Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again).

"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
( )

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.


43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000


The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
"But physics is not math, and we often use approximations. SR is
approximately valid when the curvature of the manifold is negligible
over the region of interest compared to one's measurement accuracy. That
is, if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can probably be
used." -- Humpty Roberts

"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars." -- Humpty Roberts

Humpty Roberts sat on a wall,
Humpty Roberts had a great fall.
All Lucent technology, Lucent's best men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

"Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler." -- Einstein.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.

Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.

Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born. The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.

So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911, what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.

Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.

Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born. The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.

So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911, what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?

Nice and concise post, Randy.

I hope you're not so naive as to expect a sensible reply from
a piece of ...fill in as ugly as you dare... like Androcles ;-)

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 29, 12:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.

Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.

Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born. The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.

So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911, what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?

Nice and concise post, Randy.

I hope you're not so naive as to expect a sensible reply from
a piece of ...fill in as ugly as you dare... like Androcles ;-)

No, I expect him to snip my post about 3 words in and throw
in a little echolalia, profanity, and cut-and-paste text. His
Pavlovian responses are very predictable.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.

Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.

Poor ****headed Poe, can't produce a single calculation and
mutters only what he reads.

Google: gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
(four figure accuracy)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure."
(no better)



Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures.

Poor imbecile Poe, the best 21st century figure is
0.00000799494273389855719% and the nitwit Einstein left
out Venus, Earth and Jupiter.


He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born.

Poor idiot Poe, nobody is disputing data. It was Einstein who
came up with a crackpot theory that cannot be verified any better
than the Newtonian.



The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.

Hiding behind imprecise CALCULATIONS, poor idiot Poe
is easily suckered into believing in Einstein. The question is,
does Einstein believe in poor cretin Poe?

So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911,

Poor bull****ting moronic Poe, I have NEVER disputed empirical data,
arsehole.


what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Some orbits the precession is greater, other orbits less, depending
on the relative positions of the other planets. That alone knocks
Einstein's crackpottery into a cocked hat, according to the moron
it should be 0.43 arc seconds per year, 0.1 arc seconds per orbit; and it isn't.

Now get your computer out, model ALL the observations of planetary position
and use the data to more accurately tell us the gravitational constant according
to Newton.
Poor antiquated Poe, stuck somewhere in 1915 without a computer.

What is Kepler's equation, poor misguided Poe?
Without that you don't have a prayer, and it is transcendental.

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On Apr 29, 12:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.

Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.

Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born. The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.

So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911, what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?

Nice and concise post, Randy.

I hope you're not so naive as to expect a sensible reply from
a piece of ...fill in as ugly as you dare... like Androcles ;-)

No, I expect him to snip my post

Ok, I can manage that, you lying ****head.
Since you think you have no brain and I know you don't,
what's Kepler's equation?

"Androcles" wrote in message . uk...

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 29, 12:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

[snip]

Nice and concise post, Randy.

I hope you're not so naive as to expect a sensible reply from
a piece of ...fill in as ugly as you dare... like Androcles ;-)

No, I expect him to snip my post

Ok, I can manage that, you lying ****head.
Since you think you have no brain and I know you don't,
what's Kepler's equation?

Are you enough of a ...fill in as ugly as you dare... stinker
to hope that Randy will reply to this?

Dirk Vdm

Androcles wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy."

That was in reference to tides on earth, not the perihelion shift of
Mercury.


Tom Roberts

On 29 Apr 2007 09:18:52 -0700, Randy Poe wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.

Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.

Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Did he include things like magnetic field interaction....about which he knew
nothing?

...why are all relativists nothing but self deluded dreamers?

- Randy



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.

Did he include things like magnetic field interaction....about which he knew
nothing?

..why are all relativists nothing but self deluded dreamers?


Are you real, or just playing the part of a blithering idiot on Usenet?

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).