Perihelion Advance of Mercury.

On Nov 11, 12:04*pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:43:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
[snip]
That's a fair indication of the presence of dark matter. But it's
not required in this case because GR has already accounted for
Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance. Although I've never come
across a valid reason why it does that. The only "proof" I ever
find is in the statement that Mercury's anomalous advance is
predicted by GR, which leads me to conclude that GR's proof is
based on something a little dubious, like a postulate, and would
not welcome close scrutiny.

Untutored imbecile. The advance is a textbook exercise.

That may be so, but what's your point? Any text book exercise
can be based on dubious logic.

Anyway I really don't need to know how GR explains the advance
because it's fairly inconsequential to the gravity anisotropy.
Regardless of how Einstein chose to explain the advance, this is
obviously how it actually works.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
The following two paragraphs are an update on the web page. The
original was very poorly worded. The wording didn't match the
results.

-----------
The 80 second time shortfall difference between the aphelion and
perihelion radii was determined assuming that time measurements
can be determined as they are in the realm of matter, which is
wrong. Converting the time measurements to the realm of matter
by taking the square root of (aphelion radius divided by the
speed of light) and subtracting from it the square root of
(perihelion radius divided by the speed of light), results in a
time shortfall equivalent in the realm of matter of 2.89 seconds.
With the average radial velocity set at 5000 m/sec;
5000 * 2.89 * 2 = 28900 meters is the advance per orbit cycle,
which is 42.63 arcseconds per century.

Mercury's average radial velocity is (aphelion radius-perihelion
radius (2.4e+10)) divided by the half cycle time of 3801600 sec
= 6313 m/sec. But that isn't correct for the above purpose
because the maximum velocity occurs when Mercury is aligned with
the Sun along a line which is perpendicular to the line through
the aphelion and perihelion. Most of its time is spent in the
lower velocity zone, where the time delay is greatest.
-----------

Now that I have your attention, perhaps you would like to
comment on what you think these two paragraphs imply.

This was a reply to Robert Kolker, from Ian Parker: ---------
The GR correction is on top of all other perturbations. I don't know
anything about elasticity, the simple fact of the matter is that
Mercury is determined by the Scwartzchild metric, that is to say it is
attracted not to the center of the Sun but a point some distance away
- the Schwarzchild radius. -----------

That is similar to this excerpt from Britannica: -----
The general theory of relativity, however, accounts exactly
for this discrepancy. In 1967 Dickeu and more recently Henry
Allen Hill, also of the United States suggested that a small
part of Mercury's perihelion advance may be caused by the slight
flattening of the Sun at its poles, thus opening the way for
possible modification of general relativity. ----------

???

Only idiots who can't even handle basic calculus seem to think they
can sniff at GR and not be called stupid for their troubles.

And perhaps you would now like to list the fundamental elements
involved in the GR calculation, and demonstrate the means by
which they are applied to achieve the final result. I've already
shown you how mine works.

-----

Max Keon

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:09:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Nov 11, 12:04*pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:43:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
[snip]
That's a fair indication of the presence of dark matter. But it's
not required in this case because GR has already accounted for
Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance. Although I've never come
across a valid reason why it does that. The only "proof" I ever
find is in the statement that Mercury's anomalous advance is
predicted by GR, which leads me to conclude that GR's proof is
based on something a little dubious, like a postulate, and would
not welcome close scrutiny.

Untutored imbecile. The advance is a textbook exercise.

That may be so, but what's your point? Any text book exercise
can be based on dubious logic.

Pathetic weasle words uttered by the untutored. The mathematics are
explicit from the derivation of the field equations through the
Einstein Hilbert action, derivation of Schwarzschild and proof of
Birkhoff's theorem, and finally to the derivation of the orbital
equations of motion and application of perturbation theory.

Find the error. I'll wait.

[snip incoherent blather]


Now that I have your attention, perhaps you would like to
comment on what you think these two paragraphs imply.

This was a reply to Robert Kolker, from Ian Parker: ---------
The GR correction is on top of all other perturbations. I don't know
anything about elasticity, the simple fact of the matter is that
Mercury is determined by the Scwartzchild metric, that is to say it is
attracted not to the center of the Sun but a point some distance away
- the Schwarzchild radius. -----------

It is a sign you are untutored and pretty ****ing stupid. The
Schwarzschild radius is a locus of points that form a SPHERE of radius
2GM/c^2.

The center of attraction is the CENTER OF THE SPHERE. How stupid can
you possibly be? Reply and we'll find out.


That is similar to this excerpt from Britannica: -----
The general theory of relativity, however, accounts exactly
for this discrepancy. In 1967 Dickeu and more recently Henry
Allen Hill, also of the United States suggested that a small
part of Mercury's perihelion advance may be caused by the slight
flattening of the Sun at its poles, thus opening the way for
possible modification of general relativity. ----------

???

The untutored idiot realizes his status.

The technical term is oblateness, which gives the sun a quadrupole
moment. Classical pertrubation theory is quite explicit regarding the
effects of quadrupole [and higher] on perihelia advances. Again,
another textbook exercise in another textbook that I have studied
which you have never opened.

Observation violently excludes the required solar quadrupole moment.
This was known decades before Dickeu and Hill uttered those
stupidities.

Furthermore, the "possible modification" assumes unwarranted
intelligence on the person who wrote it [you]. Schwarzschild assumes
spherical symmetry.


Only idiots who can't even handle basic calculus seem to think they
can sniff at GR and not be called stupid for their troubles.

And perhaps you would now like to list the fundamental elements
involved in the GR calculation, and demonstrate the means by
which they are applied to achieve the final result. I've already
shown you how mine works.

Yours is incoherent numerology that has no theoretical basis which
does not work for any other planet, asteroid, or orbiting floatsam.
That it even works for Mercury is an assumption I generously grant
because I don't feel like pulling out the calculator and checking your
numbers.

The derivation of the perihelion precession of Mercury is available in
any textbook on the subject, derivable by any student well versed in
classical mechanics and perturbation theory, or in the original
goddamn article in 1916.

What's your excuse, untutored idiot? Demonstrate an understanding of
something beyond middle school algebra, or go away.


-----

Max Keon

On Nov 12, 6:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:09:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:





On Nov 11, 12:04*pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:43:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
[snip]
That's a fair indication of the presence of dark matter. But it's
not required in this case because GR has already accounted for
Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance. Although I've never come
across a valid reason why it does that. The only "proof" I ever
find is in the statement that Mercury's anomalous advance is
predicted by GR, which leads me to conclude that GR's proof is
based on something a little dubious, like a postulate, and would
not welcome close scrutiny.

Untutored imbecile. The advance is a textbook exercise.

That may be so, but what's your point? Any text book exercise
can be based on dubious logic.

Pathetic weasle words uttered by the untutored. The mathematics are
explicit from the derivation of the field equations through the
Einstein Hilbert action, derivation of Schwarzschild and proof of
Birkhoff's theorem, and finally to the derivation of the orbital
equations of motion and application of perturbation theory.

Find the error. I'll wait.

[snip incoherent blather]



Now that I have your attention, perhaps you would like to
comment on what you think these two paragraphs imply.

This was a reply to Robert Kolker, from Ian Parker: ---------
The GR correction is on top of all other perturbations. I don't know
anything about elasticity, the simple fact of the matter is that
Mercury is determined by the Scwartzchild metric, that is to say it is
attracted not to the center of the Sun but a point some distance away
- the Schwarzchild radius. -----------

It is a sign you are untutored and pretty ****ing stupid. The
Schwarzschild radius is a locus of points that form a SPHERE of radius
2GM/c^2.

The center of attraction is the CENTER OF THE SPHERE. How stupid can
you possibly be? Reply and we'll find out.



That is similar to this excerpt from Britannica: -----
The general theory of relativity, however, accounts exactly
for this discrepancy. In 1967 Dickeu and more recently Henry
Allen Hill, also of the United States suggested that a small
part of Mercury's perihelion advance may be caused by the slight
flattening of the Sun at its poles, thus opening the way for
possible modification of general relativity. ----------

???

The untutored idiot realizes his status.

The technical term is oblateness, which gives the sun a quadrupole
moment. Classical pertrubation theory is quite explicit regarding the
effects of quadrupole [and higher] on perihelia advances. Again,
another textbook exercise in another textbook that I have studied
which you have never opened.

Observation violently excludes the required solar quadrupole moment.
This was known decades before Dickeu and Hill uttered those
stupidities.

Furthermore, the "possible modification" assumes unwarranted
intelligence on the person who wrote it [you]. Schwarzschild assumes
spherical symmetry.



Only idiots who can't even handle basic calculus seem to think they
can sniff at GR and not be called stupid for their troubles.

And perhaps you would now like to list the fundamental elements
involved in the GR calculation, and demonstrate the means by
which they are applied to achieve the final result. I've already
shown you how mine works.

Yours is incoherent numerology that has no theoretical basis which
does not work for any other planet, asteroid, or orbiting floatsam.
That it even works for Mercury is an assumption I generously grant
because I don't feel like pulling out the calculator and checking your
numbers.

The derivation of the perihelion precession of Mercury is available in
any textbook on the subject, derivable by any student well versed in
classical mechanics and perturbation theory, or in the original
goddamn article in 1916.

What's your excuse, untutored idiot? Demonstrate an understanding of
something beyond middle school algebra, or go away.





-----

Max Keon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Its not an advance. It is a fall short.

On Nov 13, 1:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:09:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:04pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:43:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
[snip]
That's a fair indication of the presence of dark matter. But it's
not required in this case because GR has already accounted for
Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance. Although I've never come
across a valid reason why it does that. The only "proof" I ever
find is in the statement that Mercury's anomalous advance is
predicted by GR, which leads me to conclude that GR's proof is
based on something a little dubious, like a postulate, and would
not welcome close scrutiny.

Untutored imbecile. The advance is a textbook exercise.

That may be so, but what's your point? Any text book exercise
can be based on dubious logic.

Pathetic weasle words uttered by the untutored. The mathematics are
explicit from the derivation of the field equations through the
Einstein Hilbert action, derivation of Schwarzschild and proof of
Birkhoff's theorem, and finally to the derivation of the orbital
equations of motion and application of perturbation theory.

I'm not going to get involved in your silly little game of
trading insults. I'll just stick to the facts.

GR has predicted an anomalous perihelion advance that was not
anomalous in the first place, IN YOUR UNIVERSE.

A time delay in the gravity link between the Sun and Mercury
obviously exists, and that delay just as obviously varies as
Mercury moves between the aphelion and perihelion of its orbit.
When Mercury is at its perihelion radius, the time delay is r/c.
4.6e10 / 3e8 = 153 seconds. At the aphelion the delay is 233
seconds. 80 seconds in the gravity link has been lost during the
journey. That means, for 80 seconds, Mercury is free of the pull
to the Sun (and vice versa of course). Its outward motion is not
restrained for that time. With the pull of gravity at the mean
radius, .039m/sec^2, and an average radial velocity of 6313m/sec;
..039 * 80 * 6313 = 19697 meters. Mercury will overshoot what
would have normally been its aphelion by almost that amount.

On the downward leg the pull to the Sun has gained an extra 80
seconds and Mercury will bypass its normal perihelion radius by
a similar amount. The orbit eccentricity is no longer naturally
flowing in the Sun's inertial frame. This secondary system is
exactly the same as that generated by the anisotropy, but much
amplified.

This is what will happen to the eccentricity if nothing changes.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/mercad1.jpg

As you can no doubt see, maintaining a circular orbit would be
almost impossible because the slightest eccentricity would
generate a small time delay which would add to the orbit
eccentricity, and that condition would develop exponentially
until the orbiting components completely fly apart.

But the system has been evolving for millions of years and it
will be nothing like what is shown. It's all explained on the
newly updated web page.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
---

And perhaps you would now like to list the fundamental elements
involved in the GR calculation, and demonstrate the means by
which they are applied to achieve the final result. I've already
shown you how mine works.

Yours is incoherent numerology that has no theoretical basis which
does not work for any other planet, asteroid, or orbiting floatsam.

It gives an "anomalous" orbit eccentricity advance rate at the mean
radius for Pluto of 50000 meters per orbit. I'll post the program
I'm using when it's more user friendly.

-----

Max Keon

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:16:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Nov 13, 1:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:09:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:04pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:43:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
[snip]
That's a fair indication of the presence of dark matter. But it's
not required in this case because GR has already accounted for
Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance. Although I've never come
across a valid reason why it does that. The only "proof" I ever
find is in the statement that Mercury's anomalous advance is
predicted by GR, which leads me to conclude that GR's proof is
based on something a little dubious, like a postulate, and would
not welcome close scrutiny.

Untutored imbecile. The advance is a textbook exercise.

That may be so, but what's your point? Any text book exercise
can be based on dubious logic.

Pathetic weasle words uttered by the untutored. The mathematics are
explicit from the derivation of the field equations through the
Einstein Hilbert action, derivation of Schwarzschild and proof of
Birkhoff's theorem, and finally to the derivation of the orbital
equations of motion and application of perturbation theory.

I'm not going to get involved in your silly little game of
trading insults. I'll just stick to the facts.

The fact is you are an idiot.


GR has predicted an anomalous perihelion advance that was not
anomalous in the first place, IN YOUR UNIVERSE.

The idiot confuses what came when. The anomalous perihelion advance is
called such because it predates GR and was the remainder when all
known Newtonian effects were taken into consideration.

[snip remaining idiotic numerology]

On Nov 17, 11:52*am, eric gisse wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:16:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 13, 1:08pm, eric gisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:09:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:04pm, eric gisse wrote:
---

Untutored imbecile. The advance is a textbook exercise.

That may be so, but what's your point? Any text book exercise
can be based on dubious logic.

Pathetic weasle words uttered by the untutored. The mathematics are
explicit from the derivation of the field equations through the
Einstein Hilbert action, derivation of Schwarzschild and proof of
Birkhoff's theorem, and finally to the derivation of the orbital
equations of motion and application of perturbation theory.

I'm not going to get involved in your silly little game of
trading insults. I'll just stick to the facts.

The fact is you are an idiot.

GR has predicted an anomalous perihelion advance that was not
anomalous in the first place, IN YOUR UNIVERSE.

The idiot confuses what came when. The anomalous perihelion advance
is called such because it predates GR and was the remainder when
all known Newtonian effects were taken into consideration.

[snip remaining idiotic numerology]

The truth will always be our master, Eric. It may not set us
free but at least we'll be on the right tram.

Here are some excerpts from the last two updates to the web page
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html

Mercury's average radial velocity is,
(aphelion radius - perihelion radius) 2.4e+10 divided by the half
cycle time of 3801600 sec = 6313 m/sec. But that isn't correct
for the above purpose because 100% of the radial velocity is not
effective in advancing the eccentricity. The 100% only occurs
when Mercury is aligned with the Sun along a line which is
perpendicular to the line through the aphelion and perihelion. I
don't know what the true balance is, but 5000 m/sec was chosen
because it gave the correct result, and it wasn't going to be
too far out. 5000 m/sec is 79% of the average.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/rvel.jpg

15-11-2008
I'm now using a coordinate system to generate the results, and
that's resulting in a greater degree of advance than before. For
the 100% effective radial velocity, the advance is 41690 meters
per orbit, requiring only 70% of the total radial velocity to be
active to achieve the correct result. (6313 * .7) * 2.89 * 2
= 25542 meters is the simple advance, which is too little, but
that's not what eventuates when the orbit cycle is indexed around
in discrete steps. The final result, 46190, multiplied by .7 is
29183, which is near enough for the purpose. The .7 figure may
seem a little low perhaps, but there will be a reason for that,
as there always is.

The result is almost identical using more conventional logic.
For the missing 80 seconds in the Sun-Mercury gravity link
enroute to the aphelion, where the Sun and Mercury have been
further separated in time, with the average Newtonian gravity
rate for the orbit cycle of .04m/sec^2 and an average radial
velocity of 6313m/sec, the advance per half orbit is
..04 * 80 * 6313 = 20202 meters, or 40404 meters for the complete
orbit. 40404 * .7 = 28283 meters. The results are similar because
each system tells much the same story.

18-11-2008
The program now addresses the radial velocity per angle problem
and the results are better than expected. The orbit eccentricity
advance at the mean orbit radius in the Sun's frame is 31637
meters per orbit, which is 46.67 arc-seconds per century. That's
around 4 arc-seconds more than is predicted by conventional
logic, which doesn't address the time delay problem at all. What
other effects might the time delay have?
--------------

This is the attached program. Try not to word-wrap any lines.

'----Program start-------
' The program is designed to demonstrate that the advance of
' Mercury's orbit eccentricity within the Sun's inertial frame
' is due to the time delay variations between the Sun and
' Mercury as they move between the aphelion and perihelion of
' their orbits.

SCREEN 12
CLS
CIRCLE (230, 240), 8, 14 'Sun.
c = 299792458
G = 6.67E-11
M = 1.99D+30
pi = 3.14159

' Mercury data --------------------------------
x = 6.982E+10: vy = 38850 ' Aphelion start.
'x = 4.5961E+10: vy = 59017 ' Perihelion start.
multi = 1E-09 ' Multiplier for the graphics.
dt = 1000
progend = 7603200 ' orbit cycle time.

' GOSUB ab ''' Remove the ' switch for Pluto.
' --------------------------------------------

lastradius = x
angle = 8.2638E-07 ' pi / half orbit time of 3801600 sec.

aa:
ryx = x * x + y * y
radius = SQR(ryx)

' ----These three equations are explained here ----
' http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
tim1 = (radius / c) ^ .5
tim2 = (lastradius / c) ^ .5
timdif = tim1 - tim2
' --------------------------------------------

vr = (radius - lastradius) / dt

lastradius = radius

newton = -G * M / ryx
acceleration = newton

ax = acceleration * (x / radius)
ay = acceleration * (y / radius)

vx = vx + dt * ax
vy = vy + dt * ay

x = x + dt * vx
y = y + dt * vy

v = (vx ^ 2 + vy ^ 2) ^ .5 ' Orbital speed.

CIRCLE (230 + x * multi, 240 + y * multi), 0, 13

LOCATE 20, 1
PRINT vr; "m/sec radial velocity. "
PRINT v; "orbital speed. "
PRINT radius; "radius. "
PRINT
vrangle = ATN(y / x) / (pi / 2)
IF vrangle 0 THEN vrangle = -ATN(y / x) / (pi / 2)
' The advance is always positive.
PRINT vrangle * 90; "radius angle. "

adv = timdif * vr * vrangle
PRINT adv; "current advance per"; dt; "seconds. "

store1 = store1 + adv
PRINT store1; "total advance. "

dtstore = dtstore + dt
IF dtstore progend THEN END

GOTO aa


ab: 'Pluto
x = 7.395E+12
vy = 3640
multi = 1E-11
dt = 1000000
progend = 7.8E+09 'orbit cycle time.
RETURN

' -----Program end--------


-----

Max Keon