A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einstein's biggest mistakes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13  
Old June 7th 13, 10:12 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 07.06.2013 02:04, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 06.06.2013 18:33, wrote:


I am really curious here : you mean GR predicts exactly 43"
per century? What are the limits of error he if we improve
the accuracy of measurements in the future and it turns out
to be 43.0001" per century does it mean GR is invalidated or
just simply not accurate, or do we blame the other effects
for this?


According to:
Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
GR predicts 42.98 +/- 0.04 arc secs per century.

According to:
Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions".
Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
The tug from other planets is 531.63 +/- 0.69
and the observed is 574.10 +/- 0.65 arc secs per century
(both relative to 'stationary space')

So the 'anomaly' is 42.45 +/- 1.13 arc secs per century

GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.


Has Paul ever examine the precession of the equinox more closely?
shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_p...ion_(astronomy)

According to the above link, the exact period is 25,772 years (with no
error bar given) which translates to 257.72 centuries.

360 * 60 * 60 / 257.72 = 5,028.7”

As Paul has pointed out, Le Verrier had observed 5,600.0” (with no
error bar given and with unknown digits of significance but at least
2).

5,600.0” – 5,028.7” – (531.63” +/- 0.69”) = 39.7” +/- 0.7”

It is about 3” less than the fudged prediction of the Schwarzschild
metric. So, it looks like the data is fudged as well as the
prediction. shrug

Want to go through the differential equations? Are you up to it at
your elderly age? :-)


What's your point?
According to Le Verrier himself the anomaly was 38"
"within one second", which is even further from GR's prediction.
So what?
Le Verrier's achievements were impressive for its time,
but now they are mostly of historical interest.

And note that the more resent data I gave above were
relative to 'stationary space', that is relative to
a frame of reference that doesn't rotate with the equinoxes.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN'S 'BIGGEST BLUNDER' TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT cjcountess Astronomy Misc 5 December 22nd 10 04:39 PM
Einstein Biggest Blunder G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 14 April 9th 07 08:51 AM
Einstein's Mistakes brian a m stuckless Policy 0 January 19th 06 10:55 AM
Einstein's Mistakes brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 January 19th 06 10:55 AM
Was Einstein's 'biggest blunder' a stellar success? (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 November 23rd 05 04:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.