View Single Post
  #16  
Old December 30th 08, 04:58 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Dec 28, 11:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:49 pm, wrote:


THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY
In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion
of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the
gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also
assumed as two points.


In an actual observation of Mercury’s orbital advance, there are
5,600” (in arc-seconds) per century of observed perihelion advance.
Among these, 5,025” are due to the 22,000-year precession of earth’s
orbital around the second. 532” were accounted for through inclusion
of other planets. That leaves (5,600” – 5,025” – 532” = 43”)
unaccounted
for.

I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very
accurate in the first place. I want to see error bars associated with
this experiment. Tell me if that is too much to ask.

What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value
of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational
actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account
and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate?


The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. Other
mathematical methods do not yield the same result. shrug

Have any done these calculations?


There are at least 12 such calculations to predict Mercury’s orbital
advance in which the spacetime with the Schwarzschild metric is just
one of them according to Gerber’s method. shrug


Since the Schwarzschild metric is merely one of the infinite number of
solutions to the Einstein field equations that are static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat, other solutions do not predict the
same 43”.

Professor Roberts, the experimental physicist, has emphasized so much
to demand an error bar to each observation, and yet he remains silent
on Le Verrier’s observation of these 5,600”. Not to mention these
5,025” and 532”. I would have to conclude it is a case of his own
personal bias towards the faith in the nonsense called the general
theory of relativity. shrug