Re: Orbital precession w/o GR


"Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:94C3j.11677$EU1.7185@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"JMA" <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5r86arF12bqhqU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
: news:_in3j.10519$EU1.7704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >
: > "JMA" <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > news:5r6adjF1335cpU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > :
: > : "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
: > : news:SJc3j.39532$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.
:
: I don't have a telescope, nor skills with telescopes.

Then you should not call into question the skills of those that do.

I'm not calling, I'm asking only.


: But, the orbit is always the same exact ellipse.

Nope, it precesses. Spirograph is a good toy, quite cheap.
Invest in one. This one is free:
http://wordsmith.org/~anu/java/spirograph.html

That motion is not precession.
Precession is due to gyroscopic moment.
Gyroscopic moment is something caused by inertia that
makes spinning bodies to point always to the same distant
fixed star, and doesn't give under it if any external torque
wants to change that spinning vector direction.
In order to keep the main angular momentum conserved,
when external torque is applied a new motion occurs to
balance that torque.


: The plane of that ellipse rotates around the line that
: cross the foci (where the Sun is placed) and is orthogonal
: to the line defined by the perihelion and aphelion.
: That is, rotation of the orbit plane around the line defined
: by the apogee, foci and perigee.

That is an ideal, in the real universe other bodies exist. BTW, the
words you want are aphelion and perihelion, Mercury does not orbit
the Earth.

I've done a quick search and got that wrong.
So, what's the name for the points a 90 degrees from the aphelion
and perihelion ? If they have a name.

: > : 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.
:
: I see the picture and the way I see it (there is no other
: way if see it) I see a variable torque.
: Actually I see a very variable torque.
:
So orbits precess variably due to a variable torque. <shrug>

If so, it also nutates.
The nutation is smaller, but nutates to provide potential
energy for the kinetic energy change.


: The point is:
: Constant precession requires constant torque.

The point is the precession isn't constant and there is no reason
to assume it is. You are seeking ideals again.

I'm trying to know something more. That's all.


.