A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einstein's biggest mistakes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 10th 13, 06:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes


Fatso cranked himself "Absolutely Vertical"
when he wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Clemence was just using Le Verrier’s observation.
So, nothing has changed per our discussion.
shrug

Fatso wrote:
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.

hanson wrote:
but Fatso, your response looks like you are the
"insane attention whore" who got aroused over
KW's shrug ...

[[[[ KW 1 -:- Fatso 0, zero, nil nada ]]]]

Thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahanson

  #32  
Old June 10th 13, 07:40 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 10.06.2013 05:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.


I was very wrong about the four years. See below.

Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of Le Verrier’s
observation about 8 decades prior.


Not quite true.
Here is Clemence's paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.

This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!

So to sum it up:
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


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



--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #33  
Old June 10th 13, 08:28 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 10.06.2013 20:40, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Here is Clemence's paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.

This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!

So to sum it up:
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5


Should (obviously) be:
Precession of the perihelion of Mercury relative to
'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5

The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #34  
Old June 10th 13, 08:31 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default go, le Verrier!

that was expostulatory; no need to readmore.com

GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


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


read more »

  #35  
Old June 10th 13, 09:10 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 10.06.2013 05:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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


See Koobee Wublee bury Paul:

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

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #36  
Old June 10th 13, 11:44 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 10, 11:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:


So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century


GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.


To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul,
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”


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


Not quite true.
Here is Clemence's paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf


It only contains the final results. shrug

He says that he has used about 10,000 meridian observations
of Mercury from 1762 to 1937, and 17 transit observations
from 1799 to 1940. So Le Verrier's observations are included,
but he also used just about all available observations at the time,
which includes almost a century worth of observations after Le Verrier.


Le Verrier had 100 years of data. If Clemence did include Le
Verrier’s data, how many years did Clemence use? It is not clear from
the paragraph above. The overall number of 5,599.74 that Clemence
came up with can only be Le Verrier’s data and nothing else. The
paper does not justify the such great precision to Le Verrier’s
observation. shrug

This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!


Has Paul really read that paper? Koobee Wublee suspects not. Paul
just made up bull****. According to this paper, the amount of
precession measured in seconds can be calculated according to the
following formula. shrug

** 5,208”79695 t – 1”11113 t^2 – 0”000006 t^3

Where

** t = (days – 2,000 Jan 1 noon) / 36525

Thus, on that day of January 1, 2,000, a tare (setting to null) on the
precession angle is performed. A hundred years from now, you can add
1”1 to the rate which means the precession is getting worse (period
getting longer). There is no qualification for you to extrapolate
that backwards. In 1947, Clemence was merely using the same number as
he knew then. shrug

Besides with global warming if true, less ice will be trapped in the
polar regions, and that would make the precession less severe (shorter
period). shrug

So to sum it up:
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2


It is still inconclusive. The justification to why Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:

“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”

Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


Not quite. All these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if
indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
realize this if you actually study the differential equations
involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug


  #37  
Old June 11th 13, 02:19 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 11.06.2013 00:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

This is interesting, because the question is what the rate of
the precession of the equinoxes were at the time the measurements
were done. If we use 1850 as the middle year, the equation from:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf
p = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696t + ..
yields: p = 5025".48 per century at J1850, which is pretty
close to the number used by Clemence for the same year!


Has Paul really read that paper? Koobee Wublee suspects not. Paul
just made up bull****. According to this paper, the amount of
precession measured in seconds can be calculated according to the
following formula. shrug

** 5,208”79695 t – 1”11113 t^2 – 0”000006 t^3

Where

** t = (days – 2,000 Jan 1 noon) / 36525

Thus, on that day of January 1, 2,000, a tare (setting to null) on the
precession angle is performed. A hundred years from now, you can add
1”1 to the rate which means the precession is getting worse (period
getting longer). There is no qualification for you to extrapolate
that backwards.


Did someone mention bull****? :-)

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)

Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.

This is a phase.

But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:

p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..

This is an angular frequency.

The rate of change of the precession of the equinoxes
at J2000 is 5028".796195 per century, or 50".28796195 per year.
So the period of the precession is at J2000: (T = 2pi/w)
(360*60*60)"/(50".28796195 per year) ~= 25772 years.

This is the period you claimed to be the "correct one".
It is - at J2000.

But no dramatic change happened in the solar system
at J2000, so there is no reason to claim that the equation
above can't be used for the centuries prior to J2000.

So the 'most modern' estimate of the rate of precession of
the equinoxes at J1850 is:
p(1850) = 5028".796195 - 2".2108696 1.5 ~= 5025".48 per century
(second order terms and higher ignored)

So to sum it up:

The observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury
is found in Clemence's paper:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the perihelion relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
The tug from other planets is 531.63 ± 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 ± ~1.2

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 ± 0.04
is well inside the error bar.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #38  
Old June 11th 13, 05:44 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:


So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century


GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.


To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul,
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”


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


Did someone mention bull****? :-)


From Paul, yes. :-)

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)

Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.


This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
the precession period ought to get longer. shrug

This is a phase.


This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. shrug

But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:

p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..

This is an angular frequency.


So, according to Paul, 230k years ago, the precession was null.
shrug

Let’s see if that equation agree with you. Say t is indeed -1.5 (150
years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury’s
orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier’s data started).

pA at -1 .5 = 5028”8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544”5
pA at -2 .5 = 5028”8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578”9

The rate ought to be (12578”9 – 7544”5 = 5034”4) which is not
probable. Paul is a joker. Paul is a mathemagician. shrug

So to sum it up:
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2


It is still inconclusive. The justification to why Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:

“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”

Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


Not quite. All these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if
indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
realize this if you actually study the differential equations
involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug
  #39  
Old June 11th 13, 06:54 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default there ain't no pascals, thereatsville

Kepler discovered the curvature of space,
with his three orbital constraints;
Gauss measured it with a theodolite of his own construction
in Allsace-Lorraine -- it is not perfectly convex.

GR is "just" a manifestation of gravity,
what ever it really is. what it is definitely not, though,
is any perfect "pascalian" vacuum (with no pascals .-)

GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


Not quite. *All these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if
indeed exists are not linearly additive.

  #40  
Old June 11th 13, 11:28 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 11.06.2013 18:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)

Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.


This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
the precession period ought to get longer. shrug

This is a phase.


This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. shrug


Not at all. The J000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
chosen reference point.
As you possibly know, the equatorial coordinate system is used
by astronomers to give the position of stars and other objects.
This is a spherical coordinate system with the coordinates
declination (Dec) and Right ascension (RA).
The Dec is the angle from the equatorial plane, and the RA
is the 'horizontal' angle from the vernal equinox.
Since the vernal equinox is moving, and it would be very
impractical to continuously rework the star charts, it must be
specified which year (epoch) a set of coordinates is valid for.
Standard years are chosen, usually every 50 years or so.
The currently used epoch is J2000.
This is the reason why J2000 is used in the Equation for pA
above. So when you find the coordinates of the star in
a EPOCH2000 star chart, the angle pA for the current year
is what you have to add to the charted RA to find its real
position.

The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.

But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:

p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..

This is an angular frequency.


So, according to Paul, 230k years ago, the precession was null.
shrug


No, because then the higher order terms would come into play.
The result would be ridiculous, though.
It would be equally ridiculous for 230k years in the future.

Let’s see if that equation agree with you. Say t is indeed -1.5 (150
years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury’s
orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier’s data started).

pA at -1 .5 = 5028”8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544”5
pA at -2 .5 = 5028”8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578”9


Correct numbers:
pA(J1850) = -7540.7074534702 arcsecs
pA(J1750) = -12565.0836925488 arcsecs


The rate ought to be (12578”9 – 7544”5 = 5034”4) which is not
probable. Paul is a joker. Paul is a mathemagician. shrug


Correct numbers:
pA(J1850)-pA(J1750) = 5024.3762390786 arcsecs per century
p(J1800) = 5024.3761718400 arcsecs per century

(the two are not exactly equal because the curve isn't linear)

What's your problem with this?


However, Clemence estimate is based on observations
from 1765 to 1940, so 1850 is a more reasonable middle year.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

p(1850) = 5025.4807492700 arcsecs per century

And if you wonder if your way of calculating agrees with this:
pA(J1900) = -5027.6908636587 arcsecs
pA(J1800) = -10053.1716684064 arcsecs
pA(1900)- pA(1800) = 5025.4808047477 arcsecs per century


So to sum it up:
Observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury: 5599.74+/-0.5
Modern estimate of precession of equinoxes at J1850: 5025.48
Precession of the equinoxes relative to 'stationary space': 574.26+/-0.5
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
Anomaly = 42.63 +/- ~1.2


It is still inconclusive. The justification to why Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:

“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”

Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.


Not quite. All these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if
indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
realize this if you actually study the differential equations
involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug



--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN'S 'BIGGEST BLUNDER' TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT cjcountess Astronomy Misc 5 December 22nd 10 05:39 PM
Einstein Biggest Blunder G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 14 April 9th 07 08:51 AM
Einstein's Mistakes brian a m stuckless Policy 0 January 19th 06 11:55 AM
Einstein's Mistakes brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 January 19th 06 11:55 AM
Was Einstein's 'biggest blunder' a stellar success? (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 November 23rd 05 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.