GR prediction for precession of perihelion of Mercury is not quite right
Surfer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
Amount: arcsec/Julian century
5603.24 Total predicted
5599.7 Observed
-3.54 Discrepancy
The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an
eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be
unphysical.
BURT
> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>
> Amount: arcsec/Julian century
>
> 5603.24 Total predicted
> 5599.7 Observed
>
> -3.54 Discrepancy
>
> The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>
> In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an
> eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be
> unphysical.
Could it be a fall back rather than an advance?
And shouldn't it happen with every elliptical orbit?
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> See:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
>
> Amount: arcsec/Julian century
>
> 5603.24 Total predicted
> 5599.7 Observed
>
> -3.54 Discrepancy
>
> The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=articlesu9.html
>
> In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an
> eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be
> unphysical.
No, it doesn't. Don't apply forumlae outside their assumed parameter ranges.
Tom Roberts
> See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
>
> Amount: arcsec/Julian century
> 5603.24 Total predicted
> 5599.7 Observed
> -3.54 Discrepancy
>
> The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare the
discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
does not include the errorbars.
So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
whether this is important or not.
> In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an
> eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be
> unphysical.
Not "unphysical", merely unmeasurable.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> Surfer wrote:
> > See:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>
> > Amount: arcsec/Julian century
> > 5603.24 Total predicted
> > 5599.7 Observed
> > -3.54 Discrepancy
>
> > The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>
> Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare the
> discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
> does not include the errorbars.
>
> So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
> whether this is important or not.
Not the errorbars again. What is the errorbar of the one due to other
solar bodies? They seem to be very big, no? <shrug>
PD
No.
Tom Roberts
> On Jun 25, 8:58 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare the
>> discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
>> does not include the errorbars.
>>
>> So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
>> whether this is important or not.
>
> Not the errorbars again.
Yes, OF COURSE "the errorbars again [sic]". Comparison between theory and
experiment (measurement) ALWAYS requires errorbars.
> What is the errorbar of the one due to other
> solar bodies? They seem to be very big, no?
I do not know, and neither does the author of the post to which I responded, or
the author of the referenced article. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Yes, I suspect there
are contributions to the errorbars on the measurement that are comparable to the
discrepancy. If, for instance, the errorbar turns out to be 3 arcsec/century,
then the claim "the discrepancy is larger than the observational error" is
correct, yet the discrepancy is not SIGNIFICANT, and thus is not important.
For those of you who don't understand errorbars, let me explain. When making a
measurement, there is ALWAYS some experimental error [#]. So we model the
measurement process as yielding a distribution of values, with the actual value
as the mean of the distribution, and the sigma of the distribution being the
errorbar. It is observed that most measurement processes yield values that are
approximately Gaussian distributed, so this is usually a good model. The best
way to determine the errorbar is to measure it by taking multiple measurements
and determining mean and sigma from the different measurements. With that in
mind, only ~68% of the measurements will yield a value within one errorbar
(sigma) of the actual value, and ~5% of the time the value will exceed twice the
errorbar from the actual value. Assuming one has confidence in the value of the
errorbar, physicists generally consider a discrepancy of 2 sigma or less to be
not significant, a discrepancy between 3 and 4 sigma as inconclusive but
provocative, and a discrepancy of 5 sigma or more as pretty definitive.
[#] Error in the sense of discrepancy from the actual value,
not in the sense of "mistake". This is standard usage.
That said, I would not consider this discrepancy of 3.54 arcsec/century to be a
problem unless the errorbar on the measurement is smaller than about 0.7
arcsec/century. If it's less than about 1.2 arcsec/century then it's probably
worth revisiting.
[Astronomers know this, and the fact that they are not revisiting
this makes me infer that it is not a problem. But new techniques
can often reduce the errorbar, and that can make it worth re-doing.]
Tom Roberts
Surfer
wrote:
>On Jun 25, 11:25 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>>
>> Amount: arcsec/Julian century
>>
>> 5603.24 Total predicted
>> 5599.7 Observed
>>
>> -3.54 Discrepancy
>>
>> The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>>
>> In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an
>> eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be
>> unphysical.
>
>Could it be a fall back rather than an advance?
>
The total predicted precession is slightly too large.
A non-zero precession for a circular orbit also seems too large.
Both problems would be fixed by a theory that appropriately predicts
less precession, with the amount tending to zero for a circular orbit.
Interestingly, such predictions can be seen on page 70 in,
Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter,
Cahill R.T.
Nova Science Pub., New York, 2005.
So this could be the replacement theory for GR.
BURT
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:34:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time slowdown effects the metric of speed throuh the curve causing the
elliptical fall short. THis is true of every orbit but too small to
measure.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> On Jun 26, 5:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > That said, I would not consider this discrepancy of 3.54 arcsec/century to be a
> > problem unless the errorbar on the measurement is smaller than about 0.7
> > arcsec/century. If it's less than about 1.2 arcsec/century then it's probably
> > worth revisiting.
>
> > [Astronomers know this, and the fact that they are not revisiting
> > this makes me infer that it is not a problem. But new techniques
> > can often reduce the errorbar, and that can make it worth re-doing.]
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> meet one !
>
> What would you like to know about orbital dynamics including the
> Earth's own motion ?,oh,that's right,you specialize in wordplays with
> others who know no better or inclined to this dull and dishonorable
> mathematical and non-geometric nonsense.
>
> I bet there is not one among you who can explain the seasons let alone
> figure out an Ra/Dec observation of the planet Mercury.
Time slow effects elliptical orbit falling back by slowing the metric.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:34:48 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 25, 11:25 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>>
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>>>
>>> Amount: arcsec/Julian century
>>>
>>> 5603.24 Total predicted
>>> 5599.7 Observed
>>>
>>> -3.54 Discrepancy
>>>
>>> The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>>>
>>> In addition GR predicts that even a circular orbit with an
>>> eccentricity of zero would precess--but such precession would be
>>> unphysical.
>>
>>Could it be a fall back rather than an advance?
Thus we are reminded that BURT knows absolutely not a goddamn thing about
physics.
>>
> The total predicted precession is slightly too large.
You cited Wikipedia. It has no error bars.
I cited living reviews of relativity, which does. You did not reply.
> A non-zero precession for a circular orbit also seems too large.
Circular orbits don't precess, stupid.
>
> Both problems would be fixed by a theory that appropriately predicts
> less precession, with the amount tending to zero for a circular orbit.
>
> Interestingly, such predictions can be seen on page 70 in,
>
> Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter,
> Cahill R.T.
> Nova Science Pub., New York, 2005.
WOW IMAGINE THAT, SURFER CITING CAHILL WHO SOLVES A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T
EXIST.
>
> So this could be the replacement theory for GR.
Stop being stupid, if it is possible.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What is the errorbar of the one due to other
> > solar bodies? They seem to be very big, no?
>
> I do not know, and neither does the author of the post to which I responded, or
> the author of the referenced article.
You got me. I don't know the error bar for the influence due to other
solar bodies. I was hoping you might know and show so. So, you don't
know either, and that does not bother you a bit. <shrug>
> THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Yes, I suspect there
> are contributions to the errorbars on the measurement that are comparable to the
> discrepancy. If, for instance, the errorbar turns out to be 3 arcsec/century,
> then the claim "the discrepancy is larger than the observational error" is
> correct, yet the discrepancy is not SIGNIFICANT, and thus is not important.
You don't see a problem because you are expecting and hoping for the
validity in the Schwarzschild metric. That is not scientific.
You are also guessing for a very small error bar. Have you noticed
all the literatures so far presented to this newsgroup do not include
this error bar? On top of that, the number 530 only has two
significant digits. With no error bar associated, why are you
assuming the error bar to be zero?
> For those of you who don't understand errorbars...
Let's lay out the issue at hand ignoring the nonsense due to the
quadruple moment of the sun. Using the number of significant digits
presented, we should have a good idea on how tight the error bar is.
Observed = 5,599.7 +/- 0.? (no error bar)
Equinox = 5,028.00 +/- 0.04 (super accurate)
Perturbation = 530 +/- ?0 (implying very sloppy)
So, it all depends on the error bar from the contribute due to other
planets. With this argument, it does not bode well for the said 43"
for the Schwarzschild metric's influence, don't you think?
afe
[snip crap mercifully]
>
> WOW IMAGINE THAT, SURFER CITING CAHILL WHO SOLVES A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T
> EXIST.
rather you parallel and not tangent to a question once again
good bye
afe
> Surfer wrote:
> > See:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>
> > 5603.24 Total predicted
> > 5599.7 Observed
> > -3.54 Discrepancy
>
> > The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>
> Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare the
> discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
> does not include the errorbars.
>
> So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
> whether this is important or not.
insignificant, the entire science, including
relativity, is based on patterns, not errorbars
errorbars are barely significant to anything else,
except from an engineering point of view
good bye
afe
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 8:58 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare the
> >> discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
> >> does not include the errorbars.
>
> >> So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
> >> whether this is important or not.
>
> > Not the errorbars again.
>
> Yes, OF COURSE "the errorbars again [sic]". Comparison between theory and
> experiment (measurement) ALWAYS requires errorbars.
untrue, only from an engineering point of view, in
order to draw a fictive straight line in between the
average of the extremities of a fictive errorbar diagram
but the errorbar are it self subject to the 2nd order
errorbar, who tells that the errorbars are the right
answer, they are not
embedded in any errorbar are infinitely many other
errorbars, whereas all together result in useless
errorbars diagrams
good bye
J. Clarke
> On Jun 26, 6:25 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 8:58 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare the
>>>> discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
>>>> does not include the errorbars.
>>
>>>> So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
>>>> whether this is important or not.
>>
>>> Not the errorbars again.
>>
>> Yes, OF COURSE "the errorbars again [sic]". Comparison between theory and
>> experiment (measurement) ALWAYS requires errorbars.
>
> untrue, only from an engineering point of view, in
> order to draw a fictive straight line in between the
> average of the extremities of a fictive errorbar diagram
>
> but the errorbar are it self subject to the 2nd order
> errorbar, who tells that the errorbars are the right
> answer, they are not
>
> embedded in any errorbar are infinitely many other
> errorbars, whereas all together result in useless
> errorbars diagrams
Take a statistics^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H class. You have no idea how error
bars work or what their utility is.
tue
that would be stoopid, empirical data
has nothing to do with statistics
statistics is what you use when you do
dirty tricks and tell lies to people
better you take a kindergaarten class in
Numerical Analysis, this is must when you
deal with sets fo empirical data
now go tell your lies other places
good bye
Henry Wilson DSc
Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of gravity.
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
eric gisse
Another troll domain to shitcan.
eric gisse
[...]
> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of
> gravity.
As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the
existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a
testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide.
Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to say
something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'.
Dance for me, puppet.
eric gisse
[...]
You are arguing with the fake idiot who posts behind anonymous proxies.
Killfile the domain and move on.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of
>> gravity.
>
>As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the
>existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a
>testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide.
>
>Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to say
>something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'.
>
>Dance for me, puppet.
It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction of
action will vary with relative target speed.
One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will result
from this.
PD
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:54 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of
> >> gravity.
>
> >As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the
> >existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a
> >testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide.
>
> >Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to say
> >something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'.
>
> >Dance for me, puppet.
>
> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction of
> action will vary with relative target speed.
> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will result
> from this.
>
Fascinating. So according to you, no central force with a finite
transmission speed can produce a stable elliptical orbit? And you say
this is obvious?
Would you like to work through that derivation, or would you prefer to
check a mechanics book first to be sure you're not saying something
patently stupid?
PD
eric gisse
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:54 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of
>>> gravity.
>>
>>As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the
>>existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a
>>testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide.
>>
>>Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to say
>>something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'.
>>
>>Dance for me, puppet.
>
> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction
> of action will vary with relative target speed.
> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will
> result from this.
Since you feel it is obvious, where is your derivation for Mercury's
perihelion precession?
You could undermine relativity pretty nicely if you could do so, wouldn't
you agree? That is , of course, assuming you can actually do what you claim
and aren't just guessing as you are wont to do.
Koobee Wublee
Why is Professor Roberts not responding to these issues right up his
line of work? Being an experimental physicist, I would expect him to
be on top of where the tolerances and/or pertinent attributes are. I
am certain that a good engineer would have no problem assessing where
the issues of accuracy and fidelity lie. <shrug>
Wait! Maybe Professor Roberts is still searching through the
literatures on where the myth of 530 with unnaturally high precision
of observation comes from. <shrug>
Dono.
Back to sucking ass to Cahill, Peter?
Dono.
Yes, the australian fake idiot
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:54 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of
>>>> gravity.
>>>
>>>As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the
>>>existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a
>>>testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide.
>>>
>>>Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to say
>>>something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'.
>>>
>>>Dance for me, puppet.
>>
>> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction
>> of action will vary with relative target speed.
>> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will
>> result from this.
>
>Since you feel it is obvious, where is your derivation for Mercury's
>perihelion precession?
Why don't you do it and prove me wrong?
eric gisse
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:52:21 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:54 -0700, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>> Orbit precession is significantly influenced by the finite speed of
>>>>> gravity.
>>>>
>>>>As you have done many times previously, you make a guess based on the
>>>>existence of something that has not been observed. When asked to make a
>>>>testable prediction, you refuse and say something snide.
>>>>
>>>>Are you going to present your testable prediction, or are you going to
>>>>say something snide? I'm leaning towards 'something snide'.
>>>>
>>>>Dance for me, puppet.
>>>
>>> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its
>>> direction of action will vary with relative target speed.
>>> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will
>>> result from this.
>>
>>Since you feel it is obvious, where is your derivation for Mercury's
>>perihelion precession?
>
> Why don't you do it and prove me wrong?
Because it isn't my claim - it is yours. You have an odd propensity of
attempting to shift the burden upon others whether or not it is you who is
making the claim that's in question.
Post the derivation then I'll look at it, until then you are guessing and it
isn't up to me to research the mathematical foundation that disproves your
guess.
Jerry
> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction of
> action will vary with relative target speed.
> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will result
> from this.
Guess again, Henry. You are WAY OFF TRACK as usual.
It should be obvious that if gravitational force travels at the
speed of light, then a naive application of Newtonian principles
would predict that the Earth is accelerated, not in the direction
of the Sun, but rather in the direction that the Sun was 8.3
minutes ago. This implies a constant 0.0057 degree discrepancy
between the direction of Earth's acceleration vector versus the
direction that would keep Earth in a stable orbit around the Sun.
Each year, in fact, the Earth would steadily spiral closer
towards the Sun by approximately 30,000 miles.
Hundreds of years ago, Laplace concluded that for Newtonian
mechanics to be consistent with observation, the speed of gravity
must be at least 7x10^6 times the speed of light.
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e315547b-9a34-4cbe...@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 5:17 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction
> of
> action will vary with relative target speed.
> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will
> result
> from this.
Guess again, Henry. You are WAY OFF TRACK as usual.
It should be obvious that
======================================
My hope was that with my intentionally rather harsh criticism, I
might have managed to plant a seed of doubt in you, ya fuckin'
stupid hypocritical lying coward. Have you noticed I use your
incoherent trash-dumping words, ya rabid dog?
You can whine and deny all you want to, fuckheaded bigot, but it's Einstein
and Tom&Jeery you are denying.
For a cosmic muon with v = 0.999c, it's natural lifespan = 2.2 usec.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
Einstein's calculation is tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
2.2usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2) = 0.098362 usec
So cosmic muons which normally decay in 2.2 usec therefore map to "a
narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame"(--Tom&Jeery)
and only last for a maximum of 0.01 usec.
"These effects are regularly seen" -- Tom&Jeery.
I would estimate that more than likely you are a deranged insane old
faggot called "Tom the Minor Crank", pretending he could be the
pretty radiologist "Geraldine" he met in hospital when he went for an
X-ray, living out his fantasies on usenet and believing anyone can be
fooled by it.
REPEAT:
2.2 usec in the stationary frame, tau = 2.2 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the moving
frame. Einstein's equation - not a thing you can do about it, I can squeeze
your balls and you can only squeal. And I'm not letting go until you cry
"uncle" or fuck off out of here, you bastard. I'm teaching physics to guys
like Gehan and tords like you are in the way. Fucking weep, arsehole.
It is NOT possible that I have made a mistake, you FUCKING LYING
INCOMPETENT STOOOOOOOPID INSANE MORONIC ARROGANT
COWARDLY FRAUDULENT BIGOT, AS ALWAYS!
Koobee Wublee
> It should be obvious that if gravitational force travels at the
> speed of light, then a naive application of Newtonian principles
> would predict that the Earth is accelerated, not in the direction
> of the Sun, but rather in the direction that the Sun was 8.3
> minutes ago. This implies a constant 0.0057 degree discrepancy
> between the direction of Earth's acceleration vector versus the
> direction that would keep Earth in a stable orbit around the Sun.
> Each year, in fact, the Earth would steadily spiral closer
> towards the Sun by approximately 30,000 miles.
Yes, that was exactly what prompted the late Dr. Van Flandern to claim
the speed of gravity to be more than several billion times the speed
of light. <shrug>
> Hundreds of years ago, Laplace concluded that for Newtonian
> mechanics to be consistent with observation, the speed of gravity
> must be at least 7x10^6 times the speed of light.
Yes, indeed. <shrug>
Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because
he only included the aberration from the point of view of the
gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the
answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass
filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at
one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass
has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for
the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for
light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for
this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug>
Jerry
Sorry, you are grossly misinformed (AS ALWAYS!!!)
Even as Newtonian theory requires an infinite speed of gravity
for stable orbits, GR requires a finite speed of gravity. Prof.
Carlip limited his discussion to the case of an infinitesimal
orbiting particle because of its analytical simplicity. But
numerical relativity is an extremely well-established field, and
it is quite well known in the field that Van Flandern's claims
were just plain WRONG. If you did even a modicum of study, you
would know this...
Jerry
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 1, 12:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because
> > he only included the aberration from the point of view of the
> > gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the
> > answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass
> > filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at
> > one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass
> > has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for
> > the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for
> > light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for
> > this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug>
>
> Sorry, you are grossly misinformed (AS ALWAYS!!!)
Misinformed by whom?
> Even as Newtonian theory requires an infinite speed of gravity
> for stable orbits,
Yes. <shrug>
> GR requires a finite speed of gravity.
GR has no prediction on the speed of gravity. The issue is a
philosophical one for GR. <shrug>
> Prof.
> Carlip limited his discussion to the case of an infinitesimal
> orbiting particle because of its analytical simplicity.
What type of bullshit is that? An infinitesimal orbiting particle
still orbits the parent gravitating mass at relatively high speed.
So, only the gravitating mass is subject to aberration while this
infinitesimal particle does not? That is not according to the
principle of relativity. <shrug>
> But
> numerical relativity is an extremely well-established field,
More crap to throw, eh?
> and
> it is quite well known in the field that Van Flandern's claims
> were just plain WRONG.
Well, as you have claimed, the speed of gravity must be infinite to
satisfy Newtonian orbiting system. So, the late Dr. Van Flandern's
claim of the speed of gravity being higher than several billion times
the speed of light is actually very correct. What is the problem
here?
> If you did even a modicum of study, you
> would know this...
Know what? More of your bullshits and more fermented diarrhea of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein
Dingleberries?
Androcles
Jerry
==================
Tom&Jeery is insane, as always!
ka...@nventure.com
>
snip
>
> Let's lay out the issue at hand ignoring the nonsense due to the
> quadruple moment of the sun. Using the number of significant digits
> presented, we should have a good idea on how tight the error bar is.
>
> Observed = 5,599.7 +/- 0.? (no error bar)
> Equinox = 5,028.00 +/- 0.04 (super accurate)
> Perturbation = 530 +/- ?0 (implying very sloppy)
>
> So, it all depends on the error bar from the contribute due to other
> planets. With this argument, it does not bode well for the said 43"
> for the Schwarzschild metric's influence, don't you think?
I have always wondered how Joseph Le Verrier determined the
observed value of the advance of the perihelion of the obit
of Mercury to such precession that his mathematics of Newtonian
Mechanics results in an error of the tiny value 43 arc seconds
per century. He could not have observed this Natural Phenomenon
personally.
Furthermore, the value of 43 arc seconds/century is the effect.
The accuracy of the 43 arc seconds is very dependent on the
causes, i.e., the accuracy of the so call the 'observed advance
of the perihelion of the orbit'/earth century, and Le Verrier's
math.
Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century,
and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math?
Moreover, the Sun is not absolutely stationary within the Solar
System, because like all multiple body 'binary' systems, all the
masses move. The planets and comets obit, and the Sun jiggles
and 'is agitated' in the words of Isaac Newton. Did Le Verrier
even consider the minor mass planets, let alone the comets?
Additionally, the 'planet' Pluto was not yet discovered at the
time Le Verrier published his findings.
So let's face it, the 43 arc seconds/century on which Einstein
based his whole equation is pretty darn shaky, and screw the
errorbars.
D. Y. Kadoshima
Jerry
> On Jul 1, 7:50 pm, Jerry wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because
> > > he only included the aberration from the point of view of the
> > > gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the
> > > answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass
> > > filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at
> > > one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass
> > > has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for
> > > the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for
> > > light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for
> > > this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug>
>
> > Sorry, you are grossly misinformed (AS ALWAYS!!!)
>
> Misinformed by whom?
By yourself.
> > Even as Newtonian theory requires an infinite speed of gravity
> > for stable orbits,
>
> Yes. <shrug>
>
> > GR requires a finite speed of gravity.
>
> GR has no prediction on the speed of gravity. The issue is a
> philosophical one for GR. <shrug>
False.
> > Prof.
> > Carlip limited his discussion to the case of an infinitesimal
> > orbiting particle because of its analytical simplicity.
>
> What type of bullshit is that? An infinitesimal orbiting particle
> still orbits the parent gravitating mass at relatively high speed.
> So, only the gravitating mass is subject to aberration while this
> infinitesimal particle does not? That is not according to the
> principle of relativity. <shrug>
You are being nonsensical.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
> > But
> > numerical relativity is an extremely well-established field,
>
> More crap to throw, eh?
>
> > and
> > it is quite well known in the field that Van Flandern's claims
> > were just plain WRONG.
>
> Well, as you have claimed, the speed of gravity must be infinite to
> satisfy Newtonian orbiting system. So, the late Dr. Van Flandern's
> claim of the speed of gravity being higher than several billion times
> the speed of light is actually very correct. What is the problem
> here?
Newtonian mechanics is merely an approximation, therefore its
requirement that the speed of gravity be infinite (or nearly so)
is wrong.
> > If you did even a modicum of study, you
> > would know this...
>
> Know what? More of your bullshits and more fermented diarrhea of
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein
> Dingleberries?
In a few years, you will die and your "theories" will be totally
forgotten. Within their respective realms of applicability,
Newton's and Einstein's theories still have many millenia to go.
Jerry
Androcles
On Jul 2, 12:04 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:50 pm, Jerry wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Professor Carlip's gravitational aberration also fails short because
> > > he only included the aberration from the point of view of the
> > > gravitating mass (the larger of the two). So, aberration is not the
> > > answer. One explanation yours truly can think of is the low-pass
> > > filter nature in the gravitational effect. Gravitational effect at
> > > one point is going to linger for a while even if the gravitating mass
> > > has long moved away. The time constant of this low-pass filter for
> > > the gravitational effect must be very much larger than the time for
> > > light to travel through. GR has no explanation or prediction for
> > > this. It indicates a phenomenon of the Aether. <shrug>
>
> > Sorry, you are grossly misinformed (AS ALWAYS!!!)
>
> Misinformed by whom?
By yourself.
=====
LIAR.
> > Even as Newtonian theory requires an infinite speed of gravity
> > for stable orbits,
>
> Yes. <shrug>
>
> > GR requires a finite speed of gravity.
>
> GR has no prediction on the speed of gravity. The issue is a
> philosophical one for GR. <shrug>
False.
=====
LIAR.
Jerry
> I have always wondered how Joseph Le Verrier determined the
> observed value of the advance of the perihelion of the obit
> of Mercury to such precession that his mathematics of Newtonian
> Mechanics results in an error of the tiny value 43 arc seconds
> per century. He could not have observed this Natural Phenomenon
> personally.
>
> Furthermore, the value of 43 arc seconds/century is the effect.
> The accuracy of the 43 arc seconds is very dependent on the
> causes, i.e., the accuracy of the so call the 'observed advance
> of the perihelion of the orbit'/earth century, and Le Verrier's
> math.
>
> Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century,
> and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math?
Le Verrier had available to him well over a century (since 1631)
of accurate timings of the transit of Mercury. This so-called
"tiny value" of 43 arc seconds was throwing off his transit
predictions by an hour. (Le Verrier actually calculated 38 arcsec
per century.)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1859AnPar...5....1L
Over the next several decades, Le Verrier's calculations were
scrutinized by many people. By the time Asaph Hall and Simon
Newcomb got around to studying the problem, the accumulated
discrepancy in transit timings had reached about an hour and a
half. Simon Newcomb had become director of the National Almanac
Office in 1877, and as such had access to what was arguably the
best-trained team of computers in the world under the management
of George William Hill, to which he set the task of recalculating
all the major astronomical constants. From 1896 on, Newcomb's
values were the standard used by all ephemerides. It was Newcomb
who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the
anomalous precession of Mercury.
Jerry
ka...@nventure.com
>
snip
>
> ... It was Newcomb
> who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the
> anomalous precession of Mercury.
>
(for me) I don't understand French.
So could you please post what the 'observed values' are?
Also Newcomb's values would be greatly appreciated.
D.Y.K.
Androcles
Jerry
========================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_three-body_problem
There is no analytical solution to the general three body problem,
let alone one with the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
Of course Einstein, being god, could solve anything with his trusty
slide rule where Euler, Lagrange, Liouville, Laplace, Jacobi,
Darboux, Le Verrier, Velde, Hamilton, Poincaré, Birkhoff, and
Whittaker failed.
After all, a century is 415 orbits of the Sun by Mercury, so that's
415 * 360 degrees * 3600 arc seconds.
= 537840000 arc seconds and 43/537840000 * 100 = 7.9949e-6 %,
the kind of accuracy one expects from a genius like Einstein.
OwlHoot
> On Jun 25, 8:58 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> > > See:
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>
> > > Amount: arcsec/Julian century
> > > 5603.24 Total predicted
> > > 5599.7 Observed
> > > -3.54 Discrepancy
>
> > > The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>
> > discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not do that, and
> > does not include the errorbars.
>
> > So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can determine
> > whether this is important or not.
>
> solar bodies? They seem to be very big, no? <shrug>
There's expected to be a slight discrepancy due to flattening
of the Sun's core, on account of its quite rapid rotation.
Since nobody yet knows the core's exact shape (although progress
is being made by observations of surface vibrations), the same
slight uncertainty is associated with the precession of Mercury's
perihelion.
Cheers
John Ramsden
Jerry
Classically, what was OBSERVED were transit timings. No matter
what form of STATIC elliptical orbit one fit to Mercury's orbit,
the discrepancy between the predicted and actual timings had
reached an hour and a half by the end of the nineteenth century.
The "observed values" of the transit timings after 1769, expressed
in UTC, are readily available on the internet, although latitude
and longitude information (very important for data analysis) seems
somewhat harder to get. I don't have direct access to earlier
observations, although references are made in Le Verrier's paper.
I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information
if I found it for you. Probably nothing?
Jerry
Androcles
"OwlHoot" <raven...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:2c3962a4-0f53-4925...@a40g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Cheers
John Ramsden
===========================================
Oh no, Einstein's super accurate trusty slide rule calculated
EXACTLY where Mercury should be and we've had another
century of observations since then, with all prophecies within
the 415 orbits * 360 degrees * 3600 arc seconds
PD
>
> Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century,
> and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math?
The *measured* half-life of U-235 is 704 million years. When you
figure out how we can possibly know that despite not having been
around for 704 million years, then you'll perhaps have a glimmer of
understanding of what's going on in this case.
>
> Moreover, the Sun is not absolutely stationary within the Solar
> System, because like all multiple body 'binary' systems, all the
> masses move. The planets and comets obit, and the Sun jiggles
> and 'is agitated' in the words of Isaac Newton. Did Le Verrier
> even consider the minor mass planets, let alone the comets?
> Additionally, the 'planet' Pluto was not yet discovered at the
> time Le Verrier published his findings.
>
> So let's face it, the 43 arc seconds/century on which Einstein
> based his whole equation is pretty darn shaky, and screw the
> errorbars.
Sorry, but the error bars tell you how shaky that number is. That's
what the purpose of error bars is. What you are saying is that you
don't have any idea how those error bars were arrived at.
J. Clarke
Legions of astronomy students have verified the math. As for "who the
hell or what team", many astronomers. Why do all observations have to
be by the same person or team? And why does the measurement have to be
over "exactly one century"?
> Moreover, the Sun is not absolutely stationary within the Solar
> System, because like all multiple body 'binary' systems, all the
> masses move. The planets and comets obit, and the Sun jiggles
> and 'is agitated' in the words of Isaac Newton. Did Le Verrier
> even consider the minor mass planets, let alone the comets?
> Additionally, the 'planet' Pluto was not yet discovered at the
> time Le Verrier published his findings.
If the cause of the anomaly in the precession of Mercury is Pluto and
comets then why it is the _only_ planet that shows such an anomaly?
You're assuming that the same guy who figured out from its effect on the
other planets the position of the then unknown Neptune with such
accuracy that the observational astronomers were able to find it within
hours of starting the search was unable to account for such effects in
calculating the orbit of Mercury.
> So let's face it, the 43 arc seconds/century on which Einstein
> based his whole equation is pretty darn shaky, and screw the
> errorbars.
Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury?
eric gisse
[...]
> I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information
> if I found it for you. Probably nothing?
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
>
> Jerry
eric gisse
> On Jun 26, 5:23 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 8:58 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Surfer wrote:
>> > > See:
>> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p...
>>
>> > > Amount: arcsec/Julian century
>> > > 5603.24 Total predicted
>> > > 5599.7 Observed
>> > > -3.54 Discrepancy
>>
>> > > The discrepancy is larger than the observational error
>>
>> > Before one knows whether or not this is significant, one must compare
>> > the discrepancy to the errorbars. The above-referenced article does not
>> > do that, and does not include the errorbars.
>>
>> > So you must look up the errorbars in the literature before you can
>> > determine whether this is important or not.
>>
>> Not the errorbars again. What is the errorbar of the one due to other
>> solar bodies? They seem to be very big, no? <shrug>
KW is stupid. That's all that really needs to be said after all these years.
>
> There's expected to be a slight discrepancy due to flattening
> of the Sun's core, on account of its quite rapid rotation.
>
> Since nobody yet knows the core's exact shape (although progress
> is being made by observations of surface vibrations), the same
> slight uncertainty is associated with the precession of Mercury's
> perihelion.
The name for this is 'solar quadrupole moment'.
A massive body with a quadrupole moment makes an orbiting body's orbit
precess, which is a well known feature in classical mechanics.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> John Ramsden
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 2, 12:04 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Misinformed by whom?
>
> By yourself.
You make no sense. <shrug>
> > GR has no prediction on the speed of gravity. The issue is a
> > philosophical one for GR. <shrug>
>
> False.
Where is it? Want to bring up Rob Low’s paper with warp drives?
Hello, Star Trek. <shrug>
> > What type of bullshit is that? An infinitesimal orbiting particle
> > still orbits the parent gravitating mass at relatively high speed.
> > So, only the gravitating mass is subject to aberration while this
> > infinitesimal particle does not? That is not according to the
> > principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
> You are being nonsensical.http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
What is so nonsensical about telling you that an infinitesimal
orbiting particle still orbits the parent gravitating mass at
relatively high speed? <shrug>
> > Well, as you have claimed, the speed of gravity must be infinite to
> > satisfy Newtonian orbiting system. So, the late Dr. Van Flandern's
> > claim of the speed of gravity being higher than several billion times
> > the speed of light is actually very correct. What is the problem
> > here?
>
> Newtonian mechanics is merely an approximation,
So are all other mathematical models. <shrug>
> therefore its
> requirement that the speed of gravity be infinite (or nearly so)
> is wrong.
There is no such requirement to a mathematical model. The question is
whether a mechanism can be identified to define what the speed of
gravity is. Both Newtonian and GR fail at that. <shrug>
> > Know what? More of your bullshits and more fermented diarrhea of
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein
> > Dingleberries?
>
> In a few years, you will die and your "theories" will be totally
> forgotten. Within their respective realms of applicability,
> Newton's and Einstein's theories still have many millenia to go.
I would certain bet against that. <shrug>
In the meantime, keep drinking more fermented diarrhea of Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein Dingleberries.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On 7/2/2010 4:32 AM, k...@nventure.com wrote:
> > I have always wondered how Joseph Le Verrier determined the
> > observed value of the advance of the perihelion of the obit
> > of Mercury to such precession that his mathematics of Newtonian
> > Mechanics results in an error of the tiny value 43 arc seconds
> > per century. He could not have observed this Natural Phenomenon
> > personally.
>
> > Furthermore, the value of 43 arc seconds/century is the effect.
> > The accuracy of the 43 arc seconds is very dependent on the
> > causes, i.e., the accuracy of the so call the 'observed advance
> > of the perihelion of the orbit'/earth century, and Le Verrier's
> > math.
>
> > Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century,
> > and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math?
>
> Legions of astronomy students have verified the math.
I am certain interested to see that math where these legions of
astronomy students can conclude all bodies with the solar system or
beyond can contribute exactly 530 arcseconds to the orbital advance of
Mercury’s perihelion. So, where is it? <shrug>
> As for "who the
> hell or what team", many astronomers. Why do all observations have to
> be by the same person or team? And why does the measurement have to be
> over "exactly one century"?
You an astronomer?
> > Moreover, the Sun is not absolutely stationary within the Solar
> > System, because like all multiple body 'binary' systems, all the
> > masses move. The planets and comets obit, and the Sun jiggles
> > and 'is agitated' in the words of Isaac Newton. Did Le Verrier
> > even consider the minor mass planets, let alone the comets?
> > Additionally, the 'planet' Pluto was not yet discovered at the
> > time Le Verrier published his findings.
>
> If the cause of the anomaly in the precession of Mercury is Pluto and
> comets then why it is the _only_ planet that shows such an anomaly?
If a tree falls on the ground in Siberia, why does a man in Australia
decide to drink a can of beer?
> You're assuming that the same guy who figured out from its effect on the
> other planets the position of the then unknown Neptune with such
> accuracy that the observational astronomers were able to find it within
> hours of starting the search was unable to account for such effects in
> calculating the orbit of Mercury.
Uranus’ case is not as tiny as 43” per earth century of orbital
anomaly. <shrug>
> > So let's face it, the 43 arc seconds/century on which Einstein
> > based his whole equation is pretty darn shaky, and screw the
> > errorbars.
>
> Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury?
I guess Mr. Kadoshima probably means the Schwarzschild metric which is
one of the infinite numbers of solutions to the field equations that
are static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat, and
degenerative to Newtonian law of gravity.
However, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had already
“predicted” (3 G M / c^2 / R, where M = solar mass, R = average
orbital distance to the sun) per revolution of advance in perihelion.
That was about half a year before the field equations. In fact
bragging about this so-called achievement was what prompted Hilbert to
pull out that so-called Lagrangian as a density of some sort to the
ever so mystic Einstein-Hilbert action. With that Lagrangian, Hilbert
was about to derive the field equations.
What Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did was to
mechanically copy Gerber’s work. Both modified the Newtonian
gravitational potential to do so. Gerber’s approach was to design a
speed dependent gravitational potential, while Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar chose to add a second order effect to the
orbital distance. Of course, being a nitwit, Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar naturally made a lot of mistake on that.
<shrug>
ka...@nventure.com
>
snip
>
> Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury?
The GR equation of Einstein that this whole thread is all about:
The advance of the perihelion of the orbits (i.e., exactly 43
arcsec/century in the case of Mercury) =
24pi^3(a^2/T^2c^2[1-e^2])
See page 163 of 'The Principle of Relativity' authored by Lorentz,
Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, and originally published in German
in 1923. This is in English in 'Gravity, the Glue of the Universe',
therefore so are the definitions of the letters used in the equation.
D.Y.K.
J. Clarke
And it is your contention that Einstein derived General Relativity from
this equation? So what were the other 162 pages of the book about do
you think?
ka...@nventure.com
Where the heck did you ever get the idea that I maintain that
Einstein derived GR from this equation?
I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43
arcsec/centrury of Le Verrier's findings.
Your logic is extremely weak, if you have any at all. Furthermore
your responses to my posts positively demonstrates that your
sense of cause and effect is non-existent.
I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same
degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the
Solar System.
Furthermore, the values of what T. Roberts claims as errorbars
are astronomical when applied to many binary extra-Solar System
bodies.
So do not expect any more responses to your flummox posts.
To argue with a fool only demonstrates that there are two.
D.Y.K.
J. Clarke
> On Jul 3, 5:09 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2010 5:41 AM, k...@nventure.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 7:30 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> snip
>>
>>>> Huh? What "whole equation" did Einstein base on observations of Mercury?
>>
>>> The GR equation of Einstein that this whole thread is all about:
>>
>>> The advance of the perihelion of the orbits (i.e., exactly 43
>>> arcsec/century in the case of Mercury) =
>>
>>> 24pi^3(a^2/T^2c^2[1-e^2])
>>
>>> See page 163 of 'The Principle of Relativity' authored by Lorentz,
>>> Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, and originally published in German
>>> in 1923. This is in English in 'Gravity, the Glue of the Universe',
>>> therefore so are the definitions of the letters used in the equation.
>>
>> And it is your contention that Einstein derived General Relativity from
>> this equation? So what were the other 162 pages of the book about do
>> you think?
>
>
> Where the heck did you ever get the idea that I maintain that
> Einstein derived GR from this equation?
>
> I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43
> arcsec/centrury of Le Verrier's findings.
I see. So show us where the 43 arcsec/century was assumed in its
derivation.
> Your logic is extremely weak, if you have any at all. Furthermore
> your responses to my posts positively demonstrates that your
> sense of cause and effect is non-existent.
When in doubt attack, the typical resort of the troll, conspiracy
theorist, and loon.
> I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same
> degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the
> Solar System.
Why would it?
> Furthermore, the values of what T. Roberts claims as errorbars
> are astronomical when applied to many binary extra-Solar System
> bodies.
So are all binary extra-Solar System bodies. So what?
> So do not expect any more responses to your flummox posts.
Hope springs eternal.
> To argue with a fool only demonstrates that there are two.
This is true. I should not be arguing with you.
eric gisse
[...]
> I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43
> arcsec/centrury of Le Verrier's findings.
He did not.
You are guessing.
[...]
> I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same
> degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the
> Solar System.
It does.
You are, again, guessing.
>
> Furthermore, the values of what T. Roberts claims as errorbars
> are astronomical when applied to many binary extra-Solar System
> bodies.
Error bars from one measurement do not apply to other, independent,
measurements.
You are guessing about a subject you have not adequately studied, and it
shows. Please stop.
Uncle Ben
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0b49691e-1969-44d7...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 12:04 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:50 pm, Jerry wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 12:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> So cosmic muons which normally decay in 2.2 usec therefore map to "a
> narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame"(--Tom&Jeery)
> and only last for a maximum of 0.01 usec.
> "These effects are regularly seen" -- Tom&Jeery.
>
> I would estimate that more than likely you are a deranged insane old
> faggot called "Tom the Minor Crank", pretending he could be the
> pretty radiologist "Geraldine" he met in hospital when he went for an
> X-ray, living out his fantasies on usenet and believing anyone can be
> fooled by it.
>
> REPEAT:
> 2.2 usec in the stationary frame, tau = 2.2 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the moving
> frame. Einstein's equation - not a thing you can do about it, I can squeeze
> your balls and you can only squeal. And I'm not letting go until you cry
> "uncle" or fuck off out of here, you bastard. I'm teaching physics to guys
> like Gehan and tords like you are in the way. Fucking weep, arsehole.
> It is NOT possible that I have made a mistake, you FUCKING LYING
> INCOMPETENT STOOOOOOOPID INSANE MORONIC ARROGANT
> COWARDLY FRAUDULENT BIGOT, AS ALWAYS!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is rich! Androcles, who has persuaded himself thar Einstein
derived from SR that meter sticks are LONGER with respect to a frame
in which they are moving, now claims that in Einstein's SR, muons
decay FASTER in the frame in which they are moving than in the frame
in which they are at rest. Androcles has found length EXPANSION and
now time CONTRACTION.. Everyone is out of step except Androcles!
Furthermore, he is teaching this crap to young Gehan. Gehan, please
compare to Wikipedia.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:dd0ca780-cd25-4e1e...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Do the rich math to prove your point, Bonehead.
Everyone is out of step except Androcles!
==========================================
Aha! a proof by "everyone knows".
That's not listed here, Bonehead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Please correct wackypedia to include proof by "everybody knows", Bonehead.
The atrocious wolf doesn't bleat with the boneheaded sheep.
==========================================
Furthermore, he is teaching this crap to young Gehan. Gehan, please
compare to Wikipedia.
Uncle Ben
======================================================
There is no general solution to the three body problem, but Einstein
with his trusty slip-stick managed to solve it for Mercury to an accuracy
of
43 arc sec in 415 orbits * 360 degrees * 60 arc min * 60 arc sec
= 7.9949427338985571917298824929347e-8
= 8 parts in a 100 million,
but poor old Einstein doesn't get so much as a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_three-body_problem
alongside Lagrange, Liouville, Laplace, Jacobi, Darboux, Le Verrier, Velde,
Hamilton, Poincaré, Birkhoff, E. T. Whittaker, among others.
Perhaps he's "among others".
Everyone and Wackypedia is out of step with Einstein.
Step up to the plate, Bonehead, go to bat for Einstein's analytical GR
solution to the three body problem, wackypedia needs you.
Tell them the proof is by "every boneheaded cretin and
American redneck of science knows".
eric gisse
Androcles is losing his shit in real time.
Simp
> On Jul 2, 3:32 am, "k...@nventure.com" <k...@nventure.com> wrote:
>
> > I have always wondered how Joseph Le Verrier determined the
> > observed value of the advance of the perihelion of the obit
> > of Mercury to such precession that his mathematics of Newtonian
> > Mechanics results in an error of the tiny value 43 arc seconds
> > per century. He could not have observed this Natural Phenomenon
> > personally.
>
> > Furthermore, the value of 43 arc seconds/century is the effect.
> > The accuracy of the 43 arc seconds is very dependent on the
> > causes, i.e., the accuracy of the so call the 'observed advance
> > of the perihelion of the orbit'/earth century, and Le Verrier's
> > math.
>
> > Who the hell, or what team observed this for exactly one century,
> > and did anyone actually verify Le Verrier's math?
>
> Le Verrier had available to him well over a century (since 1631)
> of accurate timings of the transit of Mercury. This so-called
> "tiny value" of 43 arc seconds was throwing off his transit
> predictions by an hour. (Le Verrier actually calculated 38 arcsec
>
> Over the next several decades, Le Verrier's calculations were
> scrutinized by many people. By the time Asaph Hall and Simon
> Newcomb got around to studying the problem, the accumulated
> discrepancy in transit timings had reached about an hour and a
> half. Simon Newcomb had become director of the National Almanac
> Office in 1877, and as such had access to what was arguably the
> best-trained team of computers in the world under the management
> of George William Hill, to which he set the task of recalculating
> all the major astronomical constants. From 1896 on, Newcomb's
> values were the standard used by all ephemerides. It was Newcomb
> who arrived at the modern value of 43 arcsec/century for the
> anomalous precession of Mercury.
>
> Jerry
Orbital period is shorter - check Mercury mass...
J. Clarke
Shorter than what and what do you believe to be the relevance?
Henry Wilson DSc
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 5:17�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction of
>> action will vary with relative target speed.
>> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will result
>> from this.
>
>Guess again, Henry. You are WAY OFF TRACK as usual.
>
>It should be obvious that if gravitational force travels at the
>speed of light, then a naive application of Newtonian principles
>would predict that the Earth is accelerated, not in the direction
>of the Sun, but rather in the direction that the Sun was 8.3
>minutes ago. This implies a constant 0.0057 degree discrepancy
>between the direction of Earth's acceleration vector versus the
>direction that would keep Earth in a stable orbit around the Sun.
>Each year, in fact, the Earth would steadily spiral closer
>towards the Sun by approximately 30,000 miles.
>
>Hundreds of years ago, Laplace concluded that for Newtonian
>mechanics to be consistent with observation, the speed of gravity
>must be at least 7x10^6 times the speed of light.
There you have it then.
Gravity moves faster than light....but at a finite speed.
>Jerry
>
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
Simp
Kepler (two body, no one):
T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m));
Approximation:
T(m) =~ 2pi sqrt(a^3/GM)(1 - 0.5 m/M) = T(0)*(1 - 0.5 m/M);
T(0) > T(m);
Mercury-Sun: m/M = 1/600000 > 0.
For one orbit:
da = 2pi * 0.5 m/M = pi/6000000;
100 years = 415 orbits:
da = 415pi/6000000 = 44.8 arcsecs.
Anomalous orbit precession?
Only optical effect - illusion
(true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury).
J. Clarke
You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession.
>
Androcles
"Simp" <al...@interia.pl> wrote in message
news:17ac0450-0465-4eeb...@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
=======================
Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length.
DOA.
Simp
> > Anomalous orbit precession?
> > Only optical effect - illusion
> > (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury).
>
> You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession.
Le Verrier too.
Precession is ~560 arcsec / year...
it's little more than 0.4 arcsec.
Jupiter: m/M = 1050;
560 arcsec - here is good precession.
Moon-earth orbit: m/M = 1/81 !
360 deg / 8.85 years;
and 18.6 years - orbit precession (nodes).
Simp
> Kepler (two body, no one):
> T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m));
> =======================
> Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length.
> DOA.
2pi is angle - full cycle, closed loop...
Simp
> On 5 Lip, 04:38, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Anomalous orbit precession?
> > > Only optical effect - illusion
> > > (true sun position is delayed in time, more than mercury).
>
> > You don't seem to understand the difference between period and precession.
>
> Precession is ~560 arcsec / year...
> it's little more than 0.4 arcsec.
56 / year = 5600 / 100y
5599.7 / 100y - Observed;
100% Jupiter.
Androcles
Precession is more than 2pi radians from aphelion to aphelion.
Even then one needs Newton's absolute coordinate frame of
reference that he called the "fixed" stars, there being no other
reference available, and we need to take into account Earth's
precession.
J. Clarke
So why doesn't the calculation method that successfully accounts for
Jupiter in the analysis of the orbits of the other planets work for
Mercury?
Simp
T is for 2pi radians only.
(v/c)^2 - delay, light aberration, ect.
a = 1.75 arcsecs - deflection angle.
1.75 / 3600 / 360 = (v/c)^2;
v = 350 km/s - CMB radiation.
v - average star-sun velocity.
Shapiro - (v/c)^2;
simple Sagnac effect.
Androcles
| On 5 Lip, 15:44, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
| > "Simp" <al...@interia.pl> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:b68553e2-2878-44fe...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
| > | On 5 Lip, 09:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
| > |
| > | > Kepler (two body, no one):
| > | > T(m) = 2pi sqrt(a^3/G(M+m));
| > | > =======================
| > | > Elliptical orbits are not 2pi in length.
| > | > DOA.
| > |
| > | 2pi is angle - full cycle, closed loop...
| > |
| >
| > Precession is more than 2pi radians from aphelion to aphelion.
| > Even then one needs Newton's absolute coordinate frame of
| > reference that he called the "fixed" stars, there being no other
| > reference available, and we need to take into account Earth's
| > precession.
|
| T is for 2pi radians only.
So it's only an approximation.
| (v/c)^2 - delay, light aberration, ect.
|
| a = 1.75 arcsecs - deflection angle.
| 1.75 / 3600 / 360 = (v/c)^2;
| v = 350 km/s - CMB radiation.
| v - average star-sun velocity.
|
| Shapiro - (v/c)^2;
| simple Sagnac effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Simple Sagnac effect = simple Coriolis effect.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Simp
Yes, but we don't see light in fly.
T1 = d(t=0)/c, light speed on Mars is c;
and back:
T2 = d(t=T1)/c; light speed on Earth is c;
======
v = 350 km/s - solar wind speed, not stars.
eric gisse
[...]
You are wasting your time on trying to make the androcles understand.
Henry Wilson DSc
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 5:17 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> It should be obvious that, if a force takes time to operate, its direction of
>> action will vary with relative target speed.
>> One doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that orbit precession will result
>> from this.
>
>Guess again, Henry. You are WAY OFF TRACK as usual.
>
>It should be obvious that if gravitational force travels at the
>speed of light, then a naive application of Newtonian principles
>would predict that the Earth is accelerated, not in the direction
>of the Sun, but rather in the direction that the Sun was 8.3
>minutes ago. This implies a constant 0.0057 degree discrepancy
>between the direction of Earth's acceleration vector versus the
>direction that would keep Earth in a stable orbit around the Sun.
>Each year, in fact, the Earth would steadily spiral closer
>towards the Sun by approximately 30,000 miles.
>
>Hundreds of years ago, Laplace concluded that for Newtonian
>mechanics to be consistent with observation, the speed of gravity
>must be at least 7x10^6 times the speed of light.
>
>Jerry
Why does precession occur at all?
Several reasons.
One is due to the sun's poperties. Another due to the motions of other planets.
If an object is captured in a chance three body event, its orbit will precess
for eons. Was Mercury captured?
Similarly, if an object such as a comet goes past a highly elliptically
orbiting planet like Mercury, its orbit will be given a sideways kick and
continue to precess for a very long time.
Induced precession doesn't just go away quietly.
eric gisse
The perturbations from the solar quadrupole moment and other planets are
well known and accounted for by classical perturbation theory.
But not by you. You are incapable of handling the mathematics that
demonstrates this.
>
> If an object is captured in a chance three body event, its orbit will
> precess for eons. Was Mercury captured?
Uh no, you are guessing. Orbits do not precess for that reason.
>
> Similarly, if an object such as a comet goes past a highly elliptically
> orbiting planet like Mercury, its orbit will be given a sideways kick and
> continue to precess for a very long time.
>
> Induced precession doesn't just go away quietly.
You are making shit up, Henri. Keplerian orbits are always closed unless
there is a perturbation.
Simp
> > 56 / year = 5600 / 100y
>
> > 5599.7 / 100y - Observed;
> > 100% Jupiter.
>
> So why doesn't the calculation method that successfully accounts for
> Jupiter in the analysis of the orbits of the other planets work for
> Mercury?
Mercury is in correct place without extra precession -
orbital period is shorter.
J. Clarke
So why does the same method of measuring orbital periods that works for
every other planet give an incorrect result with Mercury?
eric gisse
Do you know the difference between perihelion advance and orbital period? I
suspect you do not.
spudnik
then there was for instantaneous lightwaves, before Ole Roemer?
now, if you weren't so bound-up in the Department of Einsteinmania,
The Musical Dept., you'd have known about Alfven waves ...
not that I really do, but see _The Big Bang Never Happened_
by E.Lerner, a student of his at UCSDiego.
> The question is whether a mechanism can be identified
> to define what the speed of gravity is.
thus&so:
TOA, means "top of atmosphere?" also,
I'd appreciate more about the definition
of "one optical depth."
thus&so:
OK, why don't you dyscuss, whether or not cap&trade is a "tax,"
per the WSUrinal editorials' & teaparty's mere slogan, or just another
way
for the bears &bulls to make money, whilst the hogs get slaughtered?
(that is to say, the Next (or very Last) Bailout of Wall Street etc.,
including Beyondish Petroleumish, the big operators
in the Gulf and Alaska ... and "the nationbuilding of E.Timor?")
thus&so:
the Kyoto Protocol was stricltly cap&trade, a.k.a. "free trade"
of the yore of British imperialism in 1776 (whence Smith's second
hoax,
_The Wealth of Nations_, was published), as Waxman's wunnerful bill
of '91 on NOX and SO2. maybe, it was fortunate, that someone lied
to Dubya about Kyoto's true nature, or he'd surely have signed it.
so, how about an actual, tiny, accountable carbon tax, instead
of the next and/or last bailout of Wall Street and the City
(of London, financial district & gated community) ??
the voluntary USA cap&trade, apparently partly started
by Sen. Obama via private foundations, is already huge,
tens of billions of dollars US per annum since 2003, although
much smaller than the EU's mandatory one.
> > Kyoto and Cap & Trade.
thus&so:
ice that is within the arctic circles
never gets direct insolation over 47 degrees from horizon (or
less than 43 degrees from zenith). I mean,
that is not really apparent in GCMers flatscreen HDTVs.
> Which sea ice (Arctic summer or Antarctic winter) affects albedo, most?
thus&so:
all of the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives, seems
to agree with Emmanuel, that this is the time
to install BP's old cap&trade ideals from Kyoto ... actually,
first launched in '91 under Waxman and H-Dubya.
thus&so:
so, acid rain is the germain topic, since
it was the First Cap and Trade (Waxman's '91 bill). so,
what I haven't seen dyscussed in the WSUrinal e.g.,
is just how wonderfully this'd worked --
who made the money in the God-am "free market?"
[NB, Waxman's cmte. also ran the healthcare bill;
is that a conspiracy, or doe he get free drugs?]
thus&so:
sad to say, I missed the authors of _Doubt Merchants_,
when they came to the public library, as folks around here
rely on me to be the (usually) lone contrarian in Santa Monica,
the capital of Green (with the help of Alcoa's largest-ever
bequest to the WAND Corp., when the President was chosen
to be Dubya's Treasurer ... when HDPE bags are outlawed,
only criminals and baby-smotherers will have HDPE bags -- a-hem.)
you bring-up 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. well, 2003 was when a)
they cut-off a tenth of our supply to Californicators (with their ban
on offshore drilling), and spent a huge amount of oil
on the new war ... and that's when the hedgers jacked the price up,
kind of a double-whammy after the "electricity crisis"
from Texas and Canada.
thus&so:
such is the nature of an ad hoc interpretation of glaciation,
that added snowfall requires a "colder" planet (and that
more icebergs calving necessarily implies melting ...
not according to the satellite telemetry,
circa the day of the panel at UCLA, a few y.a.;
citing-out two of the professors, known to me.)
> increasing WV content results in stronger cyclonic systems
> as much as or more than vertical lapse rate changes.
thus quoth:
Miskolczi said in <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
thus&so:
what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate
for Bernward at the Post [*], was also the Vice President,
who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
(second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
to make for a controlled demolition?
well, some of us believe that
he was not just the acting president --
especially since the impeachment of Bill C..
* in the theatrical parlance of editor Bradley or ms. Graham,
Woodstein ne'er followed the Pennzoil money to <a-hem>;
see http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/
--BP's cap&trade plus free beer/miles on your CO2 creds at ARCO!
http://wlym.com
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> Why does precession occur at all?
>> Several reasons.
>>
>> One is due to the sun's poperties. Another due to the motions of other
>> planets.
>
>The perturbations from the solar quadrupole moment and other planets are
>well known and accounted for by classical perturbation theory.
>
>But not by you. You are incapable of handling the mathematics that
>demonstrates this.
>
>>
>> If an object is captured in a chance three body event, its orbit will
>> precess for eons. Was Mercury captured?
>
>Uh no, you are guessing. Orbits do not precess for that reason.
>
>>
>> Similarly, if an object such as a comet goes past a highly elliptically
>> orbiting planet like Mercury, its orbit will be given a sideways kick and
>> continue to precess for a very long time.
>>
>> Induced precession doesn't just go away quietly.
>
>You are making shit up, Henri. Keplerian orbits are always closed unless
>there is a perturbation.
>
Are you going to spend the rest of your life whinging and whining about people
who are better than you?
Why don't you try to do something useful?
ka...@nventure.com
> Jerry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information
> > if I found it for you. Probably nothing?
>
> Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
>
>
>
> > Jerry
>
>
If we accept that the 43 arcsec/century value is true so we don't
get all tied up with side issues and get into a pissing contest,
this is the value that determines the errorbars within Classical
Newtonian Mechanics that Tom Roberts is all hung up on.
On the other hand, Einstein's GR equation for the precession of
the perihelion of the orbits predicts exactly 43 arcsec/century.
Consequently there is no error, thus the subject of errorbars are,
in the words of Einstein, superfluous and unnecessary.
So this takes care of Tom Roberts.
Now to get back 'experts' Eric Gisse and J. Clark.
As I posted earlier, the 43 arcsec/value of Le Verrier is the
difference (error) between the 'observed' precession of the orbit
and the predicted value derived from the mathematics of
Classical Newtonian Mechanics.
That's why I asked Clark to post Newcomb's value for the
'observed' advance of the precession of the perihelion of the
orbit of Mercury. I'm not really sure of the exact values that
Le Verrier arrived at after all his work.
I also wanted Clark to commit himself to a specific number.
Now anyone that knows anything about physics and cosmology
remembers the numbers 43 arcsec/century. Clark stated that he
could find Newcomb's numbers if he so wished. This demonstrates
that he has not put this into his 'brain'. The 43 arcsec/century
is an effect! It's that causes that are important.
In other words; the validity of this value of the 'observed'
precession and that of Classical Newtonian Mechanics is crucial
to the validity of the 43 arcsec/century value.
I think, but am not sure the Le Verrier maintains that the
mathematics of Classical Newtonian Mechanics ) predicts a value
of 526.7 arcsec/century, and that the ‘observed’ Newcomb value
is what I am after.
The accepted ‘modern’ value is 574.1 arcsec/century.
However, Le Verrier's words of 'observed' precession is a big
fib, and a really big untruth. Le Verrier, et. al. did not
actually empirically observe and study the perihelion of the
orbits of the planet Mercury, but studied instead the transits
of Mercury across the face of the Sun.
Then by employing the same Classical Newtonian Mechanics that
is supposedly responsible for 43 arcsec/century error came up
with his twisted rendition of the 'observed' advance of the
perihelion of the orbit as, (I think) 531.509 arcsec/century.
However, the mechanics of Newton and Kepler's Laws address 2
body, and only 2 body systems. This is clearly stated in
Principia.
On the other hand, the advance of the precession of the
perihelion of the orbit of Mercury is a multiple body (n-body
in the words of mathematicians) problem, because the orbits are
perturbed by all nearby (in the cosmological sense) bodies,
large and small.
That's why I threw in the bit about Pluto. The perturbations
caused by Pluto may not be discernible in one 88 Earth day
orbit, but may contribute a tiny little, but meaningful bit in
an Earth century. It's not up to the researcher to just toss
out what he/she may guess what's unimportant, but address all
that may contribute to what is being researched. Only after
finding that something is not meaningful, can he/she truly toss
this particular cause out as superfluous and unnecessary.
But what's really important to accept is that mainline science
still cannot solve n-body problems!
Moreover, any true scientific, empirical observations of the
advance of the perihelion of the orbit will, by it's nature include
all the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Therefore any
'Solar quadruple moment' noted by Gisse is already included.
Now on Jul 3, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> k...@nventure.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43
> > arcsec/century of Le Verrier's findings.
>
> He did not.
>
> You are guessing.
>
> [...]
>
> > I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same
> > degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the
> > Solar System.
>
> It does.
>
> You are, again, guessing.
>
snip
>
> You are guessing about a subject you have not adequately studied, and it
> shows. Please stop.
>
So lets see who's guessing and has not adequately studied this
particular subject, and who should stop.
The following words are attributed to Einstein (in reference to the
advance of the perihelion of Mercury) on page 126 of the book
titled 'Relativity', published by the estate of Albert Einstein,
quote:
"...that theory requires that this rotation should amount to 43
seconds of arc per century for the planet Mercury but for the other
planets of our solar system its magnitude should be so small that
it would necessarily escape detection."
Now I am guessing that the estate of Albert Einstein would not
attribute words that he did not speak or write to him.
I won't go deeply into the fact the Einstein's equation does not
have zero errorbars when applied to the other planets of the
Solar System, because this will take a lot of my time and space
on this thread (and this post is long enough), but is noted and
explained in a whole lot of other readily available references.
I thought everyone knew this, but I know now that I was wrong
But I will give you this: the observed precession per century of
the orbit of Earth is ~7.70% greater than that predicted by the
GR equation, and the error of the planet Uranus is even greater.
So I hope this post takes care of all the stupid comments made
about my posts by both the ‘experts’ Clark and Gisse.
Now I will bring up another related subject that is not addressed
in this thread.
Have you ever wondered why it's always the perihelion of the
orbit of a planet of the Solar System that is used, rather than
the aphelion? It would seem that the aphelion, especially of the
inner planets would be a more easier quality to get right. Both
Mercury and Venus would farther from the Sun, so the observation
sessions could be longer, and possible more precise. The measured
numerical values are also greater because the shift in the point
space in respect to the 'fixed stars' of each succeeding aphelion
are greater than those of the perihelions. Furthermore, the speed
of the orbiting body is slower at aphelion than when at perihelion,
so the values are less prone to 'sighting' errors.
Nevertheless, there is a very valid logical and empirical reason for
concentrating on the perihelion.
Guess who knows.
D. Y. Kadoshima
eric gisse
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:23:49 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>>> Why does precession occur at all?
>>> Several reasons.
>>>
>>> One is due to the sun's poperties. Another due to the motions of other
>>> planets.
>>
>>The perturbations from the solar quadrupole moment and other planets are
>>well known and accounted for by classical perturbation theory.
>>
>>But not by you. You are incapable of handling the mathematics that
>>demonstrates this.
>>
>>>
>>> If an object is captured in a chance three body event, its orbit will
>>> precess for eons. Was Mercury captured?
>>
>>Uh no, you are guessing. Orbits do not precess for that reason.
>>
>>>
>>> Similarly, if an object such as a comet goes past a highly elliptically
>>> orbiting planet like Mercury, its orbit will be given a sideways kick
>>> and continue to precess for a very long time.
>>>
>>> Induced precession doesn't just go away quietly.
>>
>>You are making shit up, Henri. Keplerian orbits are always closed unless
>>there is a perturbation.
>>
>
> Are you going to spend the rest of your life whinging and whining about
> people who are better than you?
This is known as psychological projection, Henri.
You have - once again - been called out for having no clue about basic
classical physics. Learn this shit before opening your yap, or accept the
criticism.
>
> Why don't you try to do something useful?
Like posting forged diplomas? That worked out great for you...
Notice how you refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE that you did it? That's how we
know you are embarrassed. Even if it is just at being caught.
eric gisse
> On Jul 2, 10:11 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information
>> > if I found it for you. Probably nothing?
>>
>> Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Jerry
>>
>>
>
>
> If we accept that the 43 arcsec/century value is true
Elevate yourself to accepting observational fact that was known 150 years
ago.
> so we don't
> get all tied up with side issues and get into a pissing contest,
> this is the value that determines the errorbars within Classical
> Newtonian Mechanics that Tom Roberts is all hung up on.
No, it is not.
Look up a term before you use it, as you are obviously guessing when you say
'errorbars'.
>
> On the other hand, Einstein's GR equation for the precession of
> the perihelion of the orbits predicts exactly 43 arcsec/century.
> Consequently there is no error, thus the subject of errorbars are,
> in the words of Einstein, superfluous and unnecessary.
You are making shit up. Einstein never said that.
>
> So this takes care of Tom Roberts.
>
> Now to get back 'experts' Eric Gisse and J. Clark.
As opposed to the armchair experts who /didn't/ go to university to study
physics.
>
> As I posted earlier, the 43 arcsec/value of Le Verrier is the
> difference (error)
It is not an error. Stop guessing.
> between the 'observed' precession of the orbit
> and the predicted value derived from the mathematics of
> Classical Newtonian Mechanics.
No need for sarcastic quotes on observed.
>
> That's why I asked Clark to post Newcomb's value for the
> 'observed' advance of the precession of the perihelion of the
> orbit of Mercury. I'm not really sure of the exact values that
> Le Verrier arrived at after all his work.
> I also wanted Clark to commit himself to a specific number.
Are you fucking kidding me? The orbital data for the planets is out there
for you to get *yourself*, as opposed to demanding 150+ year old
observations and analytic work be given to you on a silver platter.
>
> Now anyone that knows anything about physics and cosmology
> remembers the numbers 43 arcsec/century. Clark stated that he
> could find Newcomb's numbers if he so wished. This demonstrates
> that he has not put this into his 'brain'. The 43 arcsec/century
> is an effect! It's that causes that are important.
>
> In other words; the validity of this value of the 'observed'
> precession and that of Classical Newtonian Mechanics is crucial
> to the validity of the 43 arcsec/century value.
This shit is 150+ years old. Why are you concern trolling 19th century
observational fact that has only been refined over the past century and a
half?
>
> I think, but am not sure the Le Verrier maintains that the
Le Verrier has been dead for over a century. He maintains nothing except a
stationary position.
> mathematics of Classical Newtonian Mechanics ) predicts a value
> of 526.7 arcsec/century, and that the ?observed? Newcomb value
> is what I am after.
Find it yourself. Nobody is going to do your research for you, especially
when it is obvious to all that you'll do an abundant fuck all with it had it
been given to you.
>
> The accepted ?modern? value is 574.1 arcsec/century.
>
> However, Le Verrier's words of 'observed' precession is a big
> fib, and a really big untruth. Le Verrier, et. al. did not
> actually empirically observe and study the perihelion of the
> orbits of the planet Mercury, but studied instead the transits
> of Mercury across the face of the Sun.
Do you need someone to connect the giant goddamn dots to explain the link
between perihelion advance and when an object crosses the sun?
> Then by employing the same Classical Newtonian Mechanics that
> is supposedly responsible for 43 arcsec/century error came up
> with his twisted rendition of the 'observed' advance of the
> perihelion of the orbit as, (I think) 531.509 arcsec/century.
>
>
> However, the mechanics of Newton and Kepler's Laws address 2
> body, and only 2 body systems. This is clearly stated in
> Principia.
Are you brain damaged?
Newton handles multibody systems just fine. Take a classical mechanics
course some time.
The perturbations upon Mercury's orbit can be done by a person who has
worked through Goldstein or Landau & Lifschitz, which probably does not
include you.
>
> On the other hand, the advance of the precession of the
> perihelion of the orbit of Mercury is a multiple body (n-body
> in the words of mathematicians) problem, because the orbits are
> perturbed by all nearby (in the cosmological sense) bodies,
> large and small.
The calculations are straight forward.
>
> That's why I threw in the bit about Pluto.
Emphasis on 'threw in'. I have no idea what your agenda is, but it is
obvious that it is not buttressed by a solid scientific education. You are
just guessing and making shit up as you go along.
> The perturbations
> caused by Pluto may not be discernible in one 88 Earth day
> orbit, but may contribute a tiny little, but meaningful bit in
> an Earth century. It's not up to the researcher to just toss
> out what he/she may guess what's unimportant, but address all
> that may contribute to what is being researched. Only after
> finding that something is not meaningful, can he/she truly toss
> this particular cause out as superfluous and unnecessary.
>
> But what's really important to accept is that mainline science
> still cannot solve n-body problems!
Unless you own a computer. Or are patient with a pencil and paper.
>
> Moreover, any true scientific, empirical observations of the
> advance of the perihelion of the orbit will, by it's nature include
> all the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Therefore any
> 'Solar quadruple moment' noted by Gisse is already included.
You don't really 'get' what's going on when the contributions are added up,
do you?
>
> Now on Jul 3, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> k...@nventure.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43
>> > arcsec/century of Le Verrier's findings.
>>
>> He did not.
>>
>> You are guessing.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same
>> > degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the
>> > Solar System.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> You are, again, guessing.
>>
> snip
>>
>> You are guessing about a subject you have not adequately studied, and it
>> shows. Please stop.
>>
>
> So lets see who's guessing and has not adequately studied this
> particular subject, and who should stop.
Personally I'm leaning towards the guy who concern trolls mundane
observational fact for getting voted off the island...
>
> The following words are attributed to Einstein (in reference to the
> advance of the perihelion of Mercury) on page 126 of the book
> titled 'Relativity', published by the estate of Albert Einstein,
> quote:
Oohh, much is now explained. You think you picked up an understanding of
physics through your readings of what scientists wrote for the lay person...
> "...that theory requires that this rotation should amount to 43
> seconds of arc per century for the planet Mercury but for the other
> planets of our solar system its magnitude should be so small that
> it would necessarily escape detection."
>
> Now I am guessing that the estate of Albert Einstein would not
> attribute words that he did not speak or write to him.
>
> I won't go deeply into the fact the Einstein's equation does not
> have zero errorbars when applied to the other planets of the
> Solar System, because this will take a lot of my time and space
> on this thread (and this post is long enough), but is noted and
> explained in a whole lot of other readily available references.
The observations of the perihelion advance of the other planets has been
done. I really don't see what your point is beyond saying that you don't
seem to read actual literature on the subject.
>
> I thought everyone knew this, but I know now that I was wrong
>
> But I will give you this: the observed precession per century of
> the orbit of Earth is ~7.70% greater than that predicted by the
> GR equation, and the error of the planet Uranus is even greater.
You are making shit up. The perihelion advance of all the planets is
correctly predicted by GR within error. That you don't know what the hell I
mean when I say 'within error' is not my fault and I won't bother to educate
you.
>
> So I hope this post takes care of all the stupid comments made
> about my posts by both the ?experts? Clark and Gisse.
I went to school for physics. Did you?
>
> Now I will bring up another related subject that is not addressed
> in this thread.
>
> Have you ever wondered why it's always the perihelion of the
> orbit of a planet of the Solar System that is used, rather than
> the aphelion?
No, because the question is not interesting. In a precessing orbit both the
aphelion and perihelion points are going to rotate by some angle about the
sun. Pick one.
> It would seem that the aphelion, especially of the
> inner planets would be a more easier quality to get right. Both
> Mercury and Venus would farther from the Sun, so the observation
> sessions could be longer, and possible more precise.
Sounds like you are guessing again.
> The measured
> numerical values are also greater because the shift in the point
> space in respect to the 'fixed stars' of each succeeding aphelion
> are greater than those of the perihelions. Furthermore, the speed
> of the orbiting body is slower at aphelion than when at perihelion,
> so the values are less prone to 'sighting' errors.
...and harder discern aphelion. Sounds like you've never done an experiment
which needed precise timing on something that moved reaaallllyyyy
slllooowwwlllyyyy near some point which you needed to know.
ka...@nventure.com
> Jerry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information
> > if I found it for you. Probably nothing?
>
> Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
>
>
>
> > Jerry
>
>
If we accept that the 43 arcsec/century value is true so we don't
get all tied up with side issues and get into a pissing contest,
this is the value that determines the errorbars within Classical
Newtonian Mechanics that Tom Roberts is all hung up on.
On the other hand, Einstein's GR equation for the precession of
the perihelion of the orbits predicts exactly 43 arcsec/century.
Consequently there is no error, thus the subject of errorbars are,
in the words of Einstein, superfluous and unnecessary.
So this takes care of Tom Roberts.
Now to get back 'experts' Eric Gisse and J. Clark.
As I posted earlier, the 43 arcsec/value of Le Verrier is the
difference (error) between the 'observed' precession of the orbit
and the predicted value derived from the mathematics of
Classical Newtonian Mechanics.
That's why I asked Clark to post Newcomb's value for the
'observed' advance of the precession of the perihelion of the
orbit of Mercury. I'm not really sure of the exact values that
Le Verrier arrived at after all his work.
I also wanted Clark to commit himself to a specific number.
Now anyone that know anything about physics and cosmology
remembers the numbers 43 arcsec/century. Clark stated that he
could find Newcomb's numbers if he so wished. This
demonstrates that he has not put this into his 'brain'. The 43
arcsec/century is an effect! It's that causes that are important.
In other words; the validity of this value of the 'observed'
precession and that of Classical Newtonian Mechanics is
crucial to the validity of the 43 arcsec/century value.
I think, but am not sure the Le Verrier maintains that the
mathematics of Classical Newtonian Mechanics ) predicts a
value of ~526.7 arcsec/century, and that the ‘observed’ Newcomb
value is what I am after, so I can compare it with the accepted
value below.
The accepted ‘modern’ value is ~574.1 arcsec/century.
However, Le Verrier's words of 'observed' precession is a big
fib, and a really big untruth. Le Verrier, et. al. did not
actually empirically observe and study the perihelion of the
orbits of the planet Mercury, but used an indirect questionable
route. Instead of studying the advance of the perihelions
directly, they studied and recorded the properties the transits
of Mercury across the face of the Sun.
Then by employing the same Classical Newtonian Mechanics
that is supposedly responsible for 43 arcsec/century error came
up with his twisted rendition of the 'observed' advance of the
perihelion of the orbit as, (I think) ~531.509 arcsec/century.
However, all the mathematics mentioned above not withstanding,
the mechanics of Newton and Kepler's Laws address 2 body,
and only 2 body systems. This is clearly stated in Principia.
On the other hand, the advance of the precession of the
perihelion of the orbit of Mercury is a multiple body (n-body
in the words of mathematicians) problems, because the orbits
are perturbed by all nearby (in the cosmological sense) bodies,
large and small.
That's why I threw in the bit about Pluto. The perturbations
caused by Pluto may not be discernable in one 88 Earth day
orbit, but may contribute a tiny little, but meaningful bit in an
Earth century. It's not up to the researcher to just toss out
what he/she may guess what's unimportant, but address all
that may contribute to what is being researched. Only after
finding that something is not meaningful, can he/she truly toss
this particular cause out as superfluous and unnecessary.
Nevertheless these, or any perturbations caused by any body
other than the Sun or Mercury makes this an n-body system,
and precludes any solution.
In other words; all who were believed to check and verify
Le Verrier’s math just followed in the footsteps of Le Verrier to
solve the n-body problems, and made the silly mistakes he did.
So what's really important to accept is that mainline science
still cannot solve n-body problems! So this makes the whole of
Le Verrier’s work moot, and of questionable validity.
Moreover, any true scientific, empirical observations of the
advance of the perihelion of the orbit will, by it's nature include
all the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Therefore any
'Solar quadruple moment' noted by Gisse is already included.
Now on Jul 3, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> k...@nventure.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I posted that Einstein derived this GR equation from the 43
> > arcsec/century of Le Verrier's findings.
>
> He did not.
>
> You are guessing.
>
> [...]
>
> > I hope you know that this equation does not work with the same
> > degree of precession when applied to the other planets of the
> > Solar System.
>
> It does.
>
> You are, again, guessing.
>
snip
>
> You are guessing about a subject you have not adequately studied, and it
> shows. Please stop.
>
So lets see who's guessing and who is not, and who has and who
has not adequately studied this particular subject, so who should
stop posting and exit stage left.
The following words are attributed to Einstein (in reference to the
advance of the perihelion of Mercury) on page 126 of the book
titled 'Relativity', published by the estate of Albert Einstein,
quote:
"...that theory requires that this rotation should amount to 43
seconds of arc per century for the planet Mercury but for the other
planets of our solar system its magnitude should be so small that
it would necessarily escape detection."
Now I am supposing (guessing) that the estate of Albert Einstein
would not attribute words that he did not speak or write to him.
Furthermore, I won't go deeply into the fact the Einstein's equation
has zero errorbars only when applied to the planet Mercury, but do
have considerable errorbars when applied to some of the other
planets of the Solar System, because this will take a lot of my time
and space on this thread (and this post is long enough), but is
noted and explained in a whole lot of other readily available
references.
But I will give you this: the observed precession per century of
The perihelion of the orbit of Earth is ~7.70% greater than that
‘found’ by Le Verrier, and ~31% greater than that predicted by
the GR equation. The % errors of the planet Uranus are even
greater.
I thought everyone with an interest in physics, cosmology and
SR/GR already knew this, but I know now that I was wrong.
So I hope this post takes care of all the stupid comments made
about my posts by both the ‘experts’ Clark and Gisse.
Now I will take the liberty to bring up another related subject
that is not yet addressed in this thread.
Have you ever wondered why it's always the perihelion of the
orbit of a planet of the Solar System that is used, rather than
the aphelion? It would seem that the aphelion, especially of the
inner planets would be a more easier quality to get right. Both
Mercury and Venus would farther from the Sun, so the observation
sessions could be longer, and possible more precise. The measured
numerical values are also greater because the shift in the point
space in respect to the 'fixed stars' of each succeeding aphelion
are greater than those of the perihelions. Furthermore, the speed
of the orbiting body is slower at aphelion than when at perihelion,
so the values are less prone to 'sighting' errors.
Nevertheless, there is a very valid logical and empirical reason for
ka...@nventure.com
Sure they have been done.
Nevertheless, you think you can rewrite history and eliminate
Einstein's
words that have been in print for some time just because these
contradict
your arrogant post?
>
> > I thought everyone knew this, but I know now that I was wrong
>
> > But I will give you this: the observed precession per century of
> > the orbit of Earth is ~7.70% greater than that predicted by the
> > GR equation, and the error of the planet Uranus is even greater.
>
> You are making shit up. The perihelion advance of all the planets is
> correctly predicted by GR within error. That you don't know what the hell I
> mean when I say 'within error' is not my fault and I won't bother to educate
> you.
>
>
>
> > So I hope this post takes care of all the stupid comments made
> > about my posts by both the ?experts? Clark and Gisse.
>
> I went to school for physics. Did you?
>
But did you learn anything?
>
> > Now I will bring up another related subject that is not addressed
> > in this thread.
>
> > Have you ever wondered why it's always the perihelion of the
> > orbit of a planet of the Solar System that is used, rather than
> > the aphelion?
>
> No, because the question is not interesting. In a precessing orbit both the
> aphelion and perihelion points are going to rotate by some angle about the
> sun. Pick one.
>
> > It would seem that the aphelion, especially of the
> > inner planets would be a more easier quality to get right. Both
> > Mercury and Venus would farther from the Sun, so the observation
> > sessions could be longer, and possible more precise.
>
> Sounds like you are guessing again.
>
> > The measured
> > numerical values are also greater because the shift in the point
> > space in respect to the 'fixed stars' of each succeeding aphelion
> > are greater than those of the perihelions. Furthermore, the speed
> > of the orbiting body is slower at aphelion than when at perihelion,
> > so the values are less prone to 'sighting' errors.
>
> ...and harder discern aphelion. Sounds like you've never done an experiment
> which needed precise timing on something that moved reaaallllyyyy
> slllooowwwlllyyyy near some point which you needed to know.
>
I felt that the true reason would zip right over your head,
and I was right.
D.Y.K.
PD
> On Jul 2, 10:11 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jerry wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > I am wondering what you would intend to do with this information
> > > if I found it for you. Probably nothing?
>
> > Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
>
> > > Jerry
>
> If we accept that the 43 arcsec/century value is true so we don't
> get all tied up with side issues and get into a pissing contest,
> this is the value that determines the errorbars within Classical
> Newtonian Mechanics that Tom Roberts is all hung up on.
>
Fundamental mistake. The discrepancy between a measured and expected
value is NEVER taken to be a good measure of the errorbar. Please
return to a freshman physics lab.
PD
Simp
> So why does the same method of measuring orbital periods that works for
> every other planet give an incorrect result with Mercury?
It 'works' because GR don't predicts precession of... Moon.
Earth axial precession (equinox): 50.3 arcsec / year.
Yes?
Jupiter - Sun (second body correction):
pi/T * m/M = pi/11.86 y /1050 = 52.03 as/ y;
Earth:
pi/1 y * m/M = pi/333000 = 1.95 as / y
Observed from Earth - difference:
~50 arcsec / year; T = ~25800 years.
Moon & Sun tidal forces -> 50.3 ?
Maybe... but 0.3;
J. Clarke
> On 6 Lip, 02:51, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So why does the same method of measuring orbital periods that works for
>> every other planet give an incorrect result with Mercury?
>
> It 'works' because GR don't predicts precession of... Moon.
So you're saying that General Relativity correctly predicts the motion
of Mercury? Then what are you on about?
> Earth axial precession (equinox): 50.3 arcsec / year.
> Yes?
>
> Jupiter - Sun (second body correction):
> pi/T * m/M = pi/11.86 y /1050 = 52.03 as/ y;
>
> Earth:
> pi/1 y * m/M = pi/333000 = 1.95 as / y
>
> Observed from Earth - difference:
> ~50 arcsec / year; T = ~25800 years.
>
> Moon& Sun tidal forces -> 50.3 ?
> Maybe... but 0.3;
If you have a point please make it in complete sentences.
Tom Roberts
> If we accept that the 43 arcsec/century value is true so we don't
> get all tied up with side issues and get into a pissing contest,
> this is the value that determines the errorbars within Classical
> Newtonian Mechanics that Tom Roberts is all hung up on.
>
> On the other hand, Einstein's GR equation for the precession of
> the perihelion of the orbits predicts exactly 43 arcsec/century.
> Consequently there is no error, thus the subject of errorbars are,
> in the words of Einstein, superfluous and unnecessary.
>
> So this takes care of Tom Roberts.
You have not "taken care" of me; you have not even addressed my point.
By "accepting" 43 arcsec/century you completely avoid my issue. My point is that
in addition to the value (43) one must also know the accuracy with which that
value was measured (in this case computed from other measurements) -- this is
called the errorbar. And you have not addressed the errorbar on that value at all.
In the first paragraph up there you misuse the term "errorbar".
In Newtonian mechanics that 43 arcsec/century is a DISCREPANCY
between theory and experiment, not any sort of "errorbar".
In the second paragraph up there you misuse the term "error".
In this context, errors are unavoidable differences between
the actual value of a quantity (which is unknowable) and
the measured value. As I said before, one must quantify such
errors, and that is generally done via an error analysis
that expresses its results in errorbars -- errorbars are
simply the estimates of the error. In particular the
difference between measurement and theory is NEVER considered
to be part of an errorbar.
Before attempting to continue this discussion, I suggest you STUDY modern
experimental techniques, particularly error analysis.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d7Sdna7rQ8W...@giganews.com...
Each orbit is 360 degrees = 360*60*60= exactly 1296000 arc seconds.
Thus in a century Mercury travels through 5378400000 arc seconds exactly.
43/5378400000 = 7.9949427338985571917298824929347e-9 which is
approximately 8.0E-7%
That takes care of Tom Roberts' fucking bullshit.
Simp
> > It 'works' because GR don't predicts precession of... Moon.
>
> So you're saying that General Relativity correctly predicts the motion
> of Mercury? Then what are you on about?
GR predicts optical illusion (but not exactly):
43/415 / 1296000 = 8.0e-8;
dt/t = dr/r = dphi/2pi = pi (v/c)^2;
v = 47.8 km/s;
this is 1/4 Shapiro delay (it's simple Sagnac):
dt/t = 4pi (v/c)^2;
wr = v^2 = GM/r; t = 4r/c;
===================
GR:
dphi/2pi = 3 GM/c^2p = 3/(1-e^2) GM/ac^2;
coincidence: e = ~0.206;
3/(1-e^2) = ~pi;
and you have:
dphi/2pi = pi * GM/ac^2 = pi (v/c)^2;
Peter Webb
In the meantime, keep drinking more fermented diarrhea of Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein Dingleberries.
<shrug>
______________________________________________
I'm not sure what you believe about SR. Are there any experimental
predictions of SR which you disagree with, or do you believe that SR makes
100% correct predictions within its domain?
Henry Wilson DSc
There has never been a believable experiment that supports SR.
eric gisse
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:12:31 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>In the meantime, keep drinking more fermented diarrhea of Einstein the
>>nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein Dingleberries.
>><shrug>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>
>>I'm not sure what you believe about SR. Are there any experimental
>>predictions of SR which you disagree with, or do you believe that SR makes
>>100% correct predictions within its domain?
>
> There has never been a believable experiment that supports SR.
Coincidentally, Henry Wilson does not believe in any of the experiments that
support SR.
Equally coincidental is the fact that Henry Wilson can't find fault in any
of the experiments that support SR.
PD
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:12:31 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
>
> >In the meantime, keep drinking more fermented diarrhea of Einstein the
> >nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar from Einstein Dingleberries.
> ><shrug>
>
> >______________________________________________
>
> >I'm not sure what you believe about SR. Are there any experimental
> >predictions of SR which you disagree with, or do you believe that SR makes
> >100% correct predictions within its domain?
>
> There has never been a believable experiment that supports SR.
On the contrary. Lots and lots and lots of physicists believe those
experiments, and for all the reasons that the results of experiments
are typically taken to be credible.
You, on the other hand, apparently have a different metric for what
makes an experimental result credible. I've got no idea what that
metric is, but it is not the one used by physicists.