The Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

From the book "The Riddle of Gravity" by Einstein's colleague at
Princeton, Peter G. Bergmann:

"The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was considered a settled
matter in 1915 when Einstein derived from hs thoery ... "

"The excellence of this zgreement has been called into question by
Dicke" (Robert H. Dicke of Princeton).

"According to Dicke, the scaler-tensor theory leads to a slightly
different rate of perihelion advance than Einstein's original theory,
the difference amounting to about one tenth of Einstein's value."

WHOOPS!

The book goes on to say that possible oblateness of the Sun might be
responsible for part of Mercury's perihelion advance. Studies have
been done, but with no conclusiive results.

This just goes to show that nothing is nailed down, as the textbook
bangers would say.

I still like to pin my hopes on the exixtence of Vulcan as a partial
explanation. There is no one better poised to discover Vulcan than
David Tholen in his current survey of objects inside of Mercury's
orbit. He might be the first in 100 years to view Vulcan as it comes
out of the glare of the Sun! And that will prove it is not an
invisible planet as the astrologers claim. (Though it would be
interesting if they were right and it turns out to be a dark matter
planet!)

Live long and prosper, Dave!

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message...
...

From the book "The Riddle of Gravity" by Einstein's colleague at
Princeton, Peter G. Bergmann:

"The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was considered a settled
matter in 1915 when Einstein derived from hs thoery ... "

"The excellence of this zgreement has been called into question by
Dicke" (Robert H. Dicke of Princeton).

"According to Dicke, the scaler-tensor theory leads to a slightly
different rate of perihelion advance than Einstein's original theory,
the difference amounting to about one tenth of Einstein's value."

WHOOPS!

The book goes on to say that possible oblateness of the Sun might be
responsible for part of Mercury's perihelion advance. Studies have
been done, but with no conclusiive results.

This just goes to show that nothing is nailed down, as the textbook
bangers would say.

I still like to pin my hopes on the exixtence of Vulcan as a partial
explanation. There is no one better poised to discover Vulcan than
David Tholen in his current survey of objects inside of Mercury's
orbit. He might be the first in 100 years to view Vulcan as it comes
out of the glare of the Sun! And that will prove it is not an
invisible planet as the astrologers claim. (Though it would be
interesting if they were right and it turns out to be a dark matter
planet!)

Live long and prosper, Dave!

Double-A

This is an example of experimenters experiencing a larger
window of tolerance than hoped for, and yet still accepting
the 10% as "close enough" to substantiate the theory. I
myself think this is acceptable. Einstein did not hit a home
run in several parameters of several experiments. But
where Newton got to second base, Einstein effectively made
it to third!

And Dicke himself, while striving to disprove Einstein's work,
gave experimental relativity sufficient credibility so as to do
the reverse. And modern experiments have decreased those
larger windows of tolerance giving more and more credence
to GR.

As for Vulcan? DA, you just might be pinning your hopes to
a pipe dream. Don't you think that the position of Vulcan
based on its possible influence upon Mercury has been being
followed precisely ever since the mid 50's when Dicke started
raising hell? And alas, no physical planet has yet to show up
in that mythical planetary orbit within the orbit of Mercury.
Don't you think it would have been found many years ago if
it does indeed exist?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

On May 27, 11:38*pm, "Painius" wrote:

This is an example of experimenters experiencing a larger
window of tolerance than hoped for, and yet still accepting
the 10% as "close enough" to substantiate the theory. *
.....And modern experiments have decreased those
larger windows of tolerance giving more and more credence
to GR.

But still a niggling little discrepancy remains. It's been mentioned
before that since Mercury resides 'waay deep in the Sun's gravity
well, its situation is the inverse of the Pioneer anomaly from 'waay
out at the fringes of the Sun's gravity well. Just as researchers are
failing to factor in the density gradient (or PDT gradient) of space
in the Pioneer anomaly, the same situation exists with Mercury, but in
reverse.

Vulcan, like Wormwood, doesn't exist, Paine and DA.

No planet can hide BEHIND the Sun. It will be seen at times, yet has
never been seen.

Tholen is wasting his time. Astronomers who waste time in that way
are declared NUTJOBS!

Astrologers LOVE invisible planets! It's there, you just can't see
it! Nothing hides from IR detectors.

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 28 May 2008 06:38:59 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Double-A" wrote in message...
...

From the book "The Riddle of Gravity" by Einstein's colleague at
Princeton, Peter G. Bergmann:

"The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was considered a settled
matter in 1915 when Einstein derived from hs thoery ... "

"The excellence of this zgreement has been called into question by
Dicke" (Robert H. Dicke of Princeton).

"According to Dicke, the scaler-tensor theory leads to a slightly
different rate of perihelion advance than Einstein's original theory,
the difference amounting to about one tenth of Einstein's value."

WHOOPS!

The book goes on to say that possible oblateness of the Sun might be
responsible for part of Mercury's perihelion advance. Studies have
been done, but with no conclusiive results.

This just goes to show that nothing is nailed down, as the textbook
bangers would say.

I still like to pin my hopes on the exixtence of Vulcan as a partial
explanation. There is no one better poised to discover Vulcan than
David Tholen in his current survey of objects inside of Mercury's
orbit. He might be the first in 100 years to view Vulcan as it comes
out of the glare of the Sun! And that will prove it is not an
invisible planet as the astrologers claim. (Though it would be
interesting if they were right and it turns out to be a dark matter
planet!)

Live long and prosper, Dave!

Double-A

This is an example of experimenters experiencing a larger
window of tolerance than hoped for, and yet still accepting
the 10% as "close enough" to substantiate the theory. I
myself think this is acceptable. Einstein did not hit a home
run in several parameters of several experiments. But
where Newton got to second base, Einstein effectively made
it to third!

And Dicke himself, while striving to disprove Einstein's work,
gave experimental relativity sufficient credibility so as to do
the reverse. And modern experiments have decreased those
larger windows of tolerance giving more and more credence
to GR.

As for Vulcan? DA, you just might be pinning your hopes to
a pipe dream. Don't you think that the position of Vulcan
based on its possible influence upon Mercury has been being
followed precisely ever since the mid 50's when Dicke started
raising hell? And alas, no physical planet has yet to show up
in that mythical planetary orbit within the orbit of Mercury.
Don't you think it would have been found many years ago if
it does indeed exist?

"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 06:38:59 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message...
...

From the book "The Riddle of Gravity" by Einstein's colleague at
Princeton, Peter G. Bergmann:

"The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was considered a settled
matter in 1915 when Einstein derived from hs thoery ... "

"The excellence of this zgreement has been called into question by
Dicke" (Robert H. Dicke of Princeton).

"According to Dicke, the scaler-tensor theory leads to a slightly
different rate of perihelion advance than Einstein's original theory,
the difference amounting to about one tenth of Einstein's value."

WHOOPS!

The book goes on to say that possible oblateness of the Sun might be
responsible for part of Mercury's perihelion advance. Studies have
been done, but with no conclusiive results.

This just goes to show that nothing is nailed down, as the textbook
bangers would say.

I still like to pin my hopes on the exixtence of Vulcan as a partial
explanation. There is no one better poised to discover Vulcan than
David Tholen in his current survey of objects inside of Mercury's
orbit. He might be the first in 100 years to view Vulcan as it comes
out of the glare of the Sun! And that will prove it is not an
invisible planet as the astrologers claim. (Though it would be
interesting if they were right and it turns out to be a dark matter
planet!)

Live long and prosper, Dave!

Double-A

This is an example of experimenters experiencing a larger
window of tolerance than hoped for, and yet still accepting
the 10% as "close enough" to substantiate the theory. I
myself think this is acceptable. Einstein did not hit a home
run in several parameters of several experiments. But
where Newton got to second base, Einstein effectively made
it to third!

And Dicke himself, while striving to disprove Einstein's work,
gave experimental relativity sufficient credibility so as to do
the reverse. And modern experiments have decreased those
larger windows of tolerance giving more and more credence
to GR.

As for Vulcan? DA, you just might be pinning your hopes to
a pipe dream. Don't you think that the position of Vulcan
based on its possible influence upon Mercury has been being
followed precisely ever since the mid 50's when Dicke started
raising hell? And alas, no physical planet has yet to show up
in that mythical planetary orbit within the orbit of Mercury.
Don't you think it would have been found many years ago if
it does indeed exist?

Vulcan, like Wormwood, doesn't exist, Paine and DA.

No planet can hide BEHIND the Sun. It will be seen at times, yet has
never been seen.

Tholen is wasting his time. Astronomers who waste time in that way
are declared NUTJOBS!

Astrologers LOVE invisible planets! It's there, you just can't see
it! Nothing hides from IR detectors.

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy

That's what i said, Saul, Vulcan can't exist or it would
have been discovered by now. As for no planet hiding
behind the Sun, Venus, Mercury, heck, several planets
sometimes hide behind the Sun.

You seem to be thinking of, not Vulcan, which was
supposed to be going around the Sun in its own orbit
just like the rest of the planets, but only nearer to the
Sun than Mercury, instead you appear to be thinking
a modern version of the "Counter Earth", also called
"Antichthon". The modern version would be a planet
that lies in the exact same orbit as Earth, but on the
opposite side of the Sun. Planet Krypton of Superman
fame was also orbiting on the other side of the Sun in
Earth's precise orbit before it was destroyed.

The thing that does it for me is knowing just how exact
and precise the measurements must be when planning
an excursion to the Moon or Mars. The Phoenix, for
example, would have missed Mars by a country light-
hour if there were a planet Vulcan, simply because the
scientists who plotted Phoenix's path from Earth to
Mars did not allow for the gravitational effects of a
planet Vulcan!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

On Jun 9, 10:53*am, "Painius" wrote:

Planet Krypton of Superman
fame was also orbiting on the other side of the Sun in
Earth's precise orbit before it was destroyed.

You sure about that, Paine? As an avid comic book reader in days of
yore, i vaguely remember something about the "red sun of Krypton". The
story line always seemed to imply it was 'waaay far distant from our
solar system.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 9, 10:53 am, "Painius" wrote:

Planet Krypton of Superman
fame was also orbiting on the other side of the Sun in
Earth's precise orbit before it was destroyed.

You sure about that, Paine? As an avid comic book reader in days of
yore, i vaguely remember something about the "red sun of Krypton". The
story line always seemed to imply it was 'waaay far distant from our
solar system.

Yes, the red sun came a little later. IIRC, it was the
very first time Kal-El's origins were exposed, either
the first or second episode, i think.

oops, here it is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter...sion_.26_radio

It was the first episode of the radio show, "The
Adventures of Superman", that debuted February 12,
1940. I think the comic mag was only about a half a
year old at the time, and the initial comic strip had
been started about a year before that.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

Even anti-Earth can't hide behind the Sun all the time, Paine!

It doesn't exist.

Saul Levy


On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:53:18 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
.. .

As for Vulcan? DA, you just might be pinning your hopes to
a pipe dream. Don't you think that the position of Vulcan
based on its possible influence upon Mercury has been being
followed precisely ever since the mid 50's when Dicke started
raising hell? And alas, no physical planet has yet to show up
in that mythical planetary orbit within the orbit of Mercury.
Don't you think it would have been found many years ago if
it does indeed exist?

Vulcan, like Wormwood, doesn't exist, Paine and DA.

No planet can hide BEHIND the Sun. It will be seen at times, yet has
never been seen.

Tholen is wasting his time. Astronomers who waste time in that way
are declared NUTJOBS!

Astrologers LOVE invisible planets! It's there, you just can't see
it! Nothing hides from IR detectors.

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy

That's what i said, Saul, Vulcan can't exist or it would
have been discovered by now. As for no planet hiding
behind the Sun, Venus, Mercury, heck, several planets
sometimes hide behind the Sun.

You seem to be thinking of, not Vulcan, which was
supposed to be going around the Sun in its own orbit
just like the rest of the planets, but only nearer to the
Sun than Mercury, instead you appear to be thinking
a modern version of the "Counter Earth", also called
"Antichthon". The modern version would be a planet
that lies in the exact same orbit as Earth, but on the
opposite side of the Sun. Planet Krypton of Superman
fame was also orbiting on the other side of the Sun in
Earth's precise orbit before it was destroyed.

The thing that does it for me is knowing just how exact
and precise the measurements must be when planning
an excursion to the Moon or Mars. The Phoenix, for
example, would have missed Mars by a country light-
hour if there were a planet Vulcan, simply because the
scientists who plotted Phoenix's path from Earth to
Mars did not allow for the gravitational effects of a
planet Vulcan!