Precession of Mercury's longitude of perihelion - (so called "anomaly")

On May 14, 3:46 pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

oups.com...



"Androcles" wrote:
What, asking for you to prove GR works better than
Newtonian Mechanics?
Not difficult at all, Poe. Produce the calculations.

[KooWu]
Forget the calculations for now. Let's look at the basic
fundamentals. Here is a little bit of history as well.

During the mid 19th century, Riemann described a curvature in space
based on Gauss' speculation that space might be curved. The part of
space we live in might be so slightly curved that we do not even
notice about this curvature. So, space is the geometry. To describe
this geometry, one needs to do so base on the description from a
chosen coordinate system. Without a coordinate system, it is
impossible to describe any distance. Then, with the choice of
coordinate system identified, one can then fully describe the
curvature in space according to this chosen coordinate system. This
is where an interpretation matrix comes in to describe the curvature
of the geometry in space (invariant) based on this choice of
coordinate system.

During Christoffel's time (about a generation or two after Riemann),
the shortest distance through space that can be curved is physically
taken as a straight line connecting between two points in the
invariant space (not observed). The observed shortest distance does
not mean it is the shortest distance in actual space. Thus, the
minimizing quantity is then the integral of ds where ds representing
the actual geometry is described below.

ds^2 = Q_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** Q_ij = Elements of the interpretation matrix [Q]
** dq^i = Observer's choice of spatial coordinates

After easily identifying the proper Lagrangian for this interaction,
the Euler-Lagrange equations (geodesics) thus all are referenced to ds
instead of dt (time). The geodesic equations according to
Christoffel's derivation specify how the observer's coordinate must
change from point to point to follow the path that would yield the
shortest distance between two points through the actual space itself.
It was assumed the geodesics would follow the same path of shortest
distance.

After Christoffel's work, the concept of differential geometry was
fouled by Ricci and his student Levi-Civita. The interpretation
matrix somehow became invariant. The interpretation matrix somehow
became the geometry itself independent of any choice of coordinate
system. This is totally wrong and absurd, but amazingly it believed
to be the case by the physicists to this day. This erroneous concept
actually does not change the mathematics of GR much. However, it
allows wild, absurd, and wrong interpretations to the mathematics of
GR that would prolong the eventual collapse of GR. With ever long
eventual collapse of GR, it would make the physicists ever more silly.

After Minkowski included time information into the equation above, the
interaction of extremizing becomes the longest distance between two
points in spacetime. The problem of allowing the geodesics to follow
the paths of maximum spacetime presents no problems for particles
other than photons. For photons, (ds = 0). Every path represents a
maximum accumulated spacetime already. It becomes very silly to have
photons propagate through space or spacetime by following the path
with maximum accumulated spacetime. Thus, the concept of a straight
line across spacetime as an extension from Christoffel's concept
applied to space only needs to be revised.

Luckily, the other mechanism to model the geodesics is the principle
of least time. Its discovery actually went back to the time of Snell
and Fermat almost 400 years ago. By allowing the geodesics to follow
the path with the least accumulated amount of time (observer's time,
dt), photons can now propagate through space or spacetime sharing the
same mathematics with other non-photons. However, this raises a
question. Why is the observer's time so important that justifies a
case for the principle of least time? Be patient.

With the principle of least time, all reference to change of position
becomes time or dt itself instead of utterly silly concept of ds. It
appears everything looks OK. However, if one examines the Euler-
Lagrange equation associated with r (using spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system) and with the Schwarzschild metric as the
interpretation matrix, one will find out at the following condition
for weak gravitation the acceleration d^2r/dt^2 will reverse the sign
and becomes anti-gravity. Photons will increase their speeds to
infinity. Yes, oops!

(dr/dt)^2 c^2 (1 - 2 U)^2 / 3

Where

** U = G M / c^2 / r

The bottom line is that GR does not work - mathematically, logically,
and sensibly. This should answer the question raised above.

[hanson]http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/47cc4181eb6470dd
All these little relativity vignettes are merely mental masturbations
by Einstein and/or his Dingleberries as long as they do use
[1] Newton's G and steps of [2] Newtonian mechanics,
in their relativistic pursuit and their equations. Them using [1 &2],
forces to carry with them, by necessity, any and all problems
baggage, short comings and defects attributed to [1 &2], that
Einstein & his Dingelberries are trying to get (unsuccessfully) rid of.

So, GR = BFD. It's a circular dance by Einstein Dingleberries
.... and it doesn't change that fact no matter how much they twist
and convolute the situation with frame dragging, matrices or barks
& cries that "GPS works", somenthing that so many loudmouthed
Einstein Dingleberries do... Whether the Einstein Dingleberries
like it or not,...All of them will remain by definition under the towering
influence & governing hand of Newton and his G, from which they
so far have tried to escape in absolute, not relative, vain... ahaha..

Nobody's trying to "escape" Newton. The relativity corrections are
tiny, tiny effects. Newton works more than adequately for high-
accuracy
navigation and orbit prediction around our solar system, and I don't
know anybody who has said otherwise.

Relativity experiments involve either extremely sensitive instruments,
or very high gravity or high relative speeds. Newton works just fine
for ordinary gravity, ordinary speeds, ordinary accuracy.

So, the only positive fact is that they TRY to ESCAPE.

Incorrect.

- Randy

Randy Poe wrote:
Nobody's trying to "escape" Newton. The relativity corrections are
tiny, tiny effects. Newton works more than adequately for high-
accuracy
navigation and orbit prediction around our solar system, and I don't
know anybody who has said otherwise.

Then you don't know anybody who has ever worked in spacecraft
navigation.

Relativity is a second-order effect. For typical velocities of 30 km/s,
v^2/c^2 is 1 part in 10^8. Our Doppler measurements are good to at
least 13 digits. We *must* include relativity, or we'd get wrong
results. Furthermore, we can *measure* how well GR holds up, and
it agrees with our observations to 1 part in 10^5. (That's the five
extra digits provided by Doppler, after the 1 part in 10^8.)

To put it another way: yes, "the relativity corrections are tiny, tiny
effects" -- but they're measurable, and our measurements are 100,000
times more accurate than these "tiny, tiny effects."

To put it yet another way: Newton is correct to 8 digits. Einstein is
correct to at least 13 digits, *and we know it.*

-- Bill Owen

On May 14, 8:44 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Russell" wrote in message

ups.com...
: [conventional snip, which will infuriate you, but who cares]
Did you have something to offer, ****head?
Who cares...

Well, on second thought, had I not snipped the part
of your post where you called vodka your "excuse",
I might have had some advice to offer, FWIW.

Although it's bad enough to display one's drunkenness
in public, there are greater losses involved -- losses not
at all connected with the Internet. And losses on my
side as well, though I don't share your affliction of drink.
We both have real people in our lives -- children, in fact.
So, let's both clean up our respective acts. No space of
regret can make amends for one's life's opportunities
misused.

On May 14, 10:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 14, 8:44 am, "Androcles" wrote:

What, asking for you to prove GR works better than
Newtonian Mechanics?

Not difficult at all, Poe. Produce the calculations.

Forget the calculations for now. Let's look at the basic
fundamentals. Here is a little bit of history as well.

Yes, forget the calculations. You never could get them right.

[...]


After Christoffel's work, the concept of differential geometry was
fouled by Ricci and his student Levi-Civita. The interpretation
matrix somehow became invariant. The interpretation matrix somehow
became the geometry itself independent of any choice of coordinate
system. This is totally wrong and absurd, but amazingly it believed
to be the case by the physicists to this day. This erroneous concept
actually does not change the mathematics of GR much. However, it
allows wild, absurd, and wrong interpretations to the mathematics of
GR that would prolong the eventual collapse of GR. With ever long
eventual collapse of GR, it would make the physicists ever more silly.

You were doing well enough until here.

What you call the "interpretation matrix" is not invariant. Nobody
ever said it was. The matrix representation is a list of the cosine of
angles between the coordinate axes. For example, that is why all
orthogonal coordinate systems have a diagonal representation.

The geometry represented by the line element/metric _is_ invariant,
however. Every tensorial quantity constructed from the metric remains
the same in every coordinate system.

Your delusions about the collapse of GR are greatly amusing, but
completely unrelated to reality.


After Minkowski included time information into the equation above, the
interaction of extremizing becomes the longest distance between two
points in spacetime. The problem of allowing the geodesics to follow
the paths of maximum spacetime presents no problems for particles
other than photons. For photons, (ds = 0). Every path represents a
maximum accumulated spacetime already. It becomes very silly to have
photons propagate through space or spacetime by following the path
with maximum accumulated spacetime. Thus, the concept of a straight
line across spacetime as an extension from Christoffel's concept
applied to space only needs to be revised.

Here you go, repeating the misconceptions I already pointed out were
misconceptions.

You continue to say "maximum spacetime" when the proper term is
"maximum proper time", as if you aren't actually interested in
communicating clearly. You continue to pretend photons can use the
proper time parameterization - and continue to build upon
misconceptions generated from that notion.


Luckily, the other mechanism to model the geodesics is the principle
of least time. Its discovery actually went back to the time of Snell
and Fermat almost 400 years ago. By allowing the geodesics to follow
the path with the least accumulated amount of time (observer's time,
dt), photons can now propagate through space or spacetime sharing the
same mathematics with other non-photons. However, this raises a
question. Why is the observer's time so important that justifies a
case for the principle of least time? Be patient.

....Observer time is important because it is something all observers
have.


With the principle of least time, all reference to change of position
becomes time or dt itself instead of utterly silly concept of ds. It

The dt parameterization doesn't exist for everything, dumbass. This
has been explained to you countless times. Spacelike separated
observers don't have a proper time parameterization, nor do photons.

This is all dealt with in introductory courses in relativity, as well
as introductory textbooks on relativity. It appears you have
experienced neither.

appears everything looks OK. However, if one examines the Euler-
Lagrange equation associated with r (using spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system) and with the Schwarzschild metric as the
interpretation matrix, one will find out at the following condition
for weak gravitation the acceleration d^2r/dt^2 will reverse the sign
and becomes anti-gravity. Photons will increase their speeds to
infinity. Yes, oops!

(dr/dt)^2 c^2 (1 - 2 U)^2 / 3

My god you are a failure of a person. This is why you always avoid
computations - it makes you look like a ****ing moron.

(dr/dt)^2 is not the same as d^2r/dt^2. Did you ever pass calculus?

There is no sign change - (x)^2 for all real x is positive. Did you
ever pass algebra?

Photons don't increase their speeds to infinity - r in the
Schwarzschild coordinate chart is only defined between 2GM/c^2 and
infinity. As r--- 2GM/c^2, dr/dt --- 0. Not infinity. You can't say
what happens as r---0 because the Schwarzschild coordinate system _is
not defined there_.


Where

** U = G M / c^2 / r

The bottom line is that GR does not work - mathematically, logically,
and sensibly. This should answer the question raised above.

No, the bottom line is you are a goddamn moron with no understanding
of the subjects you criticize. You can't even work with one
dimensional calculus without ****ing it up.

On May 14, 11:02 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On May 14, 8:44 am, "Androcles" wrote:

What, asking for you to prove GR works better than
Newtonian Mechanics?

Not difficult at all, Poe. Produce the calculations.

Forget the calculations for now. Let's look at the basic
fundamentals. Here is a little bit of history as well.

A little bit of history as well:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
More history available.

Dirk Vdm

You should have kept reading - he thinks (dr/dt)^2 is the same as
acceleration, d^2r/dt^2. That's quite a ****up.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message oups.com...
On May 14, 11:02 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On May 14, 8:44 am, "Androcles" wrote:

What, asking for you to prove GR works better than
Newtonian Mechanics?

Not difficult at all, Poe. Produce the calculations.

Forget the calculations for now. Let's look at the basic
fundamentals. Here is a little bit of history as well.

A little bit of history as well:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
More history available.

Dirk Vdm

You should have kept reading

ah, you must be joking :-(

- he thinks (dr/dt)^2 is the same as
acceleration, d^2r/dt^2. That's quite a ****up.

No doubt that was a deliberate one :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Bill Owen" wrote in message ...
Randy Poe wrote:
Nobody's trying to "escape" Newton. The relativity corrections are
tiny, tiny effects. Newton works more than adequately for high-
accuracy
navigation and orbit prediction around our solar system, and I don't
know anybody who has said otherwise.

Then you don't know anybody who has ever worked in spacecraft
navigation.

We all know Koobee Wublee, a retired aerospace engineer...


Relativity is a second-order effect. For typical velocities of 30 km/s,
v^2/c^2 is 1 part in 10^8. Our Doppler measurements are good to at
least 13 digits. We *must* include relativity, or we'd get wrong
results. Furthermore, we can *measure* how well GR holds up, and
it agrees with our observations to 1 part in 10^5. (That's the five
extra digits provided by Doppler, after the 1 part in 10^8.)

To put it another way: yes, "the relativity corrections are tiny, tiny
effects" -- but they're measurable, and our measurements are 100,000
times more accurate than these "tiny, tiny effects."

To put it yet another way: Newton is correct to 8 digits. Einstein is
correct to at least 13 digits, *and we know it.*

Koob seems not to know it - but then again, he's retired :-)

Dirk Vdm

On May 14, 4:48 pm, Bill Owen wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Nobody's trying to "escape" Newton. The relativity corrections are
tiny, tiny effects. Newton works more than adequately for high-
accuracy
navigation and orbit prediction around our solar system, and I don't
know anybody who has said otherwise.

Then you don't know anybody who has ever worked in spacecraft
navigation.

Relativity is a second-order effect. For typical velocities of 30 km/s,
v^2/c^2 is 1 part in 10^8. Our Doppler measurements are good to at
least 13 digits. We *must* include relativity, or we'd get wrong
results. Furthermore, we can *measure* how well GR holds up, and
it agrees with our observations to 1 part in 10^5. (That's the five
extra digits provided by Doppler, after the 1 part in 10^8.)

Huh. I would have thought that uncertainties in the gravitational
field model would more than swamp such effects. Do we really know
the gravitational field our spacecraft are traveling through to
1 part in 10^13?

To put it another way: yes, "the relativity corrections are tiny, tiny
effects" -- but they're measurable, and our measurements are 100,000
times more accurate than these "tiny, tiny effects."

To put it yet another way: Newton is correct to 8 digits. Einstein is
correct to at least 13 digits, *and we know it.*

I've worked with, e.g. ICBM trajectory prediction and calculations
of LEO satellite trajectories (both for simulations, not real life).
Those
were definitely Newtonian calculations, using a WGS84 earth geoid
and I don't recall how many gravitational (spherical harmonic) terms
--
six? 1 part in 10^13 on such a model is on the order of *micrometers*.
I've never heard anyone claim to predict an ICBM trajectory to
millimeters let alone micrometers.

What are the circumstances where your knowledge of the inputs
is good enough to need a GR model for navigation?

- Randy

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On May 14, 8:44 am, "Androcles" wrote:
:
: What, asking for you to prove GR works better than
: Newtonian Mechanics?
:
: Not difficult at all, Poe. Produce the calculations.
:
: Forget the calculations for now. Let's look at the basic
: fundamentals. Here is a little bit of history as well.
:
: During the mid 19th century, Riemann described a curvature in space
: based on Gauss' speculation that space might be curved. The part of
: space we live in might be so slightly curved that we do not even
: notice about this curvature. So, space is the geometry. To describe
: this geometry, one needs to do so base on the description from a
: chosen coordinate system. Without a coordinate system, it is
: impossible to describe any distance. Then, with the choice of
: coordinate system identified, one can then fully describe the
: curvature in space according to this chosen coordinate system. This
: is where an interpretation matrix comes in to describe the curvature
: of the geometry in space (invariant) based on this choice of
: coordinate system.
:
: During Christoffel's time (about a generation or two after Riemann),
: the shortest distance through space that can be curved is physically
: taken as a straight line connecting between two points in the
: invariant space (not observed). The observed shortest distance does
: not mean it is the shortest distance in actual space. Thus, the
: minimizing quantity is then the integral of ds where ds representing
: the actual geometry is described below.
:
: ds^2 = Q_ij dq^i dq^j
:
: Where
:
: ** Q_ij = Elements of the interpretation matrix [Q]
: ** dq^i = Observer's choice of spatial coordinates
:
: After easily identifying the proper Lagrangian for this interaction,
: the Euler-Lagrange equations (geodesics) thus all are referenced to ds
: instead of dt (time). The geodesic equations according to
: Christoffel's derivation specify how the observer's coordinate must
: change from point to point to follow the path that would yield the
: shortest distance between two points through the actual space itself.
: It was assumed the geodesics would follow the same path of shortest
: distance.
:
: After Christoffel's work, the concept of differential geometry was
: fouled by Ricci and his student Levi-Civita. The interpretation
: matrix somehow became invariant. The interpretation matrix somehow
: became the geometry itself independent of any choice of coordinate
: system. This is totally wrong and absurd, but amazingly it believed
: to be the case by the physicists to this day. This erroneous concept
: actually does not change the mathematics of GR much. However, it
: allows wild, absurd, and wrong interpretations to the mathematics of
: GR that would prolong the eventual collapse of GR. With ever long
: eventual collapse of GR, it would make the physicists ever more silly.
:
: After Minkowski included time information into the equation above, the
: interaction of extremizing becomes the longest distance between two
: points in spacetime. The problem of allowing the geodesics to follow
: the paths of maximum spacetime presents no problems for particles
: other than photons. For photons, (ds = 0). Every path represents a
: maximum accumulated spacetime already. It becomes very silly to have
: photons propagate through space or spacetime by following the path
: with maximum accumulated spacetime. Thus, the concept of a straight
: line across spacetime as an extension from Christoffel's concept
: applied to space only needs to be revised.
:
: Luckily, the other mechanism to model the geodesics is the principle
: of least time. Its discovery actually went back to the time of Snell
: and Fermat almost 400 years ago. By allowing the geodesics to follow
: the path with the least accumulated amount of time (observer's time,
: dt), photons can now propagate through space or spacetime sharing the
: same mathematics with other non-photons. However, this raises a
: question. Why is the observer's time so important that justifies a
: case for the principle of least time? Be patient.
:
: With the principle of least time, all reference to change of position
: becomes time or dt itself instead of utterly silly concept of ds. It
: appears everything looks OK. However, if one examines the Euler-
: Lagrange equation associated with r (using spherically symmetric polar
: coordinate system) and with the Schwarzschild metric as the
: interpretation matrix, one will find out at the following condition
: for weak gravitation the acceleration d^2r/dt^2 will reverse the sign
: and becomes anti-gravity. Photons will increase their speeds to
: infinity. Yes, oops!
:
: (dr/dt)^2 c^2 (1 - 2 U)^2 / 3
:
: Where
:
: ** U = G M / c^2 / r
:
: The bottom line is that GR does not work - mathematically, logically,
: and sensibly. This should answer the question raised above.
:


"Forget the calculations for now. Let's look at the basic
fundamentals."

Basic fundamentals? Surely you meant the fundamental basics? :-)

Yes, there is the ovine aspect you've mentioned...

1 : any of various hollow-horned typically gregarious ruminant mammals
related to the goats but stockier and lacking a beard in the male;
specifically : one (Ovis aries) long domesticated especially for its flesh
and wool
2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially :
one easily influenced or led.

But down to the seriously basic, let's get to the physics.

Mercury's orbit precesses, without question. Of all planets it has the most
easily noticable precession, being the most eccentric (e 0.2) and the
fastest,
being the closest to the sun and passes through aphelion every 88 days.
(Also
through perihelion in 88 days, the "big end of the egg" where it has the
greatest velocity and hence the greater error in measurement, but never mind
that.)


Now... any two bodies revolve about a barycentre, that much is common
knowledge.
The barycentre between Jupiter and the Sun (Jupiter being the largest
planet)
is above the sun's radius, as shown here but not to scale:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../59/Orbit2.gif

The further away the bodies, the further out the barycentre will be.

Compared to Jupiter, Mercury is a fly on an elephant's arse and it does
NOT revolve around the Sun, instead it revolves around the Sun-Jupiter
barycentre. If an elephant walks around an acacia tree, the fly goes
with it. That is the precession, we all agree, the debate is over which
theory best describes the values and can predict Mercury's future.

Combining
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../59/Orbit4.gif
for its relative size with
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../59/Orbit5.gif
for its eccentricity we have
http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/Perihe...eAnimation.gif
but unfortunately that doesn't show the sun moving.
I'm in the process of creating a gif to show this and I'll devote a page to
it, perhaps
with your text above included as I did with GPS.

Now of course there are other barycentres, one for each of the planets.
The Sun-Mercury barycentre revolves around the Sun-Jupiter barycentre
just as the acacia tree moves with the Earth along with the elephant and
fly,
that analogy relating to the Sun moving around the galactic centre.
There is even a Mercury-Jupiter barycentre, and this one also means there
is no solution to the three body problem, all orbits are chaotic.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html

Three bodies, three barycentres.
Four bodies, AB,AC,AD,BC,BD,CD, six barycentres.
Five bodies.... well, I'm not getting into combinations with another
mathematician.
For the lurker, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Combination.html

Measurement of Mercury's position is necessarily carried out with reference
to the "fixed" stars, the brightest being chosen from shear observability.
Those stars, being the closest, are also the ones where the greatest
relative
movement will be noticed.
Le Verrier had no knowledge of galaxies being star clusters, in his day
they were nebulae and the "fixed" stars were.. well... fixed. Not until 1923
when Hubble discovered variables in M31 was it realized what galaxies were.

Also, light does curve, there is a coriolis effect.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/fw/crls.rxml

When everything is combined Le Verrier did a remarkable job in
in getting as close as he did and he would certainly scoff at GR.

It is only the sheep that follow blindly after Einstein, nit-picking Le
Verrier's
work and praising the charlatan instead, and that is why I want Poe to
produce not the data, not Le Verrier's dedicated and difficult work, but
Einstein's calculations.

"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars." - Tom ****wit
Roberts.

Pity Roberts doesn't hear himself, but of course he's just another
incompetent braggart of genus ovine aries.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF

If GR works as claimed then the three body problem is solved!
Ha-Ha!... Nelson Muntz
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...Muntz_rie2.jpg

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

: Nobody's trying to "escape" Newton. The relativity corrections are
: tiny, tiny effects. Newton works more than adequately for high-
: accuracy
: navigation and orbit prediction around our solar system, and I don't
: know anybody who has said otherwise.
:
: Relativity experiments involve either extremely sensitive instruments,
: or very high gravity or high relative speeds. Newton works just fine
: for ordinary gravity, ordinary speeds, ordinary accuracy.
:
http://i2.tinypic.com/263tweb.jpg

: So, the only positive fact is that they TRY to ESCAPE.
:
: Incorrect.
http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/nelson/01.gif