Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 07.06.2013 02:04, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 06.06.2013 18:33, wrote:

I am really curious here : you mean GR predicts exactly 43"
per century? What are the limits of error he if we improve
the accuracy of measurements in the future and it turns out
to be 43.0001" per century does it mean GR is invalidated or
just simply not accurate, or do we blame the other effects
for this?

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

Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
your elderly age? :-)

What's your point?
According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
"within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
So what?
Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
but now they are mostly of historical interest.

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.

--
Paul

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

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

On 07.06.2013 02:04, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 06.06.2013 18:33, wrote:

I am really curious here : you mean GR predicts exactly 43"
per century? What are the limits of error he if we improve
the accuracy of measurements in the future and it turns out
to be 43.0001" per century does it mean GR is invalidated or
just simply not accurate, or do we blame the other effects
for this?

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

Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
your elderly age? :-)

What's your point?
According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
"within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
So what?
Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
but now they are mostly of historical interest.

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.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
============================================
Yeah, but how many angels DO dance on the head of a pin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_man...ad_of_a_pin%3F

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

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” +/- ?
** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
** 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? :-)

On Jun 7, 11:24*pm, 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” +/- ?
** *Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?
** *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


You better get that shoulder fixed with all the shrugging you are
doing.

The precession of the equinoxes is a long term orbital trait and has
nothing whatsoever to do with an axial orientation feature regardless
of how entrenched the opinion is and even if it comes from Copernicus.

A change in axial precession would alter the relationship of axial
orientation to the orbital points of the solstices and equinoxes yet
the data from 5200 years ago where these astronomers aligned their
monuments to the December or June solstices when the polar coordinates
are at a maximum distance from the circle of illumination,indicate no
change in orientation.The light shines down the passageways of those
solar alignments even though they were constructed 5200 years ago or
20% of a precessional cycle.

http://americandigest.org/mt-archive...oment_in_t.php

Empiricists have a habit of using precession as an excuse to bury
their voodoo much like all the other things,something has to be moving
exceptionally fast or exceptionally far away or exceptionally tiny but
that con job has always been recognized for what it is by genuine
empiricists such as Von Humboldt.You are all in on the game,using
terms you barely understand or not at all and only a few people like
Von Humboldt have given their lives to counter this blight on
Western civilization -

"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos

You all try to set yourselves apart by shrugging,laughing and swearing
but the more you all try to sound different the more you all look the
same.

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/

On Jun 8, 2:46 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"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_precession

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

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

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

It looks like Clemence was just repeating Le Verrier’s observation by
adding an error bar. Did Tom read through Clemence justification for
the claimed accuracy on Le Verrier’s observation? That is assuming we
still trust Tom’s professionalism. shrug

** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?

Clemence evaluated the precession of the equinox per century
to be: 5025.645" +/- 0.5"

Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
precession known at that time during Le Verrier’s time. However,
modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. shrug

** 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.

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.

On 09.06.2013 01:05, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:46 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"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_precession

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

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

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

It looks like Clemence was just repeating Le Verrier’s observation by
adding an error bar. Did Tom read through Clemence justification for
the claimed accuracy on Le Verrier’s observation? That is assuming we
still trust Tom’s professionalism. shrug

** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?

Clemence evaluated the precession of the equinox per century
to be: 5025.645" +/- 0.5"

Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
precession known at that time during Le Verrier’s time.

That seems to be correct.

However,
modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. shrug

Quite.
As far as I can understand, this paper from 2003 contains
the values now commonly used:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
is given for the precession of the equinox:
p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
The rate of the precession is the derivative:
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
However, Clemence's measurments were done some
0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
p = 5027".58.. per century

I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.

If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"

So GR's prediction is some 1".4 outside of the error bar.

But I am pretty sure the last word isn't said about the precession
of the equinoxes. And there is a comment in the paper above which I
find a bit puzzling:
"The classical "general precession" which mixes the motion of
the equator in the GCRS and the motion of the ecliptic in the
ICRS (and moreover may not be defined in the framework of
General Relativity without fundamental problems) should no
longer be regarded as a primary precession quantity. It is
considered here as a derived quantity,.."

I wonder if there isn't any newer measurements of the precession
of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
find any.

Anybody know?


** 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

So the shift observed by Clemence is 574.10" +/- 0.65" per century
relative to 'stationary space'.

This number suggests to Koobee Wublee that Clemence was just using Le
Verrier’s observation. So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
shrug

Assuming Le Verrier’s 5,600” and 532” are right on and due to modern
placement on the accuracy of the period to 25,772 years, the final
anomaly number is off by 10% or so which is still not bad, but it
certainly shatters the blind faith among the self-styled physicists,
no? shrug

The anomaly is less that 4% off the GR prediction, surely
not enough to falsify GR.

I would question Clemence's measurements. How precise were
they really? His measurements were done during only four years.

--
Paul

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

On Jun 9, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"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_precession

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

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

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

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” +/- ?

** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?

Clemence was using the number 25,787 years as the period of the
precession known at that time during Le Verrier’s time. However,
modern astronomy has improved the accuracy to 25,772. That will
affect the accuracy in the final anomaly value. shrug

As far as I can understand, this paper from 2003 contains
the values now commonly used:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
On the bottom of page 39, the following equation
is given for the precession of the equinox:
p_A = 5028".796195t + 1".1054348t + higher order terms
where t is Julian centuries since J2000.
The rate of the precession is the derivative:
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + higher order terms.
This will give the period 25,772 years at J2000.
However, Clemence's measurments were done some
0.55 century before J2000, which will give the value:
p = 5027".58.. per century

I am not sure of the precision, it is considered in the paper,
but it isn't easy to see what impact it will have on the final result.

If we use this value together with Clemence's measurements,
we get the anomaly 40".53 +/- ~1"

With 38”, 39”, or 40” per 100 years, Le Verrier had weak justification
to search for another planet. The anomaly is not as obvious as
Uranus’s case. shrug

So GR's prediction is some 1".4 outside of the error bar.

I would question Clemence's measurements. How precise were
they really? His measurements were done during only four years.

Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of Le Verrier’s
observation about 8 decades prior. Le Verrier was not set out to
measure the accuracy down to the last second, but his motivation was
to find a sum of anomaly for him to justify whether if there is
another planet further inside the orbit of Mercury. He did not find
it. Thus, most of astronomers, and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at
that time just attributed the lack of the extra planet to Le Verrier’s
own observation accuracy. shrug

Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier’s observation with
better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be definitively
claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence’s justification is to
claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier’s observation 8 decades
prior. shrug

But I am pretty sure the last word isn't said about the precession
of the equinoxes. And there is a comment in the paper above which I
find a bit puzzling:
"The classical "general precession" which mixes the motion of
the equator in the GCRS and the motion of the ecliptic in the
ICRS (and moreover may not be defined in the framework of
General Relativity without fundamental problems) should no
longer be regarded as a primary precession quantity. It is
considered here as a derived quantity,.."

During glacial periods with more ice tapped in the polar regions, the
precession of the equinox might be slightly more pronounced as it is
today, but for the large part, the precession of the equinox should be
very a constant given a span of several hundred years. With global
warming in the past few decades where ice from the polar regions are
melting at an unprecedented level, the precession value might be a
little bit higher during Le Verrier’s time. However, Koobee Wublee
does not have the authority to claim 25787 years as did by Le
Verrier. shrug

** 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

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

I wonder if there isn't any newer measurements of the precession
of the perihelion of Mercury. I have looked for it, but can't
find any.

With better computer simulation, the tugs from other planets should be
a piece of cake to pin down, and measuring the overall Mercury’s
perihelion since Le Verrier’s time should also be a piece of cake.
The numbers would, of course, be drastically different from Le
Verrier’s. Koobee Wublee thinks it had been done many timed before,
but each time the net result showed great disappoint to the self-
styled physicists. Le Verrier’s 140-year-old observation
embarrassingly seems to be the best and only support to GR regarding
Mercury’s orbital anomaly. Sad for self-styled physicists but very
close to be true. Koobee Wublee would certainly like to know what the
real value of this anomaly is. It does not look like it is anywhere
close to +43” per 100 years from the lack of reports by the self-
styled physicists. Koobee Wublee suspects it is more like null.
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

The anomaly is less that 4% off the GR prediction, surely
not enough to falsify GR.

Clemence tried to justify the validity of GR by placing such precision
on Le Verrier’s observation but instead shot himself in the foot where
he fumbled with the precession of the equinox. The accuracy remains
to be outside of GR’s prediction, and GR’s such prediction is very
much “quantized” which leaves no room to negotiate with that extra 10%
difference. Besides the Schwarzschild metric predicts only +20” to
+30” (1 significant digit) per 100 years. The self-styled physicists
are not interested to do anything for science but to prolong their
elite status quo. Another example of fiasco is the GPS. Remember?
shrug

With that said, it is Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. Is Paul
ready for more adventures in differential equations where Koobee
Wublee has buried Paul every single time on simpler mathematics? :-)
Is Paul beginning to wake up? shrug

On 6/8/2013 6:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
This number suggests to Koobee Wublee that Clemence was just using Le
Verrier’s observation. So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
shrug

it doesn't matter what these things 'suggest to koobee wublee', since
koobee wublee is an insane attention whore who has a serious detachment
from reality.