"Greg Neill" schreef in bericht
. ..
"Nicolaas Vroom" wrote in message
...

"Greg Neill" schreef in bericht
. ..
wrote in message
oups.com...
1. Does anyone know if the classical calculation of the perihelion
of
Mercury accounts for the attraction of the sun by Mercury?

I stumbled on an interesting article that discusses flaws in
Newton's
theory, and which suggests that the sun's motion is neglected even
for
the most accurate calculations.
It would be surprising if that were true!

2. It also suggests that when taking it into account, the correct
answer may be found. Any ideas if htat could be right?
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...pers/gravi.pdf
Regretfully I know nothing about astronomy.

Harald


Attempts to calculate the precession of the perihelion of
Mercury by purely classical means have taken into account any
number of influences, including of course the motion of the
Sun. Newton's theory is completely symmetric when expressed
as differential equations to solve the problem.

100 % Correct.

Newton's theory assumes that gravity act instantaneous.
However if you take into acount that the speed of gravity is
not infinite but equal to 300*c you can correctly simulate
the perihelion precession of Mercury.

Unfortunately, this leads to the problem of the
energy of the orbit changing due to the non-central
nature of the resulting force.

Can you be more spefic what you mean.
Does this mean that the distance (to the Sun) increases ?
What is magtitude of this effect ?
Any way what is wrong with the assumption
that for example the distance of Mars is not constant ?
I have seen studies that if you assume that the distance
of our Earth is not constant you can explain
the ice ages.

(Anyway how do you compare your reply with an
expanding Universe ?)

The magnitude of the
effect is such that it would lead to obvious changes
in the semi-major axes of the planets over relatively
short periods of time.

I expect you mean the semi-major axis of the orbits
of the planets ?
What is wrong with that ?
What are the time periods involved ?

Any way what I have also done is to simulate the perihelion
advance for one complete revolution.
The results are quite interesting and ofcourse I would like
to compare them with observations.
Have you done, such a simulation, using GR ?

For details go to my home page:
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
and study the e-book:
The Reality Now and Understanding.
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/now.htm

Nicolaas Vroom