Einstein's biggest mistakes

On May 27, 5:11 pm, wrote:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep...s#.UaPz90jnitI

You can add the following to the list. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...838215db63f7ba

Another one is the pre-1915 derivation of the perihelion advance of
Mercury. Previously, Paul Gerber had derived this same thing by
modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (dr/dt)
terms. Before GR, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
modified the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (1/r^2)
terms instead of (dr/dt) terms. He should have easily found the right
gravitational potential, but he fvcked up really bad. shrug

Now, does the Schwarzschild metric really predicts a 43” seconds of
perihelion advance per century? Besides the Euler-Lagrange equation,
associated with the angular displacement, that deals with the
conservation of angular momentum, there is another one that deals with
r. From the latter Euler-Lagrange equation derived using the same
method as Gerber, it only yields half of the so-called accepted
number. The self-styled physicists are guilty of cherry-picking the
equation of their very choice to derive the desired results. shrug

Of course, the loudest mouth to support SR or GR are the ones who
cannot do any math to save their Einstein Dingleberry asses. Does
anyone what to go there? shrug

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:05:27 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On May 27, 5:11 pm, wrote:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep...s#.UaPz90jnitI

You can add the following to the list. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...838215db63f7ba

Another one is the pre-1915 derivation of the perihelion advance of
Mercury. Previously, Paul Gerber had derived this same thing by
modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (dr/dt)
terms. Before GR, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
modified the Newtonian gravitational potential to include (1/r^2)
terms instead of (dr/dt) terms. He should have easily found the right
gravitational potential, but he fvcked up really bad. shrug

Now, does the Schwarzschild metric really predicts a 43” seconds of
perihelion advance per century? Besides the Euler-Lagrange equation,
associated with the angular displacement, that deals with the
conservation of angular momentum, there is another one that deals with
r. From the latter Euler-Lagrange equation derived using the same
method as Gerber, it only yields half of the so-called accepted
number. The self-styled physicists are guilty of cherry-picking the
equation of their very choice to derive the desired results. shrug

Of course, the loudest mouth to support SR or GR are the ones who
cannot do any math to save their Einstein Dingleberry asses. Does
anyone what to go there? shrug

What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
general?

Henry Wilson DSc.

On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
general?

What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.

The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
Relativity hasn't changed that.
According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.

There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
but this effect is minute.

And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
are precessing by the same reasons.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:52:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
general?

What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.

The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
Relativity hasn't changed that.

Maybe they all got it wrong.
In the frame of mercury, all the planets move in ellipses that appear to be
precessing because of their own orbital motion. Right?
Why should that have a nett force on Mercury over a long period of time?

Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?

According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.

Only after Einstein added the infamous factor of 2 after he found his original
prediction was wrong.

There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
but this effect is minute.

The effect of the speed of gravity isn 't.

And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
are precessing by the same reasons.

Something doesn't add up. I don't see that the fact that all planets are
orbiting in the same sense should cause precession. Where is the evidence of a
one way 'tug'? If some are pulled one way, others must be pulled the other
way.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On 05.06.2013 01:02, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:52:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
general?

What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.

The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
Relativity hasn't changed that.

Maybe they all got it wrong.

Not likely. Remember that Le Verrier calculated the Newtonian
prediction back in the mid 19. century (without computer. Impressive!),
and since then a lot of people have repeated it with better precision,
lately with the aid of computers.

Multi body calculations like this are very complex to do analytically,
but shouldn't be very hard to simulate on a computer, which
I am sure is done.

I think the Newtonian prediction is very well established.

In the frame of mercury, all the planets move in ellipses that appear to be
precessing because of their own orbital motion. Right?
Why should that have a nett force on Mercury over a long period of time?

It isn't the _motion_ of another planet (say Jupiter) that is
'pulling' Mercury. A ring of tiny stationary planets with
the same total mass as Jupiter would do the same job.
Since we are talking of a tiny precession, Jupiter will make
thousands of orbits before the precession becomes 360 degrees.
The (Mercury) annual precession will vary depending on Jupiter's
position, but the long term average precession will be as if Jupiter
were distributed in a continuous ring with the same mass as Jupiter.
This 'ring' will perturb the gravitational potential around
the Sun, so it isn't quite proportional to -1/r, and the speed
of Mercury at the aphelion will be a bit higher than it should
be according to Kepler's laws. This will have the effect of
rotating the (somewhat perturbed) ellipse a little.

Consider this:
Solar system seen from 'above'.
S - Sun, M - Mercury at aphelion. J - Jupiter

S M J
M's speed is higher than if Jupiter weren't there.
(The ellipse is distorted)

J S M
M's speed is lower than if Jupiter weren't there.

But since the distance to J is bigger, this doesn't
quite cancel the former case, so the average is
that M's speed at aphelion is higher than it would
have been without J.

Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?

It will have an effect, and many anti-relativists have tried
to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
with retarded gravity. None has been successful.

Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.

According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.

(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)

Le Verrier needed another planet to account for the anomaly.
Maybe an Earth twin was hiding behind the Sun?

It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.

Only after Einstein added the infamous factor of 2 after he found his original
prediction was wrong.

A bit confused? :-)
We are not talking about gravitational bending of light.

And Einstein never "added a factor of two" to anything.
GR correctly predicts the gravitational bending of light.
Period.

His 1911 prediction for the bending of light was plain
wrong, because he basically used "falling light", and thus got
the same wrong answer as Newtonian gravitation gives.
And the Newtonian prediction happens to be wrong by a factor 2.

There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
but this effect is minute.

The effect of the speed of gravity isn 't.

See above.

And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
are precessing by the same reasons.

Something doesn't add up. I don't see that the fact that all planets are
orbiting in the same sense should cause precession. Where is the evidence of a
one way 'tug'? If some are pulled one way, others must be pulled the other
way.

Henry Wilson DSc.

See above.

That you don't understand it right away doesn't mean that it
doesn't add up.

What's your point anyway?
Are you claiming that since you don't understand it, Newton
doesn't predict a precession of the perihelion of Mercury? :-)


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

On Jun 5, 2:33 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

Not likely. Remember that Le Verrier calculated the Newtonian
prediction back in the mid 19. century (without computer. Impressive!),
and since then a lot of people have repeated it with better precision,
lately with the aid of computers.
Multi body calculations like this are very complex to do analytically,
but shouldn't be very hard to simulate on a computer, which
I am sure is done.

Le Verrier reported to have observed 5,600 seconds of perihelion
advance per century. You are trying to make the case where the last
digit is indeed significant. Is that a coincidence that the last
digit of significance is 0? Out of these, 5,025 is supposed to have
come from the wobbling of earth’s rotational axis which completes a
cycle in 25,800 years that is about a third of known history. The
claimed accuracy in his observation is somewhat fishy. Why should any
serious person give Le Verrier the benefit of doubt? shrug

I think the Newtonian prediction is very well established.

Can you find any materials to support your claim? shrug

It will have an effect, and many anti-relativists have tried
to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
with retarded gravity. None has been successful.

Well, Gerber was successful --- very successful in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber

The only objection is the way he put that modified gravitational
potential together. This is within the same inquiry as Koobee Wublee
objects to using the Schwarzschild metric as the representation to
GR. shrug

Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.

Gerber’s does. You can also modify the gravitational potential
without (dr/dt) term just like what Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar had done before GR. The modified terms are
in the second order effect where they do not affect the orbit per
Newtonian discussions. shrug

Le Verrier needed another planet to account for the anomaly.
Maybe an Earth twin was hiding behind the Sun?

Le Verrier was looking for Vulcan --- the planet supposed to be
further into the sun. shrug

And Einstein never "added a factor of two" to anything.
GR correctly predicts the gravitational bending of light.
Period.

A photon starting out and observed in flat space with curved space in
between cannot be observed to bend since curved space does not result
in gravity. Does Paul wish to take an opposite stand on that? :-)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1e3a0a976d4006

shrug

His 1911 prediction for the bending of light was plain
wrong, because he basically used "falling light", and thus got
the same wrong answer as Newtonian gravitation gives.
And the Newtonian prediction happens to be wrong by a factor 2.

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not calculate
that factor of 2 but guessed. See the link provided above. Under the
Schwarzschild metric, there is no way in hell that curved space would
result in permanent photon bending. The only bend would come from
gravitational time dilation which agrees with Newtonian result if
photons are treated like classical particles. This means all
calculations of photon bending by self-styled physicists have all been
shamelessly fudged. shrug

What are you afraid of? Want to pick one and start discussing about
it, Paul? :-)

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:33:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 05.06.2013 01:02, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:52:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses at
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession in
general?

What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.

The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
Relativity hasn't changed that.

Maybe they all got it wrong.

Not likely. Remember that Le Verrier calculated the Newtonian
prediction back in the mid 19. century (without computer. Impressive!),
and since then a lot of people have repeated it with better precision,
lately with the aid of computers.

Multi body calculations like this are very complex to do analytically,
but shouldn't be very hard to simulate on a computer, which
I am sure is done.

I think the Newtonian prediction is very well established.

In the frame of mercury, all the planets move in ellipses that appear to be
precessing because of their own orbital motion. Right?
Why should that have a nett force on Mercury over a long period of time?

It isn't the _motion_ of another planet (say Jupiter) that is
'pulling' Mercury. A ring of tiny stationary planets with
the same total mass as Jupiter would do the same job.
Since we are talking of a tiny precession, Jupiter will make
thousands of orbits before the precession becomes 360 degrees.
The (Mercury) annual precession will vary depending on Jupiter's
position, but the long term average precession will be as if Jupiter
were distributed in a continuous ring with the same mass as Jupiter.
This 'ring' will perturb the gravitational potential around
the Sun, so it isn't quite proportional to -1/r, and the speed
of Mercury at the aphelion will be a bit higher than it should
be according to Kepler's laws. This will have the effect of
rotating the (somewhat perturbed) ellipse a little.

Consider this:
Solar system seen from 'above'.
S - Sun, M - Mercury at aphelion. J - Jupiter

S M J
M's speed is higher than if Jupiter weren't there.
(The ellipse is distorted)

J S M
M's speed is lower than if Jupiter weren't there.

But since the distance to J is bigger, this doesn't
quite cancel the former case, so the average is
that M's speed at aphelion is higher than it would
have been without J.

According to that theory, the orbit should be continually expanding and
changing eccentricity as well.

What is wrong with this counter argument?

Mercury orbits around the J-S centre of gravity.

Over time, any consequent change in the direction of the major axis should be
balanced, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Any precession should be cyclical,
averaging zero.


Also, what effect would a finite speed of gravity have on the overall picture?

It will have an effect, and many anti-relativists have tried
to explain the anomaly with a modified Newtonian gravitation
with retarded gravity. None has been successful.

Remember that this 'modified Newtonian gravitation' also must
be able to explain the orbits of all planets and satellites,
you can't have a modified theory that works for Mercury only.

As you know, the precession of other planets is almost immeasurable small.

According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.

(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)

Le Verrier needed another planet to account for the anomaly.
Maybe an Earth twin was hiding behind the Sun?

It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.

Only after Einstein added the infamous factor of 2 after he found his original
prediction was wrong.

A bit confused? :-)
We are not talking about gravitational bending of light.

And Einstein never "added a factor of two" to anything.
GR correctly predicts the gravitational bending of light.
Period.

His 1911 prediction for the bending of light was plain
wrong, because he basically used "falling light", and thus got
the same wrong answer as Newtonian gravitation gives.
And the Newtonian prediction happens to be wrong by a factor 2.

The bending of light by the sun has not been measured accurately enough to
deterimine whether the factor of 2 exists or doesn't exist.


See above.

That you don't understand it right away doesn't mean that it
doesn't add up.

What's your point anyway?
Are you claiming that since you don't understand it, Newton
doesn't predict a precession of the perihelion of Mercury? :-)

Henry Wilson DSc.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...

On 04.06.2013 12:20, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

What amazes me is that nobody ever discusses why planet Mercury precesses
at
all. How many different factors are responsible for planetary precession
in
general?

What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.

The main reason for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
(NOT the precession of Mercury) has been known for centuries;
it is simply the tug from all the planets in the Solar system.
Relativity hasn't changed that.
According to Newton, the precession should be 5557 arc seconds
per century. However, when the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury's was measured by Le Verrier in 1856, he found that
Newton's prediction was not exactly right, it was 38" per century
too small. Later more precise measurements have shown that the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds
per century, so the discrepancy is 43" per century. This is called
the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and its
cause has indeed been discussed since Le Verries's time.
(Ever heard of the planet Vulcan?)
It is this anomalous precession that is explained by GR.
GR predicts 43" per century in addition to the tug from the planets.

There are other factors as well, the oblateness of the Sun is one,
but this effect is minute.

And of course the orbits of all the planets in the solar system
are precessing by the same reasons.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
================================================== ====
Porkie Andersen is displaying just how gullible he really is.
One century is 415 orbits of Mercury.
Each orbit is 360 * 60 * 60 arc seconds
43/ (415 * 360 * 60 *60) = 43/537840000 = 7.995e-8
and so from 1815 to 1915 Einstein carefully aimed
his wooden telescope at Mercury to find its exact
position every night, and then with his trusty slide
rule and book of Naperian log tables exactly fitted
the numbers to his crackpot algebra.
Pork pies is Cockney rhyming slang for lies, and Porkie
Andersen isn't just a liar, he's a STOOOPID liar.

shrugometer read-out suggests a book,
_Einstein's Mistakes_; it's all about collaboration/corroboration,
which koobydoobydoo is nto proficient @

Of course, the loudest mouth to support SR or GR are the ones who
cannot do any math to save their Einstein Dingleberry asses. *Does
anyone what to go there? *shrug