|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
solar radiation pressure explains Mercury precession better thanGR; #107; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
solar radiation pressure explaining Mercury precession; #108; 3rd ed.ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
observed precession of Jupiter should be anomalous with GR prediction#109; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
observed precession of Jupiter should be anomalous with GRprediction #109; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
solar radiation pressure explains Mercury precession better thanGR; #107; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
solar radiation pressure explains Mercury precession better thanGR; #116; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
solar radiation pressure explains Mercury precession better thanGR; #116; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what is "time" in an Atom Totality and the Plutonium Atom Totalitylayer as 6.5 billion years old versus the Uranium Atom Totality layer at 20 | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 8th 09 05:57 AM |
basics-- what is "time" in an Atom Totality and the Plutonium AtomTotality layer as 6.5 billion years old versus the Uranium Atom Totality | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | June 16th 09 09:16 PM |
MECO theory reinforced by Atom Totality theory #48 ;3rd edition book:ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 21st 09 07:51 PM |
Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #22 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 9th 09 11:01 PM |
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 1st 09 06:25 AM |