Azimuthally symmetric theory of gravitation

Azimuthally symmetric theory of gravitation - I. On the perihelion
precession of planetary orbits
Nyambuya, G. G.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 403, Number
3, April 2010 , pp.

Preprint
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2966

Start extract

Abstract: From a purely none-general relativistic standpoint, we solve
the empty space Poisson equation (nabla^2 Phi=0) for an azimuthally
symmetric setting, i.e., for a spinning gravitational system like the
Sun. We seek the general solution of the form Phi=Phi(r, theta). This
general solution is constrained such that in the zeroth order
approximation it reduces to Newton's well known inverse square law of
gravitation. For this general solution, it is seen that it has
implications on the orbits of test bodies in the gravitational field
of this spinning body. We show that to second order approximation,
this azimuthally symmetric gravitational field is capable of
explaining at least two things

(1) the observed perihelion shift of solar planets

(2) that the mean Earth-Sun distance must be increasing
-- this resonates with the observations of two independent groups of
astronomers (Krasinsky & Brumberg 2004; Standish 2005) who have
measured that the mean Earth-Sun distance must be increasing at a rate
of about 7.0 +/- 0.2 m/century (Standish 2005) to 15.0 +/- 0.3 m/cy
(Krasinsky & Brumberg 2004). In-principle, we are able to explain this
result as a consequence of loss of orbital angular momentum -- this
loss of orbital angular momentum is a direct prediction of the theory.

Further, we show that the theory is able to explain at a satisfactory
level the observed secular increase Earth Year (1.70 +/- 0.05 ms/yr;
Miura et al. 2009). Furthermore, we show that the theory makes a
significant and testable prediction to the effect that the period of
the solar spin must be decreasing at a rate of at least 8.00 +/- 2.00
s/cy.

End extract

Surfer wrote:

Azimuthally symmetric theory of gravitation - I. On the perihelion
precession of planetary orbits
Nyambuya, G. G.

[...]

I remember this ****heap in MNRAS. I still don't get why it was published.

The solution of the LAPLACIAN (not the Poisson) equation in empty space is
something anyone who passed a junior level physics course is expected to be
able to do.

The decomposition of the angular part into their harmonics is also equally
standard.

Reading further, he makes a fundamental error regarding basic differential
equation theory by opining that there should be "two independent solutions
for every l".

I do like how he writes the gravitational field in terms of its' multipole
moments as if it were a feat of anything other than passing some undergrad
courses.

He does not understand that the LAPLACIAN does not contain time derivatives,
thus making his claim that the multipole moment decomposition 'takes into
account' spin of an object pretty stupid.

This paper is just as idiotic as when I first saw it in MNRAS.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:41:03 -0700, eric gisse
wrote:


He does not understand that the LAPLACIAN does not contain time derivatives,
thus making his claim that the multipole moment decomposition 'takes into
account' spin of an object pretty stupid.

I think he is hypothesizing that spin might cause unknown effects that
could break spherical symmetry, but with it being impractical to model
unknown effects, he only models the hypothesized loss of spherical
symmetry.

I think that is valid, however since there are multiple reasons to
believe that relativistic effects are real and since such effects can
adequately account for precession of planetary orbits, I don't see
much chance of his hypothesis replacing relativistic effects as the
cause of precession.

Surfer wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:41:03 -0700, eric gisse
wrote:


He does not understand that the LAPLACIAN does not contain time
derivatives, thus making his claim that the multipole moment decomposition
'takes into account' spin of an object pretty stupid.

I think he is hypothesizing that spin might cause unknown effects that
could break spherical symmetry, but with it being impractical to model
unknown effects, he only models the hypothesized loss of spherical
symmetry.


He doesn't know what the hell he is doing. That much is obvious.

I think that is valid, however since there are multiple reasons to
believe that relativistic effects are real and since such effects can
adequately account for precession of planetary orbits, I don't see
much chance of his hypothesis replacing relativistic effects as the
cause of precession.

Except he's not doing relativity, or anything like it.

All he's doing is taking the highly standard multipole expansion of Earth's
gravitational field while assuming rotational symmetry, and making the
identification that it must reduce to the correct 1/r and 1/r^2 potentials
that relativity predicts. He does that by putting in arbitrary constants,
which is not really all that impressive.

It is well known that a perturbation to the regular Newtonian force of the
form k/r^3 is able to reproduce the perihelion advance of Mercury. This is
in Goldstein, for ****s sake. There's nothing new or interesting here.