|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
In sci.astro message
ooglegroups.com, Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:49:58, posted: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihel..._Mercury#Perih elion_precession_of_Mercury for example. The "Einstein effect" is 43"/century; the figures for other effects are : solar oblateness 0.025", other planets 530", co-ordinate system 500", approximately. Wikipedia has articles on it in French, Spanish, Portuguese, but not Danish - presumably because all Danes read English perfectly. The Iberians have little; but one should read http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tests_exp%C3%A9rimentaux_de_la_relativit%C3%A9_g%C 3%A9n%C3%A9rale which is quite independent of that cited above. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On 29 Dec., 16:35, Uncle Al wrote:
wrote: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Robert Dicke. *Einstein was correct. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ Uncle Al, If you are right, please give references to Dicke’s calculations. As far as I know Robert Henry Dicke (1916-1997) has not made calculations about the perihelion motion of Mercury, based on the general theory of relativity, where he had taken into account the gravitational actions from all the planets and other matter and energy in the solar system. BRANS-DICKE SCALAR-TENSOR THEORY Robert Dicke has together with Carl Henry Brans in 1961 developed the Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory of gravitation in which the gravitational ‘constant’ is a variable scalar-function. Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message nvalid... In sci.astro message ooglegroups.com, Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:49:58, posted: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihel..._Mercury#Perih elion_precession_of_Mercury for example. Oh, you found something about it in wackypedia. How clever of you. Wish I'd thought of that. ****ing idiot! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 4:29*pm, wrote:
On 29 Dec., 16:35, Uncle Al wrote: wrote: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? Have any done these calculations? Robert Dicke. *Einstein was correct. -- Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ Uncle Al, If you are right, please give references to Dicke’s calculations. As far as I know Robert Henry Dicke (1916-1997) has not made calculations about the perihelion motion of Mercury, based on the general theory of relativity, where he had taken into account the gravitational actions from all the planets and other matter and energy in the solar system. BRANS-DICKE SCALAR-TENSOR THEORY Robert Dicke has together with Carl Henry Brans in 1961 developed the Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory of gravitation in which the gravitational ‘constant’ is a variable scalar-function. Best regards Louis Nielsen Denmark He did a little more than that. You could do well to look up more of his publication list. While not complete, this link contains a few items of interest to this discussion: http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/rdicke.html |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 12:30 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 28, 10:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. Tell me if that is too much to ask. Is reading the literature too much to ask? What literature? The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. Other mathematical methods do not yield the same result. shrug No, it was not "based on Paul Gerber's work". Gerber pioneered that particular way of deriving differential equations. Try reading the literature for a change. shrug All Gerber did was guess the form of a velocity-dependent potential that would give the same effects. Gerber had his reasons. Try reading the literature. Tell me if that is too much to ask. The actual analysis was based on the works of Le Verrier. Le Verrier was an observer equivalent to an experimenter just like Professor Roberts. Le Verrier did not do any detailed analyses in the same level as Gerber. Try to read the literature. shrug Do you have a literature reference for the assertion that other methods "do not yield the same result", or is this more of your typical nonsense that has no scholarly backing? Of course. How much do you want to pay for that? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 28, 11:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:49 pm, wrote: THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also assumed as two points. In an actual observation of Mercury’s orbital advance, there are 5,600” (in arc-seconds) per century of observed perihelion advance. Among these, 5,025” are due to the 22,000-year precession of earth’s orbital around the second. 532” were accounted for through inclusion of other planets. That leaves (5,600” – 5,025” – 532” = 43”) unaccounted for. I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. Tell me if that is too much to ask. What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate? The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. Other mathematical methods do not yield the same result. shrug Have any done these calculations? There are at least 12 such calculations to predict Mercury’s orbital advance in which the spacetime with the Schwarzschild metric is just one of them according to Gerber’s method. shrug Since the Schwarzschild metric is merely one of the infinite number of solutions to the Einstein field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat, other solutions do not predict the same 43”. Professor Roberts, the experimental physicist, has emphasized so much to demand an error bar to each observation, and yet he remains silent on Le Verrier’s observation of these 5,600”. Not to mention these 5,025” and 532”. I would have to conclude it is a case of his own personal bias towards the faith in the nonsense called the general theory of relativity. shrug |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 7:57*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 29, 12:30 am, Eric Gisse wrote: On Dec 28, 10:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. *I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. *Tell me if that is too much to ask. Is reading the literature too much to ask? What literature? Is there a reason you are unable to perform a basic literature search? The 43” was calculated based on Paul Gerber’s work. *Other mathematical methods do not yield the same result. *shrug No, it was not "based on Paul Gerber's work". Gerber pioneered that particular way of deriving differential equations. *Try reading the literature for a change. *shrug Since the actual analysis is based on classical perturbation theory and not Gerber's work, I'm going to go with "you are full of ****". http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm Go read. [snip rest] |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 7:58*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...] There are at least 12 such calculations to predict Mercury’s orbital advance in which the spacetime with the Schwarzschild metric is just one of them according to Gerber’s method. *shrug Since the Schwarzschild metric is merely one of the infinite number of solutions to the Einstein field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat, other solutions do not predict the same 43”. Name one that is not related to Schwarzschild through a coordinate transformation. Remember that you've failed this abundantly simple challenge every time previous, so I doubt this time will be different. [snip] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 9:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:58 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: Since the Schwarzschild metric is merely one of the infinite number of solutions to the Einstein field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat, other solutions do not predict the same 43”. Name one that is not related to Schwarzschild through a coordinate transformation. Short memory? You have been told that the following and the Schwarzschild metric are ones among an infinite solutions to the Einstein field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) – (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2 dO^2 Where ** K, T = Constants ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2 Again, notice this solution does not manifest black holes. shrug With inability to learn, that explains why you remain a multi-year super-senior today? Apparently, that free money the state of Alaska provides must go a long way for you. [snip perennial whining crap as usual] |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
On Dec 29, 9:32 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Dec 28, 10:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: I suspect this 5,600” per century of perihelion advance is not very accurate in the first place. I want to see error bars associated with this experiment. Tell me if that is too much to ask. Is reading the literature too much to ask? What literature? Is there a reason you are unable to perform a basic literature search? Is there a reason why you cannot even comprehend the literature you have dug up with? You remind me of Bill Hubba. That explains why you remain a multi-year super-senior today. shrug Gerber pioneered that particular way of deriving differential equations. Try reading the literature for a change. shrug Since the actual analysis is based on classical perturbation theory and not Gerber's work, I'm going to go with "you are full of ****". http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm Equations 6 to 7 are what Gerber did. Learn to understand the literature. shrug [snip the rest of whining crap] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Perihelion Advance of Mercury. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 25 | November 18th 08 12:12 PM |
The Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury | Double-A[_2_] | Misc | 8 | June 18th 08 04:00 PM |
Perihelion of Mercury question | Sorcerer | Astronomy Misc | 13 | January 6th 07 10:24 PM |
Perihelion of Mercury question | Sorcerer | Astronomy Misc | 114 | January 2nd 07 12:36 AM |
Perihelion of Mercury with classical mechanics ? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 34 | April 28th 05 06:57 PM |