Precession of Mercury's longitude of perihelion - (so called "anomaly")

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
: "H. Wabnig" .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- - wrote in
: message ...
: On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:15:24 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
:
: "H. Wabnig" .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -
:
: Out you go too, I'm including little boys. *plonk*
:
: Thank you.
: w.
:
: Hey Androcles, may I suggest that you simply adjust
: your killfile filters to eliminate *all* posts
: except your own?

Suggestion considered and rejected, I still have some sensible
correspondents.
Not many, but some.

: I think

Really? You'd have to show *us* some proof of that. Did you have
anything to add on the subject titled above or are you just another
troll to add to the killfile?

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"hanson" wrote in message
news:_AE1i.5717$NY3.700@trnddc03...
: "Androcles" wrote in message
: ...
:
: The calculation of the advance of perihelion using Newtonian Celestial
: Mechanics was carried out by Urbain L Verrier (1811-1877), with 43
: arc seconds per century unaccounted for. Urbain Le Verrier is best
: known for the calculations which led to the discovery of Neptune.
: Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel on 13 March 1781
: (4 years after Le Verrier died).
:
: The so-called "anomaly" that the prominent Albert Einstein "corrected"
: with his Wonderful Theory of General Lies and Crackpottery was
: Le Verrier not having a telescope quite as good as Herschel's and
: nothing to do with his calculations, [1]- he simply hadn't included
: Uranus because he didn't know about it. -[1]
:
: Bob wrote:
: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit2/1908-2p.htm wherein it says:
: * Translation Editor's note (Bakman). Ritz used k=6.4 to reconcile his
: formula with the observed anomaly for Mercury (41'') however recent
: data give 43.1'', which leads to k=7. Substituting this result into
Ritz's
: formula yields exactly the general relativity formula. [2]
:
: [hanson]
: How come we don't hear any comments about [1] from those all
: knowing intellects and Einstein Dingleberries in sci.astro on this?
: [2] Is this yet another one of those examples where Einstein
: crud is hailed to be the penicillin of physics but used *after* the
: problem had been cured already by classical Newtonian means?
:
: [Andro]
: The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
:
: The important thing is not to listen to the kook. - Androcles
:
: [hanson]
: ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... your 1-liner didn't turn out too well.
: "The important thing is not to listen to Einstein" might have been
: clearer.
:
: [Andro]
: New computer, 3.2 GHz and GigaRAM for Newtonian calculations,
: busily replonking cheats, arseholes and ****heads.
: *plonk*
:
: [hanson]
: ahahaha... AHAHAHA... but you forgot the ****s, Andro. The ****s!
: Have fun with your new machine.
: ahahaha... ahahahanson

Well, I sure goofed on Le Verrier's life, never let it be said
I won't own to it. Man, I was tired.

You really ought to get more sleep. Lots Lots more.

But you see, this nit-picking over 0.1 arc seconds per orbit
is a calculation error so small it doesn't come close to
having Einstein's crackpottery going for it.

Except it isn't a 'calculation error' - it is well outside the error bars.
One of the significant differences between engineers and scientists is
understanding errors

As Poe admits, Uranus and Neptune have been left out of
the calculations.

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/more/m031_cep.html

It was 1923 when galaxies were first 'discovered' as separate
entities.
Why is that important?
1) We are part of a galaxy.
2) The "fixed" stars are not fixed.
3) The position of Mercury has to be relative to a fixed star.
4) The sun also moves.
5) Einstein didn't know that.


Are you really hoping to hide another bumble in this? Tee hee!

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On May 13, 8:13 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "OG" wrote in message
:
: ...
:
: : Androcles wrote:
:
: The calculation of the advance of perihelion using Newtonian Celestial
: Mechanics was
: carried out by Urbain L Verrier (1811-1877), with 43 arc seconds per
century
: unaccounted
: for.
: Urbain Le Verrier is best known for the calculations which led to the
: discovery of Neptune.
:
: Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel on 13 March 1781 (4
years
: after Le Verrier died).
:
: Check your arithmetic.

That's what the new computer is for.

:
: Le Verrier was *BORN* in 1811.

Thanks for the correction.

[snip]

: Well then this "table of observations of Uranus with comparison to
: theory" is a remarkable achievement for Le Verrier.
:
Yes indeed, I agree. I'm not criticising Le Verrier. I'm waiting for
Einstein's calculations to include all bodies in the Solar System. Got
those
handy, Randy?

Not prepared to jump through your hoops, but you might want to look at the
relative effects of the other planets.
Basic Newtonian gravity suggests that each planet has an effect proportional
to its mass, and inversely proportional to its (average) distance from
Mercury.
Unless you've got some fundamental objection, you can do the maths yourself.

"OG" wrote in message ...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But you see, this nit-picking over 0.1 arc seconds per orbit
is a calculation error so small it doesn't come close to
having Einstein's crackpottery going for it.

Except it isn't a 'calculation error' - it is well outside the error bars.
One of the significant differences between engineers and scientists is
understanding errors

Another even more important difference is understanding science ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But you see, this nit-picking over 0.1 arc seconds per orbit
is a calculation error so small it doesn't come close to
having Einstein's crackpottery going for it.

Except it isn't a 'calculation error' - it is well outside the error
bars. One of the significant differences between engineers and scientists
is understanding errors

Another even more important difference is understanding science ;-)

I did consider whether the final word in my previous sentence was strictly
necessary :-)

On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:27:50 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But you see, this nit-picking over 0.1 arc seconds per orbit
is a calculation error so small it doesn't come close to
having Einstein's crackpottery going for it.

Except it isn't a 'calculation error' - it is well outside the error bars.
One of the significant differences between engineers and scientists is
understanding errors

Another even more important difference is understanding science ;-)

But you don't understand science, van de merde. You are an ass kisser.
ahahaha... Ass kissers only understand ass kissing. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Physics From the Bible!
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm

"OG" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But you see, this nit-picking over 0.1 arc seconds per orbit
is a calculation error so small it doesn't come close to
having Einstein's crackpottery going for it.

Except it isn't a 'calculation error' - it is well outside the error
bars. One of the significant differences between engineers and scientists
is understanding errors

Another even more important difference is understanding science ;-)

I did consider whether the final word in my previous sentence was strictly
necessary :-)

Ditto!

Dirk Vdm

"Traveler" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:27:50 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But you see, this nit-picking over 0.1 arc seconds per orbit
is a calculation error so small it doesn't come close to
having Einstein's crackpottery going for it.

Except it isn't a 'calculation error' - it is well outside the error bars.
One of the significant differences between engineers and scientists is
understanding errors

Another even more important difference is understanding science ;-)

But you don't understand science, van de merde. You are an ass kisser.
ahahaha... Ass kissers only understand ass kissing. ahahaha...

As long as we understand that nothing moves in autistic
spacetime, I guess the world is in good hands:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Spacetime.html

Dirk Vdm

On May 13, 10:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Russell" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On May 11, 5:27 pm, "Androcles" : wrote:

: The calculation of the advance of perihelion using Newtonian Celestial
Mechanics was
: carried out by Urbain L Verrier (1811-1877), with 43 arc seconds per
century unaccounted
: for.
: Urbain Le Verrier is best known for the calculations which led to the
discovery of Neptune.
:
: Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel on 13 March 1781 (4 years
after Le Verrier died).
:
: I think it was 96 years *before* Le Verrier died.

Yes, but Poe's taken the bait.

Bait, yeah, that's the ticket.

A lot of folks get confused about Uranus and Neptune.
Both sort of blue, you know, and there were these guys
in England and France that did calculations about them
and stuff. Nothing to be terribly ashamed about, Androcles.

(In truth, I found it hard to believe I was first to comment
on your gross error, so I checked all of your first-round
responses. It was only after posting that I saw Randy's
second-round response, that preceded mine.)

[conventional snip, which will infuriate you, but who cares]

On May 14, 8:41 am, Russell wrote:
On May 13, 10:50 am, "Androcles" wrote:



"Russell" wrote in message

roups.com...
: On May 11, 5:27 pm, "Androcles" : wrote:

: The calculation of the advance of perihelion using Newtonian Celestial
Mechanics was
: carried out by Urbain L Verrier (1811-1877), with 43 arc seconds per
century unaccounted
: for.
: Urbain Le Verrier is best known for the calculations which led to the
discovery of Neptune.
:
: Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel on 13 March 1781 (4 years
after Le Verrier died).
:
: I think it was 96 years *before* Le Verrier died.

Yes, but Poe's taken the bait.

Bait, yeah, that's the ticket.

A lot of folks get confused about Uranus and Neptune.
Both sort of blue, you know, and there were these guys
in England and France that did calculations about them
and stuff. Nothing to be terribly ashamed about, Androcles.

(In truth, I found it hard to believe I was first to comment
on your gross error, so I checked all of your first-round
responses. It was only after posting that I saw Randy's
second-round response, that preceded mine.)


Androcles has set himself a very difficult task. This started with
a declaration that there was no way that [insert insults] Einstein
could have been able to tell there was a 43-arc second per
century discrepancy between Newtonian prediction and observation,
or between GR prediction and Newtonian prediction, that the
accuracy of arithmetic and observation of his time just couldn't
support it.

When I finally convinced him that the knowledge of the discrepancy
goes back to Le Verrier in 1859 and was an accepted fact of
19th-century astronomy, he's been struggling ever
since with how to sound supportive of the 19th century results
while still slandering Einstein's similar calculations.

For your amusement, Androcles' first reaction to the mention of
the Le Verrier (1859) paper:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c42245274c5258

[conventional snip, which will infuriate you, but who cares]

Well, since everything infuriates Androcles, it hardly pays to
worry about trying not to.

- Randy