solar radiation pressure explains Mercury precession better than GR;#107; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory

I find it somewhat gratifying that a Spacecraft gives us better
measuring of Solar Radiation Pressure, SRP, than does theory.

If one looks in Wikipedia for Solar Radiation Pressure is given
a formula, but that is all that is given, and no actual numbers
of say Mercury. So if one does not have the factors to put into
the formula, one can only wildly guess at what the numbers for
SRP of Mercury are.

But Wikipedia did a fantastic job of delineating the components
of Mercury's perihelion precession attributing 43 arc seconds/century
to General Relativity.

But now we ask the question, since Messenger Spacecraft uses
SRP then why is SRP not a factor in Mercury's precession? Is it
because
physicists and astronomers were shoddy reasoners and just forgot there
was SRP to deal with?

--- quoting from ---
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29109
MESSENGER Sails on Sun's Fire for Second Flyby of Mercury

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Friday, September 5, 2008
On September 4, the MESSENGER team announced that it would not need to
implement a scheduled maneuver to adjust the probe's trajectory. This
is the fourth time this year that such a maneuver has been called off.
The reason? A recently implemented navigational technique that makes
use of solar-radiation pressure (SRP) to guide the probe has been
extremely successful at maintaining MESSENGER on a trajectory that
will carry it over the cratered surface of Mercury for a second time
on October 6.
SRP is small and decreases by the square of the distance away from the
Sun. But, unlike rockets, so-called solar sailing requires no fuel.
And although SRP's thrust is small, it will continue as long as the
Sun is shining and the "sail" is deployed, providing a continuous
acceleration source for the probe.
--- end quoting ---

Yes it is small but large compared to the task of moving around a
spacecraft. And large compared to the orbit of Mercury as to cause
instability which is precession motion.

So here we have the question, of which of these two physical
phenomenon best explains Mercury perihelion precession? Does GR
explain the 43 arcseconds/century better than SRP? Or is there a
mix of the two that explains Mercury's precession?

Well I think the answer is clear, for all we have to do is see how
stable
is that number of a 43 arcsecond/century. Because SRP or solar winds
are very much variable. Sure there is an average SRP but there are
vast variances in any time interval. So that if GR is responsible for
the
43 number, it should be a rather constant number of 43 but if SRP is
the responsible influence of 43 then it varies drastically.

From what few sites I have seen on Mercury's perihelion precession
is that the numbers vary wildly. Meaning that solar radiation pressure
is a larger contributor of Mercury's precession.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
I find it somewhat gratifying that a Spacecraft gives us better
measuring of Solar Radiation Pressure, SRP, than does theory.

If one looks in Wikipedia for Solar Radiation Pressure is given
a formula, but that is all that is given, and no actual numbers
of say Mercury. So if one does not have the factors to put into
the formula, one can only wildly guess at what the numbers for
SRP of Mercury are.

But Wikipedia did a fantastic job of delineating the components
of Mercury's perihelion precession attributing 43 arc seconds/century
to General Relativity.

But now we ask the question, since Messenger Spacecraft uses
SRP then why is SRP not a factor in Mercury's precession? Is it
because
physicists and astronomers were shoddy reasoners and just forgot there
was SRP to deal with?

--- quoting from ---http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29109
MESSENGER Sails on Sun's Fire for Second Flyby of Mercury

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Friday, September 5, 2008
On September 4, the MESSENGER team announced that it would not need to
implement a scheduled maneuver to adjust the probe's trajectory. This
is the fourth time this year that such a maneuver has been called off.
The reason? A recently implemented navigational technique that makes
use of solar-radiation pressure (SRP) to guide the probe has been
extremely successful at maintaining MESSENGER on a trajectory that
will carry it over the cratered surface of Mercury for a second time
on October 6.
SRP is small and decreases by the square of the distance away from the
Sun. But, unlike rockets, so-called solar sailing requires no fuel.
And although SRP's thrust is small, it will continue as long as the
Sun is shining and the "sail" is deployed, providing a continuous
acceleration source for the probe.
--- end quoting ---

Yes it is small but large compared to the task of moving around a
spacecraft. And large compared to the orbit of Mercury as to cause
instability which is precession motion.

So here we have the question, of which of these two physical
phenomenon best explains Mercury perihelion precession? Does GR
explain the 43 arcseconds/century better than SRP? Or is there a
mix of the two that explains Mercury's precession?

Well I think the answer is clear, for all we have to do is see how
stable
is that number of a 43 arcsecond/century. Because SRP or solar winds
are very much variable. Sure there is an average SRP but there are
vast variances in any time interval. So that if GR is responsible for
the
43 number, it should be a rather constant number of 43 but if SRP is
the responsible influence of 43 then it varies drastically.

From what few sites I have seen on Mercury's perihelion precession
is that the numbers vary wildly. Meaning that solar radiation pressure
is a larger contributor of Mercury's precession.

Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

It's not that variable, it weakens with the distance square.

There's also a 100 years of fuel burning not to mention 100 years that
close to a hot burning stove.

guskz wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)

It's not that variable, it weakens with the distance square.

There's also a 100 years of fuel burning not to mention 100 years that
close to a hot burning stove.

What I meant to say by variable is that we cannot predict the future
course of the precession as we can predict where a planet is in its
orbit. This variation or variability of what the future precession of
Mercury
is indicative of a force such as solar radiation pressure, not of a
inverse
square law of gravitation. If GR really nailed the 43 arc second/
century,
then we should be able to predict where Mercury will lie in 100 years
from
now. But if the precession is due to Solar Radiation Pressure, then
we cannot know if the path of Mercury made a left turn or a right turn
in its precession in 100 years from now. Corresponding to the fact
that
we cannot know if the Sun has a lot of Solar winds or reduction in
those
100 years. With solar winds we can have an average which would match
the 43 arcsecond/century and that average is not predictable as a GR
of 43 arcsecond/century.

I was looking on the Web for anomalous Mercury precession and found
this
site:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

It talks of Hall saying that Hall wanted gravity to be 1/r^2.00000016
(hope I got
all the zeroes). Hall found out that if gravity were that formula
instead of the
pure 1/r^2 then Mercury's precession would no longer be anomalous.

That website also listed a table of precessions which I copied as
this:

Mercury 43 by GR and 43 by observed
Venus 8.6 by GR and 8.4 by observed
Earth 3.8 by GR and 5.0 by observed

Now I realize that Solar Radiation Pressure SRP is small, but as the
recent spacecraft
Messenger to Mercury shows us, it is significantly large to drive the
spacecraft.

And I hope that we can use the spacecraft as a research experiment
itself as to
test the spacecraft for its own precession by the SRP. In other words
the spacecraft
is itself a test on GR as to whether SRP and not GR is responsible for
the precessions
of Mercury, Venus and Earth.

Now SRP is small but large enough to cover Hall's exponent of 1/
r^2.00000016

And notice in that table of anomalous precessions that Earth's is 5.0
whereas
GR predicts 3.8. Now the reason I suspect that Earth is 5.0 is because
of Earth's magnetosphere which deflects solar radiation pressure and
thus
the huge surface area that is bound to Earth by the magnetosphere and
where
Venus has none, causes this 5.0 figure instead of the 3.8 figure.

Usually physicists are good in inclusion of all terms and factors as
explaining a
physical phenomenon, but in the case of the precession of Mercury and
the
recession of the Moon from Earth, physicists have become very sloppy
and
lackadaisical.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
guskz wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)

It's not that variable, it weakens with the distance square.

There's also a 100 years of fuel burning not to mention 100 years that
close to a hot burning stove.

What I meant to say by variable is that we cannot predict the future
course of the precession as we can predict where a planet is in its
orbit. This variation or variability of what the future precession of
Mercury
is indicative of a force such as solar radiation pressure, not of a
inverse
square law of gravitation. If GR really nailed the 43 arc second/
century,
then we should be able to predict where Mercury will lie in 100 years
from
now. But if the precession is due to Solar Radiation Pressure, then
we cannot know if the path of Mercury made a left turn or a right turn
in its precession in 100 years from now. Corresponding to the fact
that
we cannot know if the Sun has a lot of Solar winds or reduction in
those
100 years. With solar winds we can have an average which would match
the 43 arcsecond/century and that average is not predictable as a GR
of 43 arcsecond/century.

I was looking on the Web for anomalous Mercury precession and found
this
site:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

It talks of Hall saying that Hall wanted gravity to be 1/r^2.00000016
(hope I got
all the zeroes). Hall found out that if gravity were that formula
instead of the
pure 1/r^2 then Mercury's precession would no longer be anomalous.

That website also listed a table of precessions which I copied as
this:

Mercury 43 by GR and 43 by observed
Venus 8.6 by GR and 8.4 by observed
Earth 3.8 by GR and 5.0 by observed

Now I realize that Solar Radiation Pressure SRP is small, but as the
recent spacecraft
Messenger to Mercury shows us, it is significantly large to drive the
spacecraft.

And I hope that we can use the spacecraft as a research experiment
itself as to
test the spacecraft for its own precession by the SRP. In other words
the spacecraft
is itself a test on GR as to whether SRP and not GR is responsible for
the precessions
of Mercury, Venus and Earth.

Now SRP is small but large enough to cover Hall's exponent of 1/
r^2.00000016

And notice in that table of anomalous precessions that Earth's is 5.0
whereas
GR predicts 3.8. Now the reason I suspect that Earth is 5.0 is because
of Earth's magnetosphere which deflects solar radiation pressure and
thus
the huge surface area that is bound to Earth by the magnetosphere and
where
Venus has none, causes this 5.0 figure instead of the 3.8 figure.

Usually physicists are good in inclusion of all terms and factors as
explaining a
physical phenomenon, but in the case of the precession of Mercury and
the
recession of the Moon from Earth, physicists have become very sloppy
and
lackadaisical.


Jupiter has a large magnetosphere, and although Solar Radiation
Pressure
should be less than what it is on Earth considering that Jupiter is so
much
further away from the Sun, the hugeness of the magnetosphere of
Jupiter
should make the precession of Jupiter very much larger than what GR
predicts as the precession of Jupiter.

So I need to find out what the observed precession of Jupiter is and
compare
it with what GR predicts.

As the above shows, GR predicts Earth's precession at 3.8 when in fact
the
observed precession is 5.0 arc seconds/century.

Anyone have a website that has this data?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Jul 30, 3:32*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
guskz wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)

It's not that variable, it weakens with the distance square.

There's also a 100 years of fuel burning not to mention 100 years that
close to a hot burning stove.

What I meant to say by variable is that we cannot predict the future
course of the precession as we can predict where a planet is in its
orbit. This variation or variability of what the future precession of
Mercury
is indicative of a force such as solar radiation pressure, not of a
inverse
square law of gravitation. If GR really nailed the 43 arc second/
century,
then we should be able to predict where Mercury will lie in 100 years
from
now. But if the precession is due to Solar Radiation Pressure, then
we cannot know if the path of Mercury made a left turn or a right turn
in its precession in 100 years from now. Corresponding to the fact
that
we cannot know if the Sun has a lot of Solar winds or reduction in
those
100 years. With solar winds we can have an average which would match
the 43 arcsecond/century and that average is not predictable as a GR
of 43 arcsecond/century.

I was looking on the Web for anomalous Mercury precession and found
this
site:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

It talks of Hall saying that Hall wanted gravity to be 1/r^2.00000016
(hope I got
all the zeroes). Hall found out that if gravity were that formula
instead of the
pure 1/r^2 then Mercury's precession would no longer be anomalous.

That website also listed a table of precessions which I copied as
this:

Mercury 43 by GR and 43 by observed
Venus 8.6 by GR and 8.4 by observed
Earth 3.8 by GR and 5.0 by observed

Now I realize that Solar Radiation Pressure SRP is small, but as the
recent spacecraft
Messenger to Mercury shows us, it is significantly large to drive the
spacecraft.

And I hope that we can use the spacecraft as a research experiment
itself as to
test the spacecraft for its own precession by the SRP. In other words
the spacecraft
is itself a test on GR as to whether SRP and not GR is responsible for
the precessions
of Mercury, Venus and Earth.

Now SRP is small but large enough to cover Hall's exponent of 1/
r^2.00000016

And notice in that table of anomalous precessions that Earth's is 5.0
whereas
GR predicts 3.8. Now the reason I suspect that Earth is 5.0 is because
of Earth's magnetosphere which deflects solar radiation pressure and
thus
the huge surface area that is bound to Earth by the magnetosphere and
where
Venus has none, causes this 5.0 figure instead of the 3.8 figure.

Usually physicists are good in inclusion of all terms and factors as
explaining a
physical phenomenon, but in the case of the precession of Mercury and
the
recession of the Moon from Earth, physicists have become very sloppy
and
lackadaisical.

Jupiter has a large magnetosphere, and although Solar Radiation
Pressure
should be less than what it is on Earth considering that Jupiter is so
much
further away from the Sun, the hugeness of the magnetosphere of
Jupiter
should make the precession of Jupiter very much larger than what GR
predicts as the precession of Jupiter.

So I need to find out what the observed precession of Jupiter is and
compare
it with what GR predicts.

As the above shows, GR predicts Earth's precession at 3.8 when in fact
the
observed precession is 5.0 arc seconds/century.

Anyone have a website that has this data?

Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What "I" ment by "not that variable" is :

1. that the radiation pressure weakens with the distance square.

2. #2 is a play on words acutally:

Constant (not that variable) between time intervals at the ***same***
location along the very eccentric orbit.

But vary variable at *different* locatins along the eccentric orbit,
the closer to the sun the more pressure & the more at that specific
location the oribit should deviate from Newton's equation where as at
further distance the orbit should be closer to that of Newtons
equation.

If not then the solar radiation pressure has no substantial effect on
Newton's equation.

On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But now we ask the question, since Messenger Spacecraft uses
SRP then why is SRP not a factor in Mercury's precession? Is it
because
physicists and astronomers were shoddy reasoners and just forgot there
was SRP to deal with?

Unlikely. The acceleration due to solar radiation pressure depends on
the ratio of area to mass, or A/m. Human-built spacecraft have large
values of A/m, since they of necessity have small launch masses and
large antennas and panels, and are mostly filled with empty space.
Planets are dense and compact, and thus have small values of A/m. The
solar radiation accelerations on the Messenger spacecraft are about
100 million times larger than on the planet Mercury.

Solar radiation pressure on planets is not zero, it's just negligible
compared to most other forces in the solar system.

CM

Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But now we ask the question, since Messenger Spacecraft uses
SRP then why is SRP not a factor in Mercury's precession? Is it
because
physicists and astronomers were shoddy reasoners and just forgot there
was SRP to deal with?

Unlikely. The acceleration due to solar radiation pressure depends on
the ratio of area to mass, or A/m. Human-built spacecraft have large
values of A/m, since they of necessity have small launch masses and
large antennas and panels, and are mostly filled with empty space.
Planets are dense and compact, and thus have small values of A/m. The
solar radiation accelerations on the Messenger spacecraft are about
100 million times larger than on the planet Mercury.

Solar radiation pressure on planets is not zero, it's just negligible
compared to most other forces in the solar system.

CM

Your opinion that it is negligible, and the reason why GR fails.

Here are the numbers for Earth-- 3.8 arcseconds/century by GR, yet the
actual observed precession is 5.0 arcseconds/century. That is not
agreement of theory with facts. That case alone should have put
GR as a "troubled theory."

So what can better explain the actual Earth precession? What can
explain the 5.0 arcseconds/century?

I believe it is the solar radiation pressure SRP in the fact that
Earth's
magnetosphere is huge compared to Mercury or Venus. And the huge
size of the magnetosphere acts as a "sail" as it deflects the ionized
solar wind SRP. That deflection should account for the actual Earth
precession.

Now if I can obtain the data of Jupiter and the rest of the Solar
System
planets and their satellites, then the number data should confirm that
SRP is the major component of the unaccounted precession.

So if someone has the data, then please fill out the rest of this
table:

Mercury 43 GR predicted; 43 observed precession in arcseconds/century
Venus 8.6 GR predicted; 8.4 observed precession
Earth 3.8 GR predicted; 5.0 observed precession
Mars
Jupiter
Io
Europa
Saturn
Titan
Uranus

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Aug 3, 1:13*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:59*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But now we ask the question, since Messenger Spacecraft uses
SRP then why is SRP not a factor in Mercury's precession? Is it
because
physicists and astronomers were shoddy reasoners and just forgot there
was SRP to deal with?

Unlikely. *The acceleration due to solar radiation pressure depends on
the ratio of area to mass, or A/m. *Human-built spacecraft have large
values of A/m, since they of necessity have small launch masses and
large antennas and panels, and are mostly filled with empty space.
Planets are dense and compact, and thus have small values of A/m. *The
solar radiation accelerations on the Messenger spacecraft are about
100 million times larger than on the planet Mercury.

Solar radiation pressure on planets is not zero, it's just negligible
compared to most other forces in the solar system.

CM

Your opinion that it is negligible, and the reason why GR fails.

Huh? My opinion has nothing to do with classical mechanics, radiation
pressure, or the masses or sizes of the bodies in question. You
could have calculated for yourself that the A/m ratios for Mercury and
the Messenger spacecraft are very different, but you did not.

CM