Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?

In your initial post, you subtract Earth's rate from Mercury's rate to
derive a new rate. Are you saying that's wrong, or right?

If you're saying it's wrong, then OK, I agree.

If you're saying it's right, then why are you now calling yourself
brainless?

- Shawn




On May 4, 10:35 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 4, 4:47 pm, shala...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I thought you were subtracting, not adding.

For guys obsessed with adding and subtracting relative speeds,it is
playfully enjoyable to see it unravel with the observed apparent
precession of Mercury,at least to anybody with a brain.

Regardless of what value you give to the precession of Mercury,you
cannot know beforehand what the value for the Earth is.The extremely
funny part of accounting for the precession of Mercury is that you
then have to apply the same procedure for the Earth which then affects
the observed value for Mercury which in turn....

[[discussing perihelion advance of various planets]]
in Ohanian and Ruffini (1994) we find a different table [[different
from Weinberg (1972)]]

GR observed
Mercury 42.98 43.1 +-0.1
Venus 8.65 8.62
Earth 3.85 3.84
Mars 1.36 1.35

There is little point in beating a dead horse,the natives might even
think that you are trying to prove the 20th century science fiction
concepts wrong.I have more regard now for my own intelligence than to
be caught discussing matters with relativists and other riff raff
however there might be an occasional Newtonian among you and they are
the interesting ,if cunning,bunch.

- Shawn

On May 4, 6:04 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 3, 10:48 pm, shala...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 3, 2:23 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 2, 2:48 am, "xhacker" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:E0qZh.109769$Zb2.100512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The advance of perihelion of Mercury is entirely predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.
43
---------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate. (... blah blah blah ...)

I never know when people are joking. But even as funny stuff, your post is
only marginally witty. But I've made bigger blunders without trying to be
funny...so who knows! I write this just in case that you were not trying to
be funny.

Advance of perihelion of Mercury as observed from Earth is due to Earth's
axial precession and the orbital precession of Mercury. The observed value
of orbital precession of Mercury is about 617 arc sec/century. This is not
some ultra accurate measurement. You simply observe the location of Mercury
using a telescope and account for displacement of 5027 arc sec/century due
to earth axial precession. If your observation period is 1 year, you'll
observe about 6 arc seconds for Mercury's orbital precession. If your
observation period is 10 years, you get an orbital precession of about 62
arc sec, and finally if you consult the recorded values in 100 years, the
observed value of orbital precession is about 617 arc sec.

After having observed this non-trivial orbital precession, you set out to
explain it. Using Newtonian physics, the tug of other planets in the solar
system predicts an orbital precession of 53.1 arc sec in 10 years (or 531
arc sec/century) If you account for effects of special relativity, the
estimated precession is 57 arc sec/ 10 years (or 574 arc sec/century). So
there is a missing 4.3 arc sec per 10 years that are not accounted. The
error in 10 years is 4.3/61.7 % (=7%). The error in 100 years is the same
(43/617 % = 7%). The percentage of error is *independent*of observation
time, but dependent on your observational accuracy.

Compare this 7% error to your arbitrary foot & toe computation of 0.000008
%. Quite funny indeed, put not so terribly witty in hiding the obvious
logical flaw.

When I first showed the really funny logic of determining Mercury's
precession and then using it to determine Earth's precession which in
turn has to be subtracted from Mercury's precession to give a corrct
value which means the new value for Mercury's precession has to be
accounted for which in turn.....,never mind,you all appear to live in
a surreal and boring relativistic world.

It has taken 4 years to get the message ,not much of a victory but
there you have it -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4f9f9c949c06483a?hl=en&;

Hi oriel36,

Can you please reference where it is shown that this measurement of
43.1" is from a geocentric perspective?

The Hyperphysics link in your original post specifically points out
that of the total 5599", 5025" is due to the shift in our geocentric
perspective.

This method, independent of General Relativity, also calculates 43.1"
per Earth Century:http://cavekitty.com/archives/Mercury_Perihelion.zip

The method also calculates the precession of binary pulsar PSR 1913+16
as being very close to that predicted by General Relativity. This
makes me inclined to assume that the 43.1" is measured from the
perspective of the entire Solar System's, not Earth's.

- Shawn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I enjoy how you make fools of yourselves on account of the Newtonian
method never mind the exotic science fiction version that emerged in
the 20th century.

The logic is simple,if you observe an anomaly such as a 43 second
descrepancy in the orbital motion of Mercury and then go on to figure
one out for the Earth,by definition,you are obliged to add the value
derived from the Earth to the observed motion of Mercury which in turn
alters the original value and then you are into a Zeno's paradox
situation where you get a new value Mercury and thenm must apply it to
the Earth which in turn alters the value for Mercury.

Much as I like the hilarious scenario you find yourself in,I do not
have the patience to deal with people stuck in the beginning of the
last century with worthless science fiction concepts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?
    ... comparisons,in short,they took the orbital motion of the Earth into ... precession of Mercury,at least to anybody with a brain. ... funny part of accounting for the precession of Mercury is that you ... You simply observe the location of Mercury ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?
    ... Look,have a ball with the precession of Mercury ala Newton or the ... Earth which in turn affects the value for Mercury.It does not matter ... You simply observe the location of Mercury ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?
    ... Look,have a ball with the precession of Mercury ala Newton or the ... Earth which in turn affects the value for Mercury.It does not matter ... You simply observe the location of Mercury ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?
    ... Look,have a ball with the precession of Mercury ala Newton or the ... Earth which in turn affects the value for Mercury.It does not matter ... You simply observe the location of Mercury ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?
    ... Regardless of what value you give to the precession of Mercury,you ... cannot know beforehand what the value for the Earth is.The extremely ... the observed value for Mercury which in turn.... ... You simply observe the location of Mercury ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)