Re: Orbital precession w/o GR


"JMA" <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5r6adjF1335cpU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
: news:SJc3j.39532$JA1.33367@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >
: > "JMA" <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > news:5r4hdeF129c00U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > :
: > : "dr_strangelove" <daveb@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
: > :
news:6afb0ec3-dcec-4ddc-b3be-091d70e953e1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : >I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not
require
: > : > GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
: > : > can be viewed at:
: > : > http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf
: > : >
: > : > I await your personal attacks and name calling.
: > : >
: > : > Thank you very much.
: > :
: > : The mercury's perihelion advance is 5599 arc second,
: > : or two degrees per century.
: > : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
: > :
: > : The value you need to find is 5599, not 43.
: >
: > Mercury's perihelion advance was
: > 0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between
: > June 2004 and Sept 2004 as measured by me, which is
: > 134.88924824245825366867083570342 arc seconds per
: > century. That's the value you need to find. Go measure it and
: > see. Get Einstein to hold your telescope steady for you, because
: > Einstein didn't have one, you can't use his (if you can even find
: > Mercury, not many have ever seen it).
: >
: > David has done exactly what Einstein did, contrived a result
: > he wanted in the hope of gaining recognition as a bullshitter.
:
: You claim you have measured the perihelion advance.

Sure, it's fairly easy. Astronomers have been doing such work
for hundreds of years.


: How did you measure it? with a telescope?

Sighted it with a telescope, sure. What are you asking? How to read
angles of right ascension and declination?

: Do you know what the trajectory should be, if there is
: no precession ?

What's this "if"? The orbit should be an ellipse if there are
no other planets, but there are.

: You need to observe during minimum two orbites and then
: measure the perihelion advance.
:
: Actually I cannot see how precession could occur without
: a torque orthogonal to the plane of precession.

There's Jupiter, Venus, Earth ... Mars and the outer planets to
a lesser extent ... plenty of "torque". It's different for every orbit.

: So far, here on earth, without torque nobody could make
: anything undergo precession.
:
: What is really a mystery is how people talk about
: precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
: what precession is, and what causes the torque that
: causes precession.

Don't be silly, of course I know what it is and the cause!
Take a look at this:
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html
Example 5 precesses 90 degrees per orbit, that's enough,
isn't it?

: Most of the people don't even know
: how torque should be applied (where the vector points)
: to achieve precession of a rotating system.
:
: Many people around here believe on precession without
: torque (that is, precession by means of magic).

Yeah, that's Einstein's crap. Most people have their heads
up their arse and go for Einstein's magic, but as you say, they
have no idea. They just want to sound knowledgeable, that's all.


.