Solar Emission Pressure explains Mercury's 0.43 precession betterthan GR ; #122; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory

Looking some more at this Univ Texas website:
--- quoting ---
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node129.html

It is easily demonstrated that the corresponding contribution is
negligible for the other planets in the Solar System. If the above
calculation is carried out sightly more accurately, taking the
eccentricity of Mercury's orbit into account, then the general
relativistic contribution to...
--- end quoting ---

Well the trouble with 20th century physics was a
trouble of a false hero worship rather than doing
proper and correct science.

When human society picks out a hero and refuses
to see him wrong when he is wrong, then physics
and astronomy are in deep trouble. GR poorly predicts the Mercury
precession. It was not 0.43 but instead 0.41 and then even more
tweaking was
involved. So the story of Mercury precession and
GR is a story of making a human as a science
hero but not making science fit the truth.

GR does not explain the precession to any accuracy for the remainder
of the planets, especially Earth and Jupiter. The reason for this
discrepancy of accuracy is that the missing terms
of precession involve the Solar Emission Pressure
due to photons and ions from the Sun. It is because of that pressure
that Mercury was the first planet to be noticed to have a precession
discrepancy. In the 20th century, we had no accurate measurement of
the precession of Mercury and the other planets given **observation
accuracy** And we still do not have a accurate Earth and Jupiter
observed precession.

So to pick on Mercury in the 20th century and to
decide upon 0.41 or 0.43 accuracy, for which the
Messenger spacecraft is now taking measures in
late 2009 of Mercury is rather preposterous to think that a theory
invented in the 20th century
describes precessions of our planets when we
never had an accurate "observed tabulation."

I read one website where scientists reported that
binary stars disobey GR completely.

So here we have the trouble of science hero worship that masks and
drowns out the true science of reported data and then the admission
that GR is just simply a false and fake theory.

It is even difficult to sit down a trained scientist
like for example Craig Markwardt and to say to him, well we have this
Solar Emission Pressure. To sit him down and have him admit that there
is this substantial pressure of the Sun and that it would be an
enormous factor in the precession of Mercury and also the precession
of Earth and Jupiter because of their magnetosphere as a sail
in the Solar wind and photon emissions.

Craig was part of that 20th century hero worship
brainwash and propaganda. We have Solar emission pressure that every
scientist can admit
exists, yet due to their hero worship fantasy, they
can only say-- negligible or irrelevant force. We see this habit of
bad science all around us, such as global warming climate change where
people, even a few scientists saying that human activity of fossil
fuel burning is irrelevant or negligible as a
cause of climate change.

We just unfortunately see it embedded in physics in a harmful and
drastic manner with GR. It is a shame, a shame that few in physics
realized that
Dirac and John Bell were the leaders of the 20th century into the 21st
century and that Einstein was a physics midget as to the future of
physics
and the sciences. Sad because we have slews
of trained people like Craig who cannot extricate himself from
brainwashed propaganda of physics
from actually true physics.

The precession of Earth and Jupiter have huge
anomalies. The observed Earth precession is
11.45 yet the theory gives 11.87, and for Mercury
it is 5.75 and theory gives 5.50, and for Jupiter
it is 6.55 observed yet theory gives 7.42. During the century of hero
worship rather than good science, those discrepancies were all
ignored.

In this new century where the Atom Totality theory
emerged and replaces the Big Bang theory, then we have to go back and
straighten out the propaganda brainwash of the 20th century with
its silly hero worship.

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 5, 12:33*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Looking some more at this Univ Texas website:
--- quoting ---http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node129.html

It is easily demonstrated that the corresponding contribution is
negligible for the other planets in the Solar System. If the above
calculation is carried out sightly more accurately, taking the
eccentricity of Mercury's orbit into account, then the general
relativistic contribution to...
--- end quoting ---

Well the trouble with 20th century physics was a
trouble of a false hero worship rather than doing
proper and correct science.

When human society picks out a hero and refuses
to see him wrong when he is wrong, then physics
and astronomy are in deep trouble. GR poorly predicts the Mercury
precession. It was not 0.43 but instead 0.41 and then even more
tweaking was
involved. So the story of Mercury precession and
GR is a story of making a human as a science
hero but not making science fit the truth.

GR does not explain the precession to any accuracy for the remainder
of the planets, especially Earth and Jupiter. The reason for this
discrepancy of accuracy is that the missing terms
of precession involve the Solar Emission Pressure
due to photons and ions from the Sun. It is because of that pressure
that Mercury was the first planet to be noticed to have a precession
discrepancy. In the 20th century, we had no accurate measurement of
the precession of Mercury and the other planets given **observation
accuracy** And we still do not have a accurate Earth and Jupiter
observed precession.

So to pick on Mercury in the 20th century and to
decide upon 0.41 or 0.43 accuracy, for which the
Messenger spacecraft is now taking measures in
late 2009 of Mercury is rather preposterous to think that a theory
invented in the 20th century
describes precessions of our planets when we
never had an accurate "observed tabulation."

I read one website where scientists reported that
binary stars disobey GR completely.

So here we have the trouble of science hero worship that masks and
drowns out the true science of reported data and then the admission
that GR is just simply a false and fake theory.

It is even difficult to sit down a trained scientist
like for example Craig Markwardt and to say to him, well we have this
Solar Emission Pressure. To sit him down and have him admit that there
is this substantial pressure of the Sun and that it would be an
enormous factor in the precession of Mercury and also the precession
of Earth and Jupiter because of their magnetosphere as a sail
in the Solar wind and photon emissions.

Craig was part of that 20th century hero worship
brainwash and propaganda. We have Solar emission pressure that every
scientist can admit
exists, yet due to their hero worship fantasy, they
can only say-- negligible or irrelevant force. We see this habit of
bad science all around us, such as global warming climate change where
people, even a few scientists saying that human activity of fossil
fuel burning is irrelevant or negligible as a
cause of climate change.

We just unfortunately see it embedded in physics in a harmful and
drastic manner with GR. It is a shame, a shame that few in physics
realized that
Dirac and John Bell were the leaders of the 20th century into the 21st
century and that Einstein was a physics midget as to the future of
physics
and the sciences. Sad because we have slews
of trained people like Craig who cannot extricate himself from
brainwashed propaganda of physics
from actually true physics.

The precession of Earth and Jupiter have huge
anomalies. The observed Earth precession is
11.45 yet the theory gives 11.87, and for Mercury
it is 5.75 and theory gives 5.50, and for Jupiter
it is 6.55 observed yet theory gives 7.42. During the century of hero
worship rather than good science, those discrepancies were all
ignored.

In this new century where the Atom Totality theory
emerged and replaces the Big Bang theory, then we have to go back and
straighten out the propaganda brainwash of the 20th century with
its silly hero worship.

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

On average, how many electrons does our sun give off or expel per
second?

~ BG

On average, how many electrons does our sun give off or expel per
second?

~ BG

--- quoting ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar
wind is about 1.3*×*10^36 per second.[14] Thus, the total mass loss
each year is about (2–3)*×*10^-14 solar masses,[15] or 6.7*billion
tons per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth
every 150*million years.[16] However, only about 0.01% of the Sun's
total mass has been lost through the solar wind.[17] Other stars have
much stronger stellar winds that result in significantly higher mass
loss rates.
--- end quoting ---

They divide the Solar Wind into slow and fast as anyone can read
Wikipedia article further.

Now I wonder about those binary stars which defy the GR theory whether
they are stars
with that much stronger stellar winds. Probably so.

Now another responder to this thread said that ionic emission from the
Sun as pressure
is only about 1% of the total pressure emitted by the Sun and that 99%
of the pressure
is photonic pressure. I cannot vouch for the verity for that ratio.

So it is very befitting and historically ironic that by year 2009 we
have a spacecraft
around Mercury as the Messenger Spacecraft that is manuveuring and
propelled by
the Solar wind itself with its sail. And that this picture of a sail
and the old 20th
century attempt to understand the precession of Mercury. When all
along it was
that the Solar Emissions is the responsible factor for the unaccounted
precession.
Not some ivory tower theory of General Relativity that says Solar
radiation is
negligible.


Just like here on Earth, the increasing global rise in temperature
should be seen alongside
pictures of smog filled highways and coal power stations as the cause
of
global warming.

In the 20th century, we could afford to embrace half-baked theories
like General Relativity
and that gives hero worship to those who want hero worship after WW2,
wherein a theory is music to a war torn century. But to science,
science
wants only the truth.

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 5, 5:07*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
On average, how many electrons does our sun give off or expel per
second?

*~ BG

--- quoting ---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar
wind is about 1.3*×*10^36 per second.[14] Thus, the total mass loss
each year is about (2–3)*×*10^-14 solar masses,[15] or 6.7*billion
tons per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth
every 150*million years.[16] However, only about 0.01% of the Sun's
total mass has been lost through the solar wind.[17] Other stars have
much stronger stellar winds that result in significantly higher mass
loss rates.
--- end quoting ---

Wikipedia is incorrect, because in order for the red giant phase and
eventual helium flashover to take place within the next 7.5 billion
years or sooner, as based upon a 1/3rd reduction in solar mass before
our sun becomes a red giant to begin with, I believe the average mass
loss has to have been an average of something closer to 2e12 kg/sec,
and otherwise not the 1.86e9 kg/sec if based upon a 12e9 year life
before becoming a white dwarf.


They divide the Solar Wind into slow and fast as anyone can read
Wikipedia article further.

Now I wonder about those binary stars which defy the GR theory whether
they are stars
with that much stronger stellar winds. Probably so.

Now another responder to this thread said that ionic emission from the
Sun as pressure
is only about 1% of the total pressure emitted by the Sun and that 99%
of the pressure
is photonic pressure. I cannot vouch for the verity for that ratio.

So it is very befitting and historically ironic that by year 2009 we
have a spacecraft
around Mercury as the Messenger Spacecraft that is manuveuring and
propelled by
the Solar wind itself with its sail. And that this picture of a sail
and the old 20th
century attempt to understand the precession of Mercury. When all
along it was
that the Solar Emissions is the responsible factor for the unaccounted
precession.
Not some ivory tower theory of General Relativity that says Solar
radiation is negligible.

Just like here on Earth, the increasing global rise in temperature
should be seen alongside
pictures of smog filled highways and coal power stations as the cause
of global warming.

In the 20th century, we could afford to embrace half-baked theories
like General Relativity
and that gives hero worship to those who want hero worship after WW2,
wherein a theory is music to a war torn century. But to science,
science wants only the truth.

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

In other words, seems we have no real idea as to how many electrons
are flowing away from our sun, or even how many electrons our sun
contains.

~ BG

On Aug 5, 3:33*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
GR does not explain the precession to any accuracy for the remainder
of the planets, especially Earth and Jupiter.

If you had bothered to remember the quoted precession rates for the
earth (predicted, 3.8 "/cy, observed 5.0+/-1.2 "/cy), then you would
understand that your above statement is false. The measured
precession rate of the earth is consistent with the predicted rate.

Your reliance on the utexas web page is unsubstantiated. As noted by
that page itself, it makes several simplifying assumptions for
educational reasons, which make the results unsuitable for precision
calculations (for example since it did not "[take] into account the
slight eccentricities of the planetary orbits, as well as their small
mutual inclinations, [or] many more terms in the expansions").


It is even difficult to sit down a trained scientist
like for example Craig Markwardt and to say to him, well we have this
Solar Emission Pressure. To sit him down and have him admit that there
is this substantial pressure of the Sun and that it would be an
enormous factor in the precession of Mercury and also the precession
of Earth and Jupiter because of their magnetosphere as a sail
in the Solar wind and photon emissions.

If you had bothered to actually estimate the radiation pressure,
rather than whining about it, then the story would be over. While
radiation pressure on Mercury exists, it is negligible compared to
other forces. This is not the case for the Messenger spacecraft,
whose area to mass ratio is much much larger.

[ personal attacks removed. ]

CM

On Aug 5, 9:18*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:07*pm, Archimedes Plutonium



wrote:
On average, how many electrons does our sun give off or expel per
second?

*~ BG

--- quoting ---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar
wind is about 1.3*×*10^36 per second.[14] Thus, the total mass loss
each year is about (2–3)*×*10^-14 solar masses,[15] or 6.7*billion
tons per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth
every 150*million years.[16] However, only about 0.01% of the Sun's
total mass has been lost through the solar wind.[17] Other stars have
much stronger stellar winds that result in significantly higher mass
loss rates.
--- end quoting ---

Wikipedia is incorrect, because in order for the red giant phase and
eventual helium flashover to take place within the next 7.5 billion
years or sooner, as based upon a 1/3rd reduction in solar mass before
our sun becomes a red giant to begin with, I believe the average mass
loss has to have been an average of something closer to 2e12 kg/sec,
and otherwise not the 1.86e9 kg/sec if based upon a 12e9 year life
before becoming a white dwarf.

Or, the solar mass loss rate is not constant.

CM

On Aug 5, 8:17*pm, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:18*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Aug 5, 5:07*pm, Archimedes Plutonium

wrote:
On average, how many electrons does our sun give off or expel per
second?

*~ BG

--- quoting ---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar
wind is about 1.3*×*10^36 per second.[14] Thus, the total mass loss
each year is about (2–3)*×*10^-14 solar masses,[15] or 6.7*billion
tons per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth
every 150*million years.[16] However, only about 0.01% of the Sun's
total mass has been lost through the solar wind.[17] Other stars have
much stronger stellar winds that result in significantly higher mass
loss rates.
--- end quoting ---

Wikipedia is incorrect, because in order for the red giant phase and
eventual helium flashover to take place within the next 7.5 billion
years or sooner, as based upon a 1/3rd reduction in solar mass before
our sun becomes a red giant to begin with, I believe the average mass
loss has to have been an average of something closer to 2e12 kg/sec,
and otherwise not the 1.86e9 kg/sec if based upon a 12e9 year life
before becoming a white dwarf.

Or, the solar mass loss rate is not constant.

CM

Thar's well enough understood, and why I've given this 2e12 kg/sec as
the average rate of mass loss.

If it takes more than a third of it's original mass before turning
into a red giant, and/or involving less time than 12e9 years for
becoming a white dwarf, as such would push that average loss of mass
closer to 3e12 kg/sec if not as great as 4e12 kg/sec.

Supposedly Sirius-B burned through both ends of its candle and
otherwise tossed the vast bulk of its mass away within 225~275 million
years, perhaps starting off as an 8+ solar mass. A loss of 7 solar
masses within that short of time is impressive, and now a 20 solar
mass red supergiant (Betelgeuse) is about to go into its helium
flashover and supernovae evolution into becoming a large white dwarf
the size of Saturn.

~ BG

Craig Markwardt wrote:


If you had bothered to actually estimate the radiation pressure,
rather than whining about it, then the story would be over. While
radiation pressure on Mercury exists, it is negligible compared to
other forces. This is not the case for the Messenger spacecraft,
whose area to mass ratio is much much larger.

[ personal attacks removed. ]

CM

I already have an estimate, if the Messenger Spacecraft can be
completely
operated into and out of orbit from Mercury, solely powered by Solar
Emission
Pressure, and given the size and mass of Messenger, then scaling up,
gives
more than a 0.43 arcseconds/year precession.

I do not have the facts or data to calculate the Solar Emission
Pressure
on Mercury. This is a equation which someone working in that field of
expertise has to do. Something that CM could not do.

But we already have a nice experiment research in progress with the
Messenger
Spacecraft itself. We can measure the precession rate of the
Spacecraft as it
orbits around Mercury. We can use the Spacecraft as a measuring tool
for
Solar Emission Pressure. I am confident that some scientists connected
with
the Messenger Spacecraft realizes this goldmine of data about Solar
Emission Pressure.

And I would hazard to guess that if the Messenger Spacecraft does not
collide
with Mercury that it could remain in orbit and provide valuable data
as to
precession.

I need CM out of my threads as too much contrary and hatespam. Go do
your
hatespamming elsewhere.

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 6, 2:04*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Craig Markwardt wrote:

If you had bothered to actually estimate the radiation pressure,
rather than whining about it, then the story would be over. *While
radiation pressure on Mercury exists, it is negligible compared to
other forces. *This is not the case for the Messenger spacecraft,
whose area to mass ratio is much much larger.

[ personal attacks removed. ]

CM

I already have an estimate, if the Messenger Spacecraft can be completely
operated into and out of orbit from Mercury, solely powered by Solar Emission
Pressure, and given the size and mass of Messenger, then scaling up, gives
more than a 0.43 arcseconds/year precession.

I do not have the facts or data to calculate the Solar Emission Pressure
on Mercury. ...

If you do not have the facts or data, then how could you possibly
"scale up" to the appropriate amount? You could not have.

As noted several times, but you continually ignore, the acceleration
on a body due to solar pressure depends on the ratio of *area* and the
*mass* of the body (a search of wikipedia would reveal that).
Messenger has a mass of ~1100 kg and area of ~5 m^2. Mercury has mass
of 3 x 10^{23} kg and a cross sectional area of 2 x 10^{13} m^2.
Thus, "scaling up" from Messenger, which has an (A/m) ratio of 0.005,
to Mercury, which has a ratio of 6 x 10^{-11} means that the
acceleration of Mercury is about 14 *billionths* as much as the
Messenger spacecraft. This can be understood simply, since it is much
harder to push around a large solid rock, than it is to push around a
light spacecraft with large solar panels and a lot of empty spaces
inside.

In other words, the acceleration Mercury does not "scale up" at all as
you supposed, but instead scales down and becomes negligible. These
are simple numbers which you could have found on line, but apparently
chose not to. Instead, you chose to speculate without any "facts or
data," as you freely admit, and to launch personal attacks.

CM

Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Aug 6, 2:04*am, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)

If you do not have the facts or data, then how could you possibly
"scale up" to the appropriate amount? You could not have.


Understandable since you do not know physics well enough.
I did not scale up that way.
I scaled up by running a estimate of how much a impact of BBs deflects
(precesses)
a baseball in rotation (orbit). So taking a BB as a flow of solar
emission pressure.
How many BBs to deflect the baseball to be scaled to a 0.43 arcsecond/
year.

An easier scale up is to estimate one BB impacting a ping pong ball in
rotation,
for which that single impact causes enough deflection to equal a 0.43
precession.

Can you see, CM, why you never made the cut to physicist.

As noted several times, but you continually ignore, the acceleration
on a body due to solar pressure depends on the ratio of *area* and the
*mass* of the body (a search of wikipedia would reveal that).
Messenger has a mass of ~1100 kg and area of ~5 m^2. Mercury has mass
of 3 x 10^{23} kg and a cross sectional area of 2 x 10^{13} m^2.
Thus, "scaling up" from Messenger, which has an (A/m) ratio of 0.005,
to Mercury, which has a ratio of 6 x 10^{-11} means that the
acceleration of Mercury is about 14 *billionths* as much as the
Messenger spacecraft. This can be understood simply, since it is much
harder to push around a large solid rock, than it is to push around a
light spacecraft with large solar panels and a lot of empty spaces
inside.

In other words, the acceleration Mercury does not "scale up" at all as
you supposed, but instead scales down and becomes negligible. These
are simple numbers which you could have found on line, but apparently
chose not to. Instead, you chose to speculate without any "facts or
data," as you freely admit, and to launch personal attacks.

CM

CM, I need you to get lost, because you are too much of a distraction.
You are
poor in physics, and your posts are just hatemail.

But one thing about the above read is that I missed another
opportunity to
prove that Solar Emission Pressure SEP is the bulk of the force for
Mercury's
0.43 arcseconds/year.

If SEP is the responsible force involved, then it should be a
"directional force"
with a fine-structure that can be measured, perhaps by Messenger
spacecraft.
And this fine-structure seen in Earth's and Jupiter's precession with
their
magnetosphere. In other words, there are moments in the orbits where
the
pelting of the planets is especially torrential solar emissions. If it
were GR
responsible for the 0.43 figure it is purely a geometrical number and
would
not have directional fine-structure. The directional bias is due to
also the variable
emissions of the Sun's latitudes.

I do not know how sensitive our measuring of the actual observed
precession are,
but if sensitive we should be able to detect a linked variance of
Mercury's
precession and such things as solar flares or solar wind storms.

The direction of Earth and Jupiter precession should also be linked by
the
Sun's directional output of emissions.

In GR there is no fine-structure for precessions.

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