have a tangential velocity to
the east, and it will continue in the direction. however, just like the
wagon, you will be veering away from that straight line motion, because
(after all) you're moving in a circle. the direction of that veer will
be to the left of east, i.e. north. that is, relative to the ball, which
is continuing to travel in the same direction eastward, you will begin
moving to the north, because the direction of the centripetal
acceleration is toward the axis of the earth.
i certainly hope that since 3rd graders know this, that this will not be
hard for you to follow.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages