On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:46:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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”

IF Mercury's precession happened to be caused by the presence and movement of
the planets, it should be quite obvious that the process MUST BE chaotic. The
amount of precession AND ITS DIRECTION would be expected to vary widely from
year to year, depending on the relative positions of all the other bodies. An
average over a particular span of ten years could be very different from that
over another ten years. With Jupiter orbiting every ~12 years, averages over
even 100 years would be expected to vary by considerable amounts.

There is no solution to a three body problem. What you are discussing is a
nine body problem. You should look for more realistic causes of precession.
After all, radiation pressure from the sun should have a similarly biased
influence on Mercury's ELLIPTICAL orbit as that which you attribute to the
pull of the planets.

Henry Wilson DSc.