Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:28:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 11.06.2013 18:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:


This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
the precession period ought to get longer. shrug

This is a phase.

This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. shrug

Not at all. The J000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
chosen reference point.
As you possibly know, the equatorial coordinate system is used
by astronomers to give the position of stars and other objects.
This is a spherical coordinate system with the coordinates
declination (Dec) and Right ascension (RA).
The Dec is the angle from the equatorial plane, and the RA
is the 'horizontal' angle from the vernal equinox.
Since the vernal equinox is moving, and it would be very
impractical to continuously rework the star charts, it must be
specified which year (epoch) a set of coordinates is valid for.
Standard years are chosen, usually every 50 years or so.
The currently used epoch is J2000.
This is the reason why J2000 is used in the Equation for pA
above. So when you find the coordinates of the star in
a EPOCH2000 star chart, the angle pA for the current year
is what you have to add to the charted RA to find its real
position.

The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.

But the _chance_ of the angle of precession per century is:

p = dp_A/dt = 5028".796195 + 2".2108696 t + 0".0001302 t^2 + ..

This is an angular frequency.

So, according to Paul, 230k years ago, the precession was null.
shrug

No, because then the higher order terms would come into play.
The result would be ridiculous, though.
It would be equally ridiculous for 230k years in the future.

Let’s see if that equation agree with you. Say t is indeed -1.5 (150
years ago when Le Verrier made his final measurement on Mercury’s
orbit) and -2.5 (250 years ago when Le Verrier’s data started).

pA at -1 .5 = 5028”8 (-1.5) + 1.1 (-1.5)^2 = -7544”5
pA at -2 .5 = 5028”8 (-2.5) + 1.1 (-2.5)^2 = -12578”9

Correct numbers:
pA(J1850) = -7540.7074534702 arcsecs
pA(J1750) = -12565.0836925488 arcsecs


The rate ought to be (12578”9 – 7544”5 = 5034”4) which is not
probable. Paul is a joker. Paul is a mathemagician. shrug

Correct numbers:
pA(J1850)-pA(J1750) = 5024.3762390786 arcsecs per century
p(J1800) = 5024.3761718400 arcsecs per century

(the two are not exactly equal because the curve isn't linear)

What's your problem with this?


However, Clemence estimate is based on observations
from 1765 to 1940, so 1850 is a more reasonable middle year.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

p(1850) = 5025.4807492700 arcsecs per century

And if you wonder if your way of calculating agrees with this:
pA(J1900) = -5027.6908636587 arcsecs
pA(J1800) = -10053.1716684064 arcsecs
pA(1900)- pA(1800) = 5025.4808047477 arcsecs per century



Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Conclusion:
GR's prediction for the 'anomaly': 42.98 +/- 0.04
is well inside the error bar.

Not quite. All these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if
indeed exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect
the final outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will
realize this if you actually study the differential equations
involved. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee
Wublee thinks he was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug


Conclusion: the whole of physics came to a standstill 100 years ago because
Mercury's orbit was presumed to continuously precess for no apparent reason
and a couple of crazed scifi fanatics made wild guesses down to twenty eight
decimal places as to how much it did so each century.

YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING!

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Jun 11, 3:28 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

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

GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.

To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul,
the precision of the following three quantities must be
called out to the second digit after the decimal. shrug

** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?

** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?

** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”

Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of
Le Verrier’s observation about 8 decades prior. Le Verrier
was not set out to measure the accuracy down to the last second,
but his motivation was to find a sum of anomaly for him to
justify whether if there is another planet further inside the
orbit of Mercury. He did not find it. Thus, most of astronomers,
and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at that time just attributed the
lack of the extra planet to Le Verrier’s own observation accuracy.
shrug

Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier’s observation
with better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be
definitively claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence’s
justification is to claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier’s
observation 8 decades prior. shrug

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the
equinoxes with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

pA = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3
+ .. (up to t^5)

Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.

This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. shrug

Not at all. The J[2]000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
chosen reference point.
[... accuracy good for] 50 years or so.
The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.

According to the paper, it says clearly that:

“The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”

There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? shrug

The motivation for the paper is that the authors felt the established
precession value then was not adequate to carry forward. The polar
ice caps experienced their greatest retreat in the past two decades.
Thus, there is no way that the precession would be linear in several
centuries. Besides, Le Verrier called out for 5025” per century then
with somewhat relatively primitive instrumentations. Koobee Wublee
thinks Paul just happens to find an arithmetic sweet spot and tries to
take the advantage of arguing for his beloved GR hypothesis. Of
course, Paul’s argument has no basis. Even the authors of the paper
specifically specified that the information is good from 2000 and on.
shrug

What supports Koobee Wublee’s interpretation of the author’s
intention? Well, the goal of the paper written in 2003 is to replace
the accepted model of 2000 where the formula says:

** PA = 5028”797 t – 1”111 t^2 – 0.000 t^3

If Paul bothers to work out the retroactive precession value, it is
embarrassingly out of the ball park. Thus, it can only mean that the
value is to be carried forward and not backwards. shrug

Clemence has also failed to justify why Le Verrier’s numbers are such
accurate, and Paul so far has failed to argument for Clemence. So, is
Paul disputing that any orbital anomaly is position dependent?
shrug

Thus, the justification to why Le Verrier’s measurement of 5,600” is
actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not justified. According to
Clemence’s paper, he said:

“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”

Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if indeed
exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect the final
outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will realize this
if you actually study the differential equations involved. Paul
Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks he
was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug

Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
closure. shrug

On 12.06.2013 09:21, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:28 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The equation is valid several centuries in both direction.

According to the paper, it says clearly that:

“The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”

There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? shrug

http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The results are quite consistent at the microarcsecond
level over several centuries.
. . .
The following series with 0.1 uas level of precision matches
the canonical 4-rotation series to sub-microarcsecond accuracy
over 4 centuries


If you look at figs 4-7 it is pretty clear that these four
centuries are from 1800 - 2200.

Bottom line:
The rate of precession of the equinoxes at 1850 is
according to this paper 5025.48 arcsecs per century.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

On Jun 11, 11:28*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 11.06.2013 18:44, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On Jun 11, 6:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the equinoxes
with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

p_A = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3 + .. (up to t^5)

Where t is in Julian centuries since J2000.

This formula looks better since with the melting of the polar ice caps
the precession period ought to get longer. *shrug

This is a phase.

This is only valid after 2000 and after for a few centuries. *shrug

Not at all. The J000 is but a - not entirely arbitrary -
chosen reference point.
As you possibly know, the equatorial coordinate system is used
by astronomers to give the position of stars and other objects.
This is a spherical coordinate system with the coordinates
declination (Dec) and Right ascension (RA).


Let me help you out here and correct a mistake that runs through
empirical science since the vicious strain of empiricism arose with
Newton in the late 17th century.

The framework you are trying to describe requires more than a few
qualifiers such as the predictive element of Ra/Dec is founded on the
24 hour AM/PM cycle within the 365/366 day format hence the mistake
Flamsteed made was assigning significance to stellar circumpolar
motion in terms of the Earth planetary dynamics and specifically daily
rotation -

http://californiamapsociety.org/historic/flamsteed.php

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed to Moore

Whereas the great astronomers used the motions of the planets AGAINST
the stellar background ,the equatorial coordinate system has the
planets move WITH the stellar circumpolar background in a grotesque
rotating celestial sphere diorama.The is the first and last time I
will capitalize words in any thread in all these years so important is
the distinction .When Kepler registered the motion of Mars from a
moving Earth,he is using the background constellations as a marker for
orbital motions and orbital motions alone -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ke...retrograde.jpg

Even to this day empiricists still think it is a geocentric
description and the basis for Newton's heliocentric/geocentric
equivalency by virtue that he uses the rotating celestial sphere of Ra/
Dec to transfer what he imagines are geocentric observations to
heliocentric descriptions without any loss of information -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is
now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

The guys in the early 20th century couldn't make heads nor tails of
Sir Isaac's absolute/relative space and motion backed up by the
equatorial coordinate system with its exceptionally flawed conclusion
of Flamsteed in jumping the gun with the Ra/Dec framework in that is
is great for predicting astronomical events such as eclipses,transits
and the time of the Solstices as a time and date within the 24 hour AM/
PM system and the 365/366 day calendar system but useless for proving
the Earth's motions which in turn affect observations in the celestial
arena.

I guess it is too intellectually tough for mathematicians just like
Leibniz said it would be -

"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make
space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by
devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the
playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning"
Leibniz

I see a lot of people scrambling around with terms they barely
comprehend and that is dismaying insofar as empiricists were
responsible for this problem they also must be part of the solution.

could someone give a precis of teh "argument" per se?

koobydoobydoo is tiresomely opaque
with his equationary, although there is some hope that
Snell's law of refraction will eventually be used --
by the IPCC, not koobydoobydoo!

Bottom line:
The rate of precession of the equinoxes at 1850 is
according to this paper 5025.48 arcsecs per century.

On Jun 12, 2:39 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

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

GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.

To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul,
the precision of the following three quantities must be
called out to the second digit after the decimal. shrug

** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?

** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?

** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”

Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of
Le Verrier’s observation about 8 decades prior. Le Verrier
was not set out to measure the accuracy down to the last second,
but his motivation was to find a sum of anomaly for him to
justify whether if there is another planet further inside the
orbit of Mercury. He did not find it. Thus, most of astronomers,
and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at that time just attributed the
lack of the extra planet to Le Verrier’s own observation accuracy.
shrug

Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier’s observation
with better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be
definitively claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence’s
justification is to claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier’s
observation 8 decades prior. shrug

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the
equinoxes with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

pA = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3
+ .. (up to t^5)

“The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”

There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? shrug

http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The results are quite consistent at the microarcsecond
level over several centuries.
. . .
The following series with 0.1 uas level of precision matches
the canonical 4-rotation series to sub-microarcsecond accuracy
over 4 centuries


If you look at figs 4-7 it is pretty clear that these four
centuries are from 1800 - 2200.

So, someone just drew a straight line from Le Verrier’s number with
today’s number. It does not say anything about the accuracy of Le
Verrier’s calculation. shrug

Bottom line:
The rate of precession of the equinoxes at 1850 is
according to this paper 5025.48 arcsecs per century.

What is important is not the rate of the precession but rather the
phase difference between 1750 and 1850. In the meantime, Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:

“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”

Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if indeed
exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect the final
outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will realize this
if you actually study the differential equations involved. Paul
Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks he
was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug

Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
closure. shrug

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. The reason is most
likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild
metric. shrug

On Jun 12, 2:39 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

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

GR's prediction is well inside the error bars.

To get to (42.45” +/- 1.13”) of accuracy calculated by Paul,
the precision of the following three quantities must be
called out to the second digit after the decimal. shrug

** Le Verrier’s observation = 5,600.00” +/- ?

** Precession of the equinox = 5,028.7” +/- ?

** Tugs from other planets = 531.63” +/- 0.69”

Clemence did no measurement. His result was a recycle of
Le Verrier’s observation about 8 decades prior. Le Verrier
was not set out to measure the accuracy down to the last second,
but his motivation was to find a sum of anomaly for him to
justify whether if there is another planet further inside the
orbit of Mercury. He did not find it. Thus, most of astronomers,
and perhaps Le Verrier himself, at that time just attributed the
lack of the extra planet to Le Verrier’s own observation accuracy.
shrug

Clemence realized without pinning down Le Verrier’s observation
with better accuracy, the confirmation of GR cannot be
definitively claimed. The question to ask is what Clemence’s
justification is to claim such extreme accuracy on Le Verrier’s
observation 8 decades prior. shrug

According to this paper:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The _accumulated_ precession, that is the angle of the
equinoxes with the angle at J2000 as the reference is:

pA = 5028".796195 t + 1".1054348 t^2 + 0".00007964 t^3
+ .. (up to t^5)

“The parameter t, used in the above expressions as well as in those
below, is the elapsed time in Julian centuries sinceJ2000...”

There is no indication that the study would cover the past. So, where
did you get the information that the equation is valid for several
centuries in both directions, and how many centuries? shrug

http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

The results are quite consistent at the microarcsecond
level over several centuries.
. . .
The following series with 0.1 uas level of precision matches
the canonical 4-rotation series to sub-microarcsecond accuracy
over 4 centuries


If you look at figs 4-7 it is pretty clear that these four
centuries are from 1800 - 2200.

So, someone just drew a straight line from Le Verrier’s number with
today’s number. It does not say anything about the accuracy of Le
Verrier’s calculation. shrug

Bottom line:
The rate of precession of the equinoxes at 1850 is
according to this paper 5025.48 arcsecs per century.

What is important is not the rate of the precession but rather the
phase difference between 1750 and 1850. In the meantime, Le Verrier’s
measurement of 5,600” is actually 5,599”74 +/- 0”5 remains not
justified. According to Clemence’s paper, he said:

“The contributions of the planets are directly proportional to their
several masses, which are NOT ALL KNOWN WITH THE DESIRED ACCURACY.
The quantities denoted by m^-1 are the reciprocals of the adopted
masses, the sun’s mass being taken as unity, and the attached probable
errors give rise to the probable errors associated with the
theoretical contributions to the motions. In the case of Mercury each
planetary contribution (except that of the Mercury itself) is the sum
of three parts: the motion of the perihelion in the plane of the
orbit, the contribution arising from the motion of the node, and the
contribution from the motion of the ecliptic...”

Clemence did not understand that the effect on Mercury’s orbit due to
other planets would depend on where the planets were during the course
of that 100 years. Clemence did not have any justification to place
Le Verrier’s numbers within such accuracy. It is almost impossible to
calculate, but it is easier (but still no trivial task) to simulate.
shrug

Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit including GR one if indeed
exists are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect the final
outcome depending on what other parameters are. You will realize this
if you actually study the differential equations involved. Paul
Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks he
was wrong. The only way to address this is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug

Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
closure. shrug

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. The reason is most
likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild
metric. shrug

I shrug the body electric

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. *The reason is most
likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild
metric. *shrug

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Jun 12, 2:39 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug

Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
closure. shrug

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. The reason is most
likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild
metric. shrug

You guessed it Koobee. It's all part of one gigantic conspiracy.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On 6/12/2013 5:30 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Jun 12, 2:39 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

The difference should be the value reflected by the precession of the
equinox. shrug

Of course, Paul can beat the precession of the equinox to death, but
as long as he has not addressed the others, there is still no
closure. shrug

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. The reason is most
likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild
metric. shrug

You guessed it Koobee. It's all part of one gigantic conspiracy.

sure can't argue with the paranoid schizophrenics, can one?