|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY
In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
wrote in message ... THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Different for each orbit as Venus, Earth and Jupiter advance. Have any done these calculations? Le Verrier, who had no computer. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 12:49*am, wrote:
THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark As fas as I know, the only person dealing explicitly and honestly with this is the French astrophysicist Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud. Einstein has made his calculations on the assumption that the mass of the sun is perfectly spherical, and if it is not, the confirmation of relativity becomes in fact a refutation: http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique" inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." More explanation he http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-des-sciences- les-preuves-de-la-relativite (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On 29 déc, 07:40, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 29, 12:49*am, wrote: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark As fas as I know, the only person dealing explicitly and honestly with this is the French astrophysicist Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud. Einstein has made his calculations on the assumption that the mass of the sun is perfectly spherical, and if it is not, the confirmation of relativity becomes in fact a refutation: http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique" inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." More explanation he http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...0-histoire-des... les-preuves-de-la-relativite (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev - Masquer le texte des messages précédents - - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - helo, Il n'y a aucune erreur dans la théorie d'Einstein, l'avance du périhélie est correcte, lire l'article : "NAP applied to gravitation and the implications for Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity." de la théorie NAP qui confirme ce résultat. La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir acec ce phénomène. l'article se trouve sur le site: www.new-atomic-physics.com Amicalement ACE |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 31 2008, 4:35*pm, wrote:
On 29 déc, 07:40, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Dec 29, 12:49*am, wrote: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark As fas as I know, the only person dealing explicitly and honestly with this is the French astrophysicist Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud. Einstein has made his calculations on the assumption that the mass of the sun is perfectly spherical, and if it is not, the confirmation of relativity becomes in fact a refutation: http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique" inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." More explanation he http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite (ECOUTEZ!) helo, Il n'y a aucune erreur dans la théorie d'Einstein, l'avance du périhélie est correcte, lire l'article : "NAP applied to gravitation and the implications for Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity." de la théorie NAP qui confirme ce résultat. La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir acec ce phénomène. l'article se trouve sur le site: www.new-atomic-physics.com Amicalement ACE C'est parce que Albert le Divin a decouvert la vérité suivante: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein Vous imaginez que "La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir avec ce phénomène" et cela devient beaucoup plus important que le savoir selon lequel la distribution de la masse du soleil (spherique ou pas) est un facteur cricual. Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On 1 Jan, 07:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 31 2008, 4:35*pm, wrote: On 29 déc, 07:40, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Dec 29, 12:49*am, wrote: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark As fas as I know, the only person dealing explicitly and honestly with this is the French astrophysicist Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud. Einstein has made his calculations on the assumption that the mass of the sun is perfectly spherical, and if it is not, the confirmation of relativity becomes in fact a refutation: http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique" inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." More explanation he http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...0-histoire-des.... (ECOUTEZ!) helo, Il n'y a aucune erreur dans la théorie d'Einstein, l'avance du périhélie est correcte, lire l'article : "NAP applied to gravitation and the implications for Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity." de la théorie NAP qui confirme ce résultat. La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir acec ce phénomène. l'article se trouve sur le site: www.new-atomic-physics.com Amicalement ACE C'est parce que Albert le Divin a decouvert la vérité suivante: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein Vous imaginez que "La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir avec ce phénomène" et cela devient beaucoup plus important que le savoir selon lequel la distribution de la masse du soleil (spherique ou pas) est un facteur cricual. The sun, like the Earth is an oblate spheroid, largely in the plane of planetary rotation. In this case Newtonian theory predicts attraction from a point at the center of the Sun. No shape has nothing to do with it. It is GTR and the Schwartzchild radius. - Ian Parker |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
wrote in message ... THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark AFAIR, the best experimental evidence we have is good to only a couple of decimal places. I think we can dispense with the planets pretty quickly. Venus weighs 1/500,000 of Sun, and that's the nearest one. Effects from the Sun being oblate you would have to imagine are at least 2nd or 3rd order, and its not very oblate at all. Long and short is that measuring these effects would be experimentally impossible, I bet. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 28, 2:49 pm, wrote:
THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. In an actual observation of Mercury’s orbital advance, there are 5,600” (in arc-seconds) per century of observed perihelion advance. Among these, 5,025” are due to the 22,000-year precession of earth’s orbital around the second. 532” were accounted for through inclusion of other planets. That leaves (5,600” – 5,015” = 43”) unaccounted for. I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. Tell me if that is too much to ask. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. Other mathematical methods do not yield the same result. shrug Have any done these calculations? There are at least 12 such calculations to predict Mercury’s orbital advance in which the spacetime with the Schwarzschild metric is just one of them according to Gerber’s method. shrug |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 28, 10:07*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...] I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. *I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. *Tell me if that is too much to ask. Is reading the literature too much to ask? What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. *Other mathematical methods do not yield the same result. *shrug No, it was not "based on Paul Gerber's work". All Gerber did was guess the form of a velocity-dependent potential that would give the same effects. The actual analysis was based on the works of Le Verrier. Do you have a literature reference for the assertion that other methods "do not yield the same result", or is this more of your typical nonsense that has no scholarly backing? [...] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 12:30 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 28, 10:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. Tell me if that is too much to ask. Is reading the literature too much to ask? What literature? The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. Other mathematical methods do not yield the same result. shrug No, it was not "based on Paul Gerber's work". Gerber pioneered that particular way of deriving differential equations. Try reading the literature for a change. shrug All Gerber did was guess the form of a velocity-dependent potential that would give the same effects. Gerber had his reasons. Try reading the literature. Tell me if that is too much to ask. The actual analysis was based on the works of Le Verrier. Le Verrier was an observer equivalent to an experimenter just like Professor Roberts. Le Verrier did not do any detailed analyses in the same level as Gerber. Try to read the literature. shrug Do you have a literature reference for the assertion that other methods "do not yield the same result", or is this more of your typical nonsense that has no scholarly backing? Of course. How much do you want to pay for that? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Perihelion Advance of Mercury. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 25 | November 18th 08 11:12 AM |
The Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury | Double-A[_2_] | Misc | 8 | June 18th 08 04:00 PM |
Perihelion of Mercury question | Sorcerer | Astronomy Misc | 13 | January 6th 07 09:24 PM |
Perihelion of Mercury question | Sorcerer | Astronomy Misc | 114 | January 1st 07 11:36 PM |
Perihelion of Mercury with classical mechanics ? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 34 | April 28th 05 06:57 PM |