Perihelion Advance of Mercury.

"tadchem" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 3:48 pm, BURT wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, wrote:



The post is duplicated at this address.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
--------

Perihelion Advance Of Mercury.

In the Sun-Mercury closed gravitating system, from the viewpoint
of the Sun, Mercury is oscillating back and forth, and from the
viewpoint of Mercury it's the Sun that's oscillating back and
forth. Beyond that, there is nothing else of any consequence
within that system. Mercury's orbit trajectory is determined
entirely from within that closed system.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/orbit1.gif

The Sun is 5555556 times the mass of Mercury, and Mercury's orbit
eccentricity from aphelion to perihelion is 2.4E+10 meters, so
the Sun will oscillate over only 4320 meters.

When a change in the force of gravity is rapidly introduced into
the system, i.e. during the fall or rise between the aphelion
and perihelion, the change is necessarily directly added to or
subtracted from the normal Newtonian gravity rate and the
consequence will be as per diagrams.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc2.jpg

But that has nothing to do with the gravity anisotropy generated
by Mercury's motion to and from the Sun, _which has slowly
evolved to its current state over millions of years._

In the next diagram, the oscillatory motion of an object moving
along the trajectory of the yellow line has been well
established, and the straight line represents the plane where
all forces will be zero. In order to halt the downward motion at
point 1 and send it back to intersect with the line at point 2,
a constant force is applied for the duration of the journey
between points 1 and 2. The same applies for the journey between
points 2 and 3, but the force direction is reversed. There's no
other way the system could function. And it's permanently
sustainable so long as the forces remain.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc6.jpg

The force directions are exactly the same as those for the
gravity anisotropy generated by Mercury's radial velocity
relative to the Sun. In that case they act at 90 degrees to the
line between the aphelion and perihelion. It's also exactly the
same system as that for Mercury's natural elliptical orbit, where
the forces are applied along the line through the aphelion and
perihelion (not shown).

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc5.jpg

When the straight line graph is converted to an elliptical orbit,
the forces all point in the same direction relative to the
universe.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc8.jpg

This diagram was generated using the true anisotropy which is
added to the Newtonian gravity rate. It's totally unsustainable
and has nothing whatever to do with the gravity anisotropy.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc4.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc7.jpg

This is the only thing of consequence resulting from the
anisotropy. The Sun and Mercury oscillate back and forth as
though they are connected by some invisible spring.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/orbit2.gif

The eccentricity in that system is around .00048 that of the
natural orbit system.

Since both systems function in exactly the same way, they will
proportionally play the same role in determining the rate of
perihelion advance, if there is a role to play.

The only apparent in-elasticity in each system is through
variations in the time delay in the gravity link between the Sun
and Mercury. At the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, the delay in
its relationship with the Sun is (perihelion radius divided by
the speed of light) = 153 seconds. By the time it has reached
its aphelion the delay has become 233 seconds. It has lost an
additional 80 seconds in its relationship with the Sun.

The time delay has some consequence. It will cause Mercury's
natural trajectory to point further away from the Sun enroute to
the aphelion because centrifugal force is unaffected by gravity,
while centripetal force has been reduced over the increasing
delay time as Mercury moves further away from the Sun. Mercury
would be traveling faster toward the aphelion than normally
expected. Enroute to the perihelion, the relationship between
the Sun and Mercury has gained an additional 80 seconds. Radial
velocity will again increase asymmetrically compared with a
naturally flowing orbit.

Any deviation from the natural flow of a stable elliptical orbit
will have gyroscopic consequences that will manifest themselves
at 90 degrees to the change direction. The initial asymmetric
force direction is not where the force has been counteracted.
That is always advanced by 90 degrees. On average, the asymmetric
force is geared toward directly advancing Mercury's orbit
ellipse.

If the average radial velocity is around 5000 m/sec (it's more),
multiplying that by 80 * 2 seconds for the complete orbit gives
a 800000 meter advance for each orbit cycle, which is far too
much. But the story doesn't end there.

The time delay in the gravity link between the Sun and Mercury
is measured in the realm of light-time-gravity, where all linear
measurements involve the dual planes of dimension perpendicular
to the line along which the measurement is taken. But such a line
doesn't exist in that realm because every measurement involves
all dimensions.

The hypotenuse length of the imaginary right angle triangle
scribed in space by a light ray emerging perpendicular to the
line of motion, from a source which is moving relative to the
local frame, is determined with the Pythagoras equation
a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Measurements from the realm of matter are
squared and thus elevated to the realm of light-time-gravity so
that they can be properly added (in this case). The square root
of the result returns it to the realm of matter.

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 the aphelion radius and dividing it
by the speed of light and subtracting from it, the square root
of the perihelion radius divided by the speed of light, results
in a time shortfall equivalent in the realm of matter of 2.98
seconds. With the average radial velocity set at 5000 m/sec;
5000 * 2.98 * 2 = 29800 meters is the advance per orbit cycle,
which is 44 arcseconds per century.

The gravity anisotropy adds around .02 arcseconds to that result.

Directly comparing anything to do with light, time or gravity
within the realm of matter cannot give a proper result unless
the square root of each component is taken prior to the
comparison.

I set up a program based on the above which indexed around the
orbit in 1 degree increments. The final advance for the complete
orbit was 28787 meters per orbit, which is 42.46 arcseconds per
century (42.48 including a gravity anisotropy).
----------

Mercury's perihelion advance within the Sun-Mercury closed
gravitating system indicates that the system is not entirely
elastic. If the varying time delay is the cause, it will also
account for the lack of elasticity in each closed gravitating
system formed between the Sun and every individual component
of matter in the universe. The average elasticity in all
Sun-universe systems is .36%, as is demonstrated at
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/darkmatr.html

-----

Max Keon

I believe it is a "fall short" rather than an advance.

Mitch Raemsch

After allowing for the secular perturbations due to ALL the planets,
the perihelion of mercury shows an advance (moving forwards) of 42.8
arc-seconds per century.
================================================
Bull****, it's 5599.7 arc-seconds per century observed.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity




Newtonian gravitation cannot account for
this.
================================================== =
Bull****, it accounts for 99.2%




It is OBSERVED to be an advance, so your "belief" that it is a "fall
short" is contradicted by empirical observation.

Get real.
-----------------------------------------------------

42.8 arc seconds in 415 orbits of Mercury ( a century) is
42.8 / [ 415 orbits * 360 degrees * 60 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds] * 100
= 4280 / 537840000
= 7.96 e-6 %
Nor did Le Verrier observe Mercury for a century.
The advance of the aphelion of Mercury is fully accounted for by
Newtonian gravitation, and to use crank relativist speak, within its
domain of applicability and error bars. You've been conned, Tom.
Quit spreading false data and rumour. Get real!

On Oct 27, 1:07*am, wrote:
*The post is duplicated at this address.
*http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
*--------

*Perihelion Advance Of Mercury.

In the Sun-Mercury closed gravitating system, from the viewpoint
of the Sun, Mercury is oscillating back and forth, and from the
viewpoint of Mercury it's the Sun that's oscillating back and
forth. Beyond that, there is nothing else of any consequence
within that system. Mercury's orbit trajectory is determined
entirely from within that closed system.


Van Flandern had some article about that, you might like to look at
it.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...a-combined.asp

On Oct 28, 11:12*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"tadchem" wrote in message

...
On Oct 28, 3:48 pm, BURT wrote:



On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, wrote:

The post is duplicated at this address.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
--------

Perihelion Advance Of Mercury.

In the Sun-Mercury closed gravitating system, from the viewpoint
of the Sun, Mercury is oscillating back and forth, and from the
viewpoint of Mercury it's the Sun that's oscillating back and
forth. Beyond that, there is nothing else of any consequence
within that system. Mercury's orbit trajectory is determined
entirely from within that closed system.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/orbit1.gif

The Sun is 5555556 times the mass of Mercury, and Mercury's orbit
eccentricity from aphelion to perihelion is 2.4E+10 meters, so
the Sun will oscillate over only 4320 meters.

When a change in the force of gravity is rapidly introduced into
the system, i.e. during the fall or rise between the aphelion
and perihelion, the change is necessarily directly added to or
subtracted from the normal Newtonian gravity rate and the
consequence will be as per diagrams.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc2.jpg

But that has nothing to do with the gravity anisotropy generated
by Mercury's motion to and from the Sun, _which has slowly
evolved to its current state over millions of years._

In the next diagram, the oscillatory motion of an object moving
along the trajectory of the yellow line has been well
established, and the straight line represents the plane where
all forces will be zero. In order to halt the downward motion at
point 1 and send it back to intersect with the line at point 2,
a constant force is applied for the duration of the journey
between points 1 and 2. The same applies for the journey between
points 2 and 3, but the force direction is reversed. There's no
other way the system could function. And it's permanently
sustainable so long as the forces remain.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc6.jpg

The force directions are exactly the same as those for the
gravity anisotropy generated by Mercury's radial velocity
relative to the Sun. In that case they act at 90 degrees to the
line between the aphelion and perihelion. It's also exactly the
same system as that for Mercury's natural elliptical orbit, where
the forces are applied along the line through the aphelion and
perihelion (not shown).

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc5.jpg

When the straight line graph is converted to an elliptical orbit,
the forces all point in the same direction relative to the
universe.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc8.jpg

This diagram was generated using the true anisotropy which is
added to the Newtonian gravity rate. It's totally unsustainable
and has nothing whatever to do with the gravity anisotropy.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc4.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc7.jpg

This is the only thing of consequence resulting from the
anisotropy. The Sun and Mercury oscillate back and forth as
though they are connected by some invisible spring.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/orbit2.gif

The eccentricity in that system is around .00048 that of the
natural orbit system.

Since both systems function in exactly the same way, they will
proportionally play the same role in determining the rate of
perihelion advance, if there is a role to play.

The only apparent in-elasticity in each system is through
variations in the time delay in the gravity link between the Sun
and Mercury. At the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, the delay in
its relationship with the Sun is (perihelion radius divided by
the speed of light) = 153 seconds. By the time it has reached
its aphelion the delay has become 233 seconds. It has lost an
additional 80 seconds in its relationship with the Sun.

The time delay has some consequence. It will cause Mercury's
natural trajectory to point further away from the Sun enroute to
the aphelion because centrifugal force is unaffected by gravity,
while centripetal force has been reduced over the increasing
delay time as Mercury moves further away from the Sun. Mercury
would be traveling faster toward the aphelion than normally
expected. Enroute to the perihelion, the relationship between
the Sun and Mercury has gained an additional 80 seconds. Radial
velocity will again increase asymmetrically compared with a
naturally flowing orbit.

Any deviation from the natural flow of a stable elliptical orbit
will have gyroscopic consequences that will manifest themselves
at 90 degrees to the change direction. The initial asymmetric
force direction is not where the force has been counteracted.
That is always advanced by 90 degrees. On average, the asymmetric
force is geared toward directly advancing Mercury's orbit
ellipse.

If the average radial velocity is around 5000 m/sec (it's more),
multiplying that by 80 * 2 seconds for the complete orbit gives
a 800000 meter advance for each orbit cycle, which is far too
much. But the story doesn't end there.

The time delay in the gravity link between the Sun and Mercury
is measured in the realm of light-time-gravity, where all linear
measurements involve the dual planes of dimension perpendicular
to the line along which the measurement is taken. But such a line
doesn't exist in that realm because every measurement involves
all dimensions.

The hypotenuse length of the imaginary right angle triangle
scribed in space by a light ray emerging perpendicular to the
line of motion, from a source which is moving relative to the
local frame, is determined with the Pythagoras equation
a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Measurements from the realm of matter are
squared and thus elevated to the realm of light-time-gravity so
that they can be properly added (in this case). The square root
of the result returns it to the realm of matter.

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 the aphelion radius and dividing it
by the speed of light and subtracting from it, the square root
of the perihelion radius divided by the speed of light, results
in a time shortfall equivalent in the realm of matter of 2.98
seconds. With the average radial velocity set at 5000 m/sec;
5000 * 2.98 * 2 = 29800 meters is the advance per orbit cycle,
which is 44 arcseconds per century.

The gravity anisotropy adds around .02 arcseconds to that result.

Directly comparing anything to do with light, time or gravity
within the realm of matter cannot give a proper result unless
the square root of each component is taken prior to the
comparison.

I set up a program based on the above which indexed around the
orbit in 1 degree increments. The final advance for the complete
orbit was 28787 meters per orbit, which is 42.46 arcseconds per
century (42.48 including a gravity anisotropy).
----------

Mercury's perihelion advance within the Sun-Mercury closed
gravitating system indicates that the system is not entirely
elastic. If the varying time delay is the cause, it will also
account for the lack of elasticity in each closed gravitating
system formed between the Sun and every individual component
of matter in the universe. The average elasticity in all
Sun-universe systems is .36%, as is demonstrated at
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/darkmatr.html

-----

Max Keon

I believe it is a "fall short" rather than an advance.

Mitch Raemsch

After allowing for the secular perturbations due to ALL the planets,
the perihelion of mercury shows an advance (moving forwards) of 42.8
arc-seconds per century.
================================================
Bull****, it's 5599.7 arc-seconds per century observed.
Ref: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

Despite your tone, I see your source agrees with me:
"Careful observations of Mercury showed that the actual value of the
precession disagreed with that calculated from Newton's theory by 43
seconds of arc per century."

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that the 43 arc-seconds is
the *anomaly* in the precession.

*Newtonian gravitation cannot account for
this.
================================================== =
Bull****, it accounts for 99.2%

Actually, the lion's share of the "precession" (89.7%) is the 5025.6
arc-seconds per century due to the rotation of the coordinate system
(precession of the equinoxes) resulting from the fact that we have
chosen a coordinate system that is tied to the precessing tilt of the
earth's rotational axis. This little to do with Newtonian gravitation
and much to do with the mechanics of rotating rigid bodies. Choice of
a less mobile coordinate system would make this term vanish.

It is OBSERVED to be an advance, so your "belief" that it is a "fall
short" is contradicted by empirical observation.

Get real.
-----------------------------------------------------

42.8 arc seconds in 415 orbits of Mercury ( a century) is
42.8 */ [ 415 orbits * 360 degrees * 60 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds] * 100
*= 4280 / 537840000
*= 7.96 e-6 %

....and at a transit this displaces the planet from its 'predicted'
position (predicted using strict Newtonian mechanics) by more than the
planet's diameter.

Nor did Le Verrier observe Mercury for a century.

Nor did he need to. He used the records of the observations of
others, a tradition that is as old as writing. [There is some
archaeological evidence that has been interpreted as a record of an
eclipse on 30 NOV, 3340 BCE.]

The advance of the aphelion of Mercury is fully accounted for by
Newtonian gravitation,

NOT. The discrepancy between observation and prediction is how
Leverrier identified the 'anomaly'.

and to use crank relativist speak, within its
domain of applicability and error bars. *You've been conned, Tom.
Quit spreading false data and rumour. Get real!

wrote in message

On Oct 28, 11:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"tadchem" wrote in message
...

[snip]

After allowing for the secular perturbations due to ALL the planets,
the perihelion of mercury shows an advance (moving forwards) of 42.8
arc-seconds per century.
================================================
Bull****, it's 5599.7 arc-seconds per century observed.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

Despite your tone, I see your source agrees with me:
"Careful observations of Mercury showed that the actual value of the
precession disagreed with that calculated from Newton's theory by 43
seconds of arc per century."

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that the 43 arc-seconds is
the *anomaly* in the precession.

No, with a malicious creep like Androcles, it does not work this
way. No matter what you say, he will be convinced that he is
eating you alive.
Bottom line: never have a technical discussion with a crocodile.

Dirk Vdm

wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 11:12 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"tadchem" wrote in message

...
On Oct 28, 3:48 pm, BURT wrote:



On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, wrote:

The post is duplicated at this address.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html
--------

Perihelion Advance Of Mercury.

In the Sun-Mercury closed gravitating system, from the viewpoint
of the Sun, Mercury is oscillating back and forth, and from the
viewpoint of Mercury it's the Sun that's oscillating back and
forth. Beyond that, there is nothing else of any consequence
within that system. Mercury's orbit trajectory is determined
entirely from within that closed system.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/orbit1.gif

The Sun is 5555556 times the mass of Mercury, and Mercury's orbit
eccentricity from aphelion to perihelion is 2.4E+10 meters, so
the Sun will oscillate over only 4320 meters.

When a change in the force of gravity is rapidly introduced into
the system, i.e. during the fall or rise between the aphelion
and perihelion, the change is necessarily directly added to or
subtracted from the normal Newtonian gravity rate and the
consequence will be as per diagrams.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc2.jpg

But that has nothing to do with the gravity anisotropy generated
by Mercury's motion to and from the Sun, _which has slowly
evolved to its current state over millions of years._

In the next diagram, the oscillatory motion of an object moving
along the trajectory of the yellow line has been well
established, and the straight line represents the plane where
all forces will be zero. In order to halt the downward motion at
point 1 and send it back to intersect with the line at point 2,
a constant force is applied for the duration of the journey
between points 1 and 2. The same applies for the journey between
points 2 and 3, but the force direction is reversed. There's no
other way the system could function. And it's permanently
sustainable so long as the forces remain.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc6.jpg

The force directions are exactly the same as those for the
gravity anisotropy generated by Mercury's radial velocity
relative to the Sun. In that case they act at 90 degrees to the
line between the aphelion and perihelion. It's also exactly the
same system as that for Mercury's natural elliptical orbit, where
the forces are applied along the line through the aphelion and
perihelion (not shown).

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc5.jpg

When the straight line graph is converted to an elliptical orbit,
the forces all point in the same direction relative to the
universe.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc8.jpg

This diagram was generated using the true anisotropy which is
added to the Newtonian gravity rate. It's totally unsustainable
and has nothing whatever to do with the gravity anisotropy.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc4.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc7.jpg

This is the only thing of consequence resulting from the
anisotropy. The Sun and Mercury oscillate back and forth as
though they are connected by some invisible spring.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/orbit2.gif

The eccentricity in that system is around .00048 that of the
natural orbit system.

Since both systems function in exactly the same way, they will
proportionally play the same role in determining the rate of
perihelion advance, if there is a role to play.

The only apparent in-elasticity in each system is through
variations in the time delay in the gravity link between the Sun
and Mercury. At the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, the delay in
its relationship with the Sun is (perihelion radius divided by
the speed of light) = 153 seconds. By the time it has reached
its aphelion the delay has become 233 seconds. It has lost an
additional 80 seconds in its relationship with the Sun.

The time delay has some consequence. It will cause Mercury's
natural trajectory to point further away from the Sun enroute to
the aphelion because centrifugal force is unaffected by gravity,
while centripetal force has been reduced over the increasing
delay time as Mercury moves further away from the Sun. Mercury
would be traveling faster toward the aphelion than normally
expected. Enroute to the perihelion, the relationship between
the Sun and Mercury has gained an additional 80 seconds. Radial
velocity will again increase asymmetrically compared with a
naturally flowing orbit.

Any deviation from the natural flow of a stable elliptical orbit
will have gyroscopic consequences that will manifest themselves
at 90 degrees to the change direction. The initial asymmetric
force direction is not where the force has been counteracted.
That is always advanced by 90 degrees. On average, the asymmetric
force is geared toward directly advancing Mercury's orbit
ellipse.

If the average radial velocity is around 5000 m/sec (it's more),
multiplying that by 80 * 2 seconds for the complete orbit gives
a 800000 meter advance for each orbit cycle, which is far too
much. But the story doesn't end there.

The time delay in the gravity link between the Sun and Mercury
is measured in the realm of light-time-gravity, where all linear
measurements involve the dual planes of dimension perpendicular
to the line along which the measurement is taken. But such a line
doesn't exist in that realm because every measurement involves
all dimensions.

The hypotenuse length of the imaginary right angle triangle
scribed in space by a light ray emerging perpendicular to the
line of motion, from a source which is moving relative to the
local frame, is determined with the Pythagoras equation
a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Measurements from the realm of matter are
squared and thus elevated to the realm of light-time-gravity so
that they can be properly added (in this case). The square root
of the result returns it to the realm of matter.

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 the aphelion radius and dividing it
by the speed of light and subtracting from it, the square root
of the perihelion radius divided by the speed of light, results
in a time shortfall equivalent in the realm of matter of 2.98
seconds. With the average radial velocity set at 5000 m/sec;
5000 * 2.98 * 2 = 29800 meters is the advance per orbit cycle,
which is 44 arcseconds per century.

The gravity anisotropy adds around .02 arcseconds to that result.

Directly comparing anything to do with light, time or gravity
within the realm of matter cannot give a proper result unless
the square root of each component is taken prior to the
comparison.

I set up a program based on the above which indexed around the
orbit in 1 degree increments. The final advance for the complete
orbit was 28787 meters per orbit, which is 42.46 arcseconds per
century (42.48 including a gravity anisotropy).
----------

Mercury's perihelion advance within the Sun-Mercury closed
gravitating system indicates that the system is not entirely
elastic. If the varying time delay is the cause, it will also
account for the lack of elasticity in each closed gravitating
system formed between the Sun and every individual component
of matter in the universe. The average elasticity in all
Sun-universe systems is .36%, as is demonstrated at
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/darkmatr.html

-----

Max Keon

I believe it is a "fall short" rather than an advance.

Mitch Raemsch

After allowing for the secular perturbations due to ALL the planets,
the perihelion of mercury shows an advance (moving forwards) of 42.8
arc-seconds per century.
================================================
Bull****, it's 5599.7 arc-seconds per century observed.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

Despite your tone, I see your source agrees with me:
"Careful observations of Mercury showed that the actual value of the
precession disagreed with that calculated from Newton's theory by 43
seconds of arc per century."

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that the 43 arc-seconds is
the *anomaly* in the precession.

Newtonian gravitation cannot account for
this.
================================================== =
Bull****, it accounts for 99.2%

Actually, the lion's share of the "precession" (89.7%) is the 5025.6
arc-seconds per century due to the rotation of the coordinate system
(precession of the equinoxes) resulting from the fact that we have
chosen a coordinate system that is tied to the precessing tilt of the
earth's rotational axis. This little to do with Newtonian gravitation
and much to do with the mechanics of rotating rigid bodies. Choice of
a less mobile coordinate system would make this term vanish.

It is OBSERVED to be an advance, so your "belief" that it is a "fall
short" is contradicted by empirical observation.

Get real.
-----------------------------------------------------

42.8 arc seconds in 415 orbits of Mercury ( a century) is
42.8 / [ 415 orbits * 360 degrees * 60 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds] * 100
= 4280 / 537840000
= 7.96 e-6 %

....and at a transit this displaces the planet from its 'predicted'
position (predicted using strict Newtonian mechanics) by more than the
planet's diameter.
================================================
Which you could accurately measure 200 years ago with your wooden
telescope and know exactly where perihelion was within a planet diameter
whilst looking at an orbit 7 degrees from edge-on? Let me ask you a
serious question.
Do you own a telescope? If you do, where is Mercury, right now?
And how often can a transit be seen?
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit...ryCatalog.html



Nor did Le Verrier observe Mercury for a century.

Nor did he need to. He used the records of the observations of
others, a tradition that is as old as writing. [There is some
archaeological evidence that has been interpreted as a record of an
eclipse on 30 NOV, 3340 BCE.]

The advance of the aphelion of Mercury is fully accounted for by
Newtonian gravitation,

NOT. The discrepancy between observation and prediction is how
Leverrier identified the 'anomaly'.
=============================================

Even heard of a quaint statistical concept often used in cases
like this: mean and standard deviation?

Well, we know the mean, 0.43 arc seconds/year, about 0.11 arc
secs per orbit, though why 100 orbits of the Earth should be used
for comparison is a mystery.

But never mind that. What's the standard deviation, Tom?
Funny how it gets forgotten when one wants to promote a tin god's
supposed super accuracy with his 3 figure slide rule and 4 figure
book of log tables.

The advance of the aphelion of Mercury ( I say aphelion, it is easier
to observe than perihelion) is fully accounted for by Newtonian
gravitation within the accuracy of observation and perturbations
caused by other planets, which is far from constant.

If Einstein could really prophecy Mercury's position then he
solved the n-body problem, something that real mathematicians
have given up on, knowing it cannot be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

Despite my tone I'll reiterate: You are bull****ting, Tom. I'm
a little surprised that you should be so gullible as to be taken in
by a charlatan like Einstein; I had previously thought you a
scientist even if not a mathematician. Aren't you even a tad
skeptical that Einstein fudges his numbers to get just the right
answer, which it isn't?
To use your own words in your own tone: Get real.

Androcles wrote in message


[snip irrelevance - cutting to the essence]

Despite my tone I'll reiterate: You are bull****ting, Tom. I'm
a little surprised that you should be so gullible as to be taken in
by a charlatan like Einstein; I had previously thought you a
scientist even if not a mathematician. Aren't you even a tad
skeptical that Einstein fudges his numbers to get just the right
answer, which it isn't?
To use your own words in your own tone: Get real.

QED.

Dirk Vdm

On Nov 8, 10:29*am, "Androcles" wrote:

snip repost

=============================================

Even heard of a quaint statistical concept often used in cases
like this: mean and standard deviation?

Well, we know the mean, 0.43 arc seconds/year, about 0.11 arc
secs per orbit, though why 100 orbits of the Earth should be used
for comparison is a mystery.

For the same reason we select other units such as meters versus
parsecs or furlongs. Sheer convenience. If you prefer other units
such as RPM or Hertz, you can run the conversion yourself.

But never mind that. What's the standard deviation, Tom?

My source (Russell, Dugan, Stewart - 1945) reports the "unexplained
advance of Mercury's perigee" as '42.84 ± 0.41' arc-seconds per
century. It is admittedly not a very precise determination, but it is
unambiguously a significant amount. Modern measurements using radar
have refined this value to 42.98 ± 0.04.

Funny how it gets forgotten when one wants to promote a tin god's
supposed super accuracy with his 3 figure slide rule and 4 figure
book of log tables.

It is not "super accuracy" that is being promoted here. It is the fact
that Einstein was able, a priori, to account for the existence of an
effect as well as its approximate magnitude when centuries of
astronomers' working with Newtonian gravitation were unable to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit...uture_transits

The advance of the aphelion of Mercury ( I say aphelion, it is easier
to observe than perihelion) is fully accounted for by Newtonian
gravitation within the accuracy of observation and perturbations
caused by other planets, which is far from constant.

Perihelion and aphelion themselves are not observed, ever.

The easiest thing to observe is the *position* of Mercury at any given
time. Mercury has an apparent diameter of 10 to 12 arc-seconds, well
within the resolution of even a good home-made amateur instrument. The
phenomenon of transits makes it easier to determine its precise
position at a precise time. This allows great precision in
calculating the elements of Mercury's orbit, including the longitude
of its perihelion. It takes three precise sightings to determine the
elements of a Keplerian orbit (thanks to Gauss IIRC). We have a
history of three dozen historically observed transits. There were 13
transits in the 19th century alone, enough to calculate orbital
elements for 11 successive sets of three transits, and to detect any
secular trend in these elements to good precision.

Actually a typical transit gives 4 readings of location vs time, one
each at first, second, third, and fourth contact. As these occur over
a span of only a few hours, they are not useful separately in
calculating orbital elements, and have historically been recorded as
parts of a single "transit" observation.

If Einstein could really prophecy Mercury's position then he
solved the n-body problem, something that real mathematicians
have given up on, knowing it cannot be done.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

Apples and oranges, Andy...

The N-body problem is an unsolved problem in the mathematics of
Newtonian gravitation. It is a purely analytical mathematical problem
in solving the equations that explicitly describe the mechanics of the
system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

This is not the same problem as the one that arises from collecting
observations and measurements, and seeking to reconcile them with
theoretical predictions.


Despite my tone I'll reiterate: You are bull****ting, Tom.

Maybe. And maybe the entire astronomical community was bull****ting
when they claimed that there was a motion to the line of apsides of
Mercury that they could not account for with Newtonian theory.

Whatever the case, the 'anomalous motion' was around long before
Einstein, and nobody else was able to account for it. It was not for a
lack of effort, however. One such effort involved hypothesizing a
delocalized mass of meteoric matter surrounding the sun within the
orbit of Mercury. The amount of matter required to produce the
observed effect on the orbit of Mercury would have been readily seen,
even if the most optimal assumptions were correct. This would have far
exceeded the observed zodiacal light. The mass clearly wasn't there.

I'm
a little surprised that you should be so gullible as to be taken in
by a charlatan like Einstein; I had previously thought you a
scientist even if not a mathematician. Aren't you even a tad
skeptical that Einstein fudges his numbers to get just the right
answer, which it isn't?

He must have been one clever charlatan if his single "fudge" accounts
quantitatively for the orbit of Mercury, the gravitational deflection
of light (first observed in 1919, AFTER he predicted it), and
gravitational red shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._shift#History
verified by Adams with observations of Sirius B in 1925.

To use your own words in your own tone: Get real.

I wish my own 'predictions" could be as quantitative and as accurate
(within the errors of measurements) as Einsteins.

The extent of my original cleverness comes in being able to predict
transport properties of mixtures of fluids (viscosity, thermal
conductivity) given the properties of the pure components at the same
temperature and pressure.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"tadchem" wrote in message
...
On Nov 8, 10:29 am, "Androcles" wrote:

snip repost

=============================================

Even heard of a quaint statistical concept often used in cases
like this: mean and standard deviation?

Well, we know the mean, 0.43 arc seconds/year, about 0.11 arc
secs per orbit, though why 100 orbits of the Earth should be used
for comparison is a mystery.

For the same reason we select other units such as meters versus
parsecs or furlongs. Sheer convenience. If you prefer other units
such as RPM or Hertz, you can run the conversion yourself.

But never mind that. What's the standard deviation, Tom?

My source (Russell, Dugan, Stewart - 1945) reports the "unexplained
advance of Mercury's perigee" as '42.84 ± 0.41' arc-seconds per
century. It is admittedly not a very precise determination, but it is
unambiguously a significant amount. Modern measurements using radar
have refined this value to 42.98 ± 0.04.

Funny how it gets forgotten when one wants to promote a tin god's
supposed super accuracy with his 3 figure slide rule and 4 figure
book of log tables.

It is not "super accuracy" that is being promoted here. It is the fact
that Einstein was able, a priori, to account for the existence of an
effect as well as its approximate magnitude when centuries of
astronomers' working with Newtonian gravitation were unable to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit...uture_transits

The advance of the aphelion of Mercury ( I say aphelion, it is easier
to observe than perihelion) is fully accounted for by Newtonian
gravitation within the accuracy of observation and perturbations
caused by other planets, which is far from constant.

Perihelion and aphelion themselves are not observed, ever.

The easiest thing to observe is the *position* of Mercury at any given
time. Mercury has an apparent diameter of 10 to 12 arc-seconds, well
within the resolution of even a good home-made amateur instrument. The
phenomenon of transits makes it easier to determine its precise
position at a precise time. This allows great precision in
calculating the elements of Mercury's orbit, including the longitude
of its perihelion. It takes three precise sightings to determine the
elements of a Keplerian orbit (thanks to Gauss IIRC). We have a
history of three dozen historically observed transits. There were 13
transits in the 19th century alone, enough to calculate orbital
elements for 11 successive sets of three transits, and to detect any
secular trend in these elements to good precision.

Actually a typical transit gives 4 readings of location vs time, one
each at first, second, third, and fourth contact. As these occur over
a span of only a few hours, they are not useful separately in
calculating orbital elements, and have historically been recorded as
parts of a single "transit" observation.

If Einstein could really prophecy Mercury's position then he
solved the n-body problem, something that real mathematicians
have given up on, knowing it cannot be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

Apples and oranges, Andy...

The N-body problem is an unsolved problem in the mathematics of
Newtonian gravitation.
===========================================
No sir. It is an insoluble problem in differential equations. Orbits
are chaotic. Where Mercury might get a positive tug from Venus
and Earth and a negative tug from Jupiter on one date it will receive
three negative or three positive tugs on a later date because the
other planets also move.
See:
http://crossgroup.caltech.edu/chaos_new/Lorenz.html
(the applet takes a moment to load).

As it applies to a plane, see
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html

In particular,
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Proje...llection2.html
Example 8
You'll see a full near perfect orbit before it decays rapidly.

=========================================

It is a purely analytical mathematical problem
in solving the equations that explicitly describe the mechanics of the
system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

This is not the same problem as the one that arises from collecting
observations and measurements, and seeking to reconcile them with
theoretical predictions.


Despite my tone I'll reiterate: You are bull****ting, Tom.

Maybe. And maybe the entire astronomical community was bull****ting
when they claimed that there was a motion to the line of apsides of
Mercury that they could not account for with Newtonian theory.

============================================

Whatever the case, the 'anomalous motion' was around long before
Einstein, and nobody else was able to account for it. It was not for a
lack of effort, however. One such effort involved hypothesizing a
delocalized mass of meteoric matter surrounding the sun within the
orbit of Mercury. The amount of matter required to produce the
observed effect on the orbit of Mercury would have been readily seen,
even if the most optimal assumptions were correct. This would have far
exceeded the observed zodiacal light. The mass clearly wasn't there.

I'm
a little surprised that you should be so gullible as to be taken in
by a charlatan like Einstein; I had previously thought you a
scientist even if not a mathematician. Aren't you even a tad
skeptical that Einstein fudges his numbers to get just the right
answer, which it isn't?

He must have been one clever charlatan if his single "fudge" accounts
quantitatively for the orbit of Mercury, the gravitational deflection
of light (first observed in 1919, AFTER he predicted it), and
gravitational red shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._shift#History
verified by Adams with observations of Sirius B in 1925.

=======================================
He sure was one clever charlatan, he still has you fooled.
He was a liar, too.

Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." --
Rabbi Albert Einstein

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

In the second place this is Einstein's idea of "linear":

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tAB=tBA.gif

As I said, he was no mathematician.
Sorry if that bursts your cosy bubble, you can try sticking it
together with scotch tape.

=============================================


To use your own words in your own tone: Get real.

I wish my own 'predictions" could be as quantitative and as accurate
(within the errors of measurements) as Einsteins.
======================================

They can be. Just divide by zero whenever you need to,
you'll always get the result you want.
a = b
a^2 = ab (Multiply by a)
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 (Subtract b^2)
(a+b)(a-b) = a(a - b) (factorise)
a+b = a (cancel a-b)
a+a = a a = b, given)
2a = a (divide by a)
2 = 1

Just make sure you hide it as well as Einstein did.
====================================

The extent of my original cleverness comes in being able to predict
transport properties of mixtures of fluids (viscosity, thermal
conductivity) given the properties of the pure components at the same
temperature and pressure.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

The extent of my cleverness comes from spending years troubleshooting
other people's goofs in the flight simulation and robotics industries.
The first thing to do is shave all the fuzz away with Ockham's Razor
and find out what the basic assumptions are.
Einstein got his from H. G. Wells' "Time Machine", patent applications
for new cuckoo clocks and W.W. Rouse Ball.
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm


'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein

On Nov 9, 4:26*am, tadchem wrote:
On Nov 8, 10:29am, "Androcles" wrote:
Even heard of a quaint statistical concept often used in cases
like this: mean and standard deviation?

Well, we know the mean, 0.43 arc seconds/year, about 0.11 arc
secs per orbit, though why 100 orbits of the Earth should be used
for comparison is a mystery.

For the same reason we select other units such as meters versus
parsecs or furlongs. Sheer convenience. If you prefer other units
such as RPM or Hertz, you can run the conversion yourself.

But never mind that. What's the standard deviation, Tom?

My source (Russell, Dugan, Stewart - 1945) reports the "unexplained
advance of Mercury's perigee" as '42.84 +- 0.41' arc-seconds per
century. It is admittedly not a very precise determination, but it is
unambiguously a significant amount. Modern measurements using radar
have refined this value to 42.98 +- 0.04.
---

Despite my tone I'll reiterate: You are bull****ting, Tom.

Maybe. And maybe the entire astronomical community was bull****ting
when they claimed that there was a motion to the line of apsides of
Mercury that they could not account for with Newtonian theory.

Whatever the case, the 'anomalous motion' was around long before
Einstein, and nobody else was able to account for it. It was not for a
lack of effort, however. One such effort involved hypothesizing a
delocalized mass of meteoric matter surrounding the sun within the
orbit of Mercury. The amount of matter required to produce the
observed effect on the orbit of Mercury would have been readily seen,
even if the most optimal assumptions were correct. This would have far
exceeded the observed zodiacal light. The mass clearly wasn't there.

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.

I don't know what to make of the next two tid-bits of information
either.

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. -----------

(the Schwartzchild radius for the Sun is 3 km, of course)

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. ----------

Does all of that imply that the original "prediction" from GR
should perhaps be updated to something a little more acceptable?
Or do those two paragraphs refer to only minor modifications?

Whichever is the case, why would such flattening offset the Sun's
center of mass by 3km, and why in the desired direction?

Mercury's perihelion advance is accounted for with some of the
most audaciously fundamental properties of our universe
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sun-merc.html

Anyway, the main purpose of my original post was not to explain
Mercury's perihelion advance, but was to demonstrate that there's
no reason whatever why the gravity anisotropy should cause its
orbit eccentricity to rapidly decay. Mercury's natural orbit and
that generated by the anisotropy can be treated as two entirely
different entities. The anisotropic orbit is based around the
natural orbit, which is represented by the straight line on this
graph from the above link
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/merc6.jpg
The straight line can represent any naturally flowing orbit,
including
the anisotropic orbit which is simply another system functioning
about the natural orbit as a base.

If the natural orbit is circular and anomalous forces equal to
the average gravity anisotropy for each orbit were permanently
in place at the designated locations on the graph, an eccentric
orbit would be in place around the circular orbit as a base. And
again, there's no reason why the eccentricity should decay.

The zero origin concept is alive and well.

-----

Max Keon

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.

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.

[snip]