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
  #11  
Old June 6th 13, 11:08 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:33:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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

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

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

What doesn't amaze me is your ignorance.

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

Maybe they all got it wrong.

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

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

I think the Newtonian prediction is very well established.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

What is wrong with this counter argument?



Mercury orbits around the J-S centre of gravity.


And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)


Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
remembering that the C of G continually moves.
The acceleration of the space station at any instant is determined by the
vector sum of ALL forces acting on it. Even YOU should know that.

What is more, both the Earth and the moon have actually acquired small wobbles
due to the existence of the space station....but the sun has not.

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


OK.
I note with interest that according to Henry George Wilson ,
Newtonian mechanics/gravitation predicts no precession
of the perihelion of Mercury.


Nothing you have said suggests that it should. You claim Newton is wrong, why
shouldn't I?

I have suggested that there should be a cyclically varying wobble of the major
axis as well as a continually changing orbit shape. Even if all the planets
are orbiting in the same sense, when viewed in Mercury's frame, there appears
to be no grounds for claiming that there exists a long term directional bias
in all the forces exerted on the planet.

Let's leave it at that.


Henry Wilson DSc.
  #12  
Old June 6th 13, 08:35 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.


And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)


Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
remembering that the C of G continually moves.


Good grief, Ralph.
Do you never think before posting? :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #13  
Old June 6th 13, 08:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Dirk Van de moortel[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.

And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)


Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to
that, remembering that the C of G continually moves.


Good grief, Ralph.
Do you never think before posting? :-)


What he writes is of no importance.
What you reply is of no importance.
The only thing he cares about is that someone replies.

Dirk Vdm
  #14  
Old June 7th 13, 01:04 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

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? :-)
  #15  
Old June 7th 13, 01:11 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:35:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.

And the International Space Station and other man made satellites are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)


Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
remembering that the C of G continually moves.


Good grief, Ralph.
Do you never think before posting? :-)


Yes. Right now I'm thinking how surprising it is that any professor from
Norway, no matter how big or little, could be so ignorant of basic
physics....but then, this current one is he who invented curved light,
painless body stretching and who keeps a team of tick eating fairies which is
also responsible for adjusting the speed of every photon in the universe to be
exactly c relative to little planet Earth....so he can't be completely
stupid...



Henry Wilson DSc.
  #16  
Old June 7th 13, 01:14 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 21:41:26 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.

And the International Space Station and other man made satellites
are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)

Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to
that, remembering that the C of G continually moves.


Good grief, Ralph.
Do you never think before posting? :-)


What he writes is of no importance.
What you reply is of no importance.
The only thing he cares about is that someone replies.


....and was little dicky dinky able to point out something I said that was
wrong?


Dirk Vdm


Henry Wilson DSc.
  #17  
Old June 7th 13, 03:43 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default _Einstein's Mistakes_, cool record of collaboration with "the Unifier

haha; no

shrugometer

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

- Show quoted text -


  #18  
Old June 7th 13, 12:40 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Absolutely Vertical
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 6/6/2013 7:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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”


fascinating that you do this calculation with unknown precision (but at
least two digits of significance in the first number -- that is, the 5
and the 6 but nothing after that), and then you claim an uncertainty in
the final sum of 0.7".

did you learn this skill in junior high, or did you miss those years?
  #19  
Old June 7th 13, 05:45 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 7, 4:40 am, Absolutely Testicle 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


fascinating that you do this calculation with unknown precision (but at
least two digits of significance in the first number -- that is, the 5
and the 6 but nothing after that), and then you claim an uncertainty in
the final sum of 0.7".


PD aka absolutely imbecile needs to reread what Koobee Wublee has
written. Koobee Wublee was pointing that there is no accuracy data of
Le Verrier’s observation which is suspiciously good to 5 digits of
significance, and yet the self-styled physics like PD aka absolutely
imbecile are able to see the high precision in the making. shrug

did you learn this skill in junior high, or did you miss
those years?


Was that the dissertation of PD aka absolutely imbecile on
bull****ting accuracy out of noise? shrug

Ps. Koobee Wublee notices PD aka absolutely imbecile is still 2 times
zones ahead of Koobee Wublee. So, PD aka absolutely imbecile is still
in Texas. His bull**** skills allows PD aka absolutely imbecile to
brag being a world class traveler since PD aka absolutely imbecile is
able to bounce off servers from different corners of the globe.
shrug

Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated
among the self-styled physicists?

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NOISE IS COHERENCY
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug
  #20  
Old June 7th 13, 08:39 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 07.06.2013 02:11, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:35:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:23:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 06.06.2013 03:52, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Mercury orbits around the J-S [Jupiter-Sun] centre of gravity.

And the International Space Station and other man made satellites are orbiting the Earth-Moon centre of gravity? :-)

Well, yes, You can add all the other objects in the solar system to that,
remembering that the C of G continually moves.


Good grief, Ralph.
Do you never think before posting? :-)


Yes. Right now I'm thinking how surprising it is that any professor from
Norway, no matter how big or little, could be so ignorant of basic
physics....but then, this current one is he who invented curved light,
painless body stretching and who keeps a team of tick eating fairies which is
also responsible for adjusting the speed of every photon in the universe to be
exactly c relative to little planet Earth....so he can't be completely
stupid...


Henry Wilson DSc.


Quite.
The more gigantic blunder you make, the more stupid I am.
This time I was very stupid.

--
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 09:05 AM.


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.