On 08.06.2013 00:24, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 6/6/2013 7:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
According to:
Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.
According to:
Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in
Planetary Motions".
Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
(both relative to 'stationary space')
So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century
GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.
Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more
closely? shrug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_p...ion_(astronomy)
According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772
years (with no error bar given) which translates to 257.72
centuries.
360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”
As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0”
(with no error bar given and with unknown digits of
significance but at least 2).
5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”
It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the
Schwarzschild metric. So, it looks like the data is
fudged as well as the prediction. shrug
What's your point?
The self-styled physicists just ran with Le Verrier’s data without any
rigorous evaluations per Tom’s own standard. What a hypocrite, no?
shrug
According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
"within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
Never mind the number (38”) that Le Verrier had computed. What is
important is the overall perihelion advance of Mercury which according
to Le Verrier is 5,600” per century because we know how to compute for
the anomaly from known effects of perihelion advance/retardation.
shrug
So what?
Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
but now they are mostly of historical interest.
The 38” is considered as historical interest like what you said, but
the 5,600” is of great importance to modern science. The accuracy of
the latter number cannot be handwaved away since the accuracy of the
said anomaly is thoroughly dependent on the accuracy of this 5,600”.
shrug
And note that the more resent data I gave above were
relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.
This is impossible. The earth’s rotational axis is wobbling, and over
time it will show up in every single terrestrial measurement of
astronomical interests. shrug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_p...ion_(astronomy)
To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul Andersen,
the precision of the following three quantities must be called out to
the second digit after the decimal. shrug
** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?
Why are you so obsessed with Le Verrier's observations?
Clemence made his measurement during the years 1943-1947.
He observed a shift extrapolated to a century: 5599.74" +/- 0.41
** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
Clemence evaluated the precession of the equinox per century
to be: 5025.645" +/- 0.5"
So the shift observed by Clemence is 574.10" +/- 0.65"per century
relative to 'stationary space'.
** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”
Among them, the precession of the equinox has been the most accurately
measured besides the human history has only spanned a third of the
period of the precession.
The anomaly due to the processor of the
equinox should be constant over time. shrug
Le Verrier was a great astronomer, and there is no doubt about that.
He was able to observe Uranus’s orbital anomaly to deduce the presence
of Neptune from calculations dependent on the positions of both
planets at a given amount of time. That is why he was able to guide
the observatory to look for Neptune at the right place and the right
moment. shrug
If Le Verrier had modeled Neptune as a ring, then there would be no
anomaly in Uranus’s orbit due to that ring outside of Uranus’s orbit.
With that said, if you have modeled all planets into rings, there
would be no orbital anomaly to Mercury. Why? Koobee Wublee senses
another great debate with Paul if Paul wishes to challenge Koobee
Wublee on that one. :-)
Thus, tugs from other solar objects have to be time dependent with
dependencies on the locations (a function of time) of the planets
throughout the course of measurement which is 100 years. This means
the number you quoted (531.63” +/- 0.69”) would vary somewhat
drastically depending for example if all planets are lined up.
Intuitively, the net result should be zero if averaged out over time.
In the next century, odds are against you to measure anything close to
532” from the gravitational effect of other planets. shrug
That 43” is just a myth conjured up by self-styled physicists to sell
their garbage in SR and GR just because Paul Gerber was able to do it
first. shrug
Is Paul really that much out of touch with reality after the
professorship? :-)
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/