Re: C


"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156893917.656167.121670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > Ok, so use 0.00000008 arc seconds per 88 days which you think
| > you can measure, STRAW MAN, it was you that claimed
| > 43 arc seconds per century.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury
| "Transits of Mercury can happen in May or November. November transits
| occur at intervals of 7, 13, or 33 years; May transits only occur at
| intervals of 13 or 33 years. The last two transits were in 1999 and
| 2003; the next two will occur in 2006 and 2016."
|
| A 7 year interval is 29 orbits of mercury. That is 3 arc-seconds of
| precession anomaly, about 0.27 diameters of the planet (observationally
| 10.98 arc-seconds in diameter), which can be easily measured
| photogrammically:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Merc_transit.jpg
|
| Observations of Mercury can be exquisitely sensitive. It takes mercury
| about 103 seconds to advance in its orbit by its own diameter, so a
| shift in its posiiton of 0.27 diameters will show up as a change in the
| timing of transit 'contact events' of about 27.8 seconds.
|
| Intervals of 13 and 33 years will provide even more precision.
|
| > Yes, indeed I am.
| > 43 arc seconds is the figure you quote and 415 orbits is directly
| > from the 100 years you quote.
|
| Successive transits occur at intervals that are 7, 13, or 33 years
| long, not at an interval of one single year. That is 'chunks' of 29, 54
| or 137 orbits, asssuming the measurements are restricted to
| *successive* transits (they don't necessarily have to be). See
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury#Past_and_future_transits
|
| > Now if you want to measure it for one
| > orbit because you don't need to 'clock' a car for an hour to know
| > is speed in kilometers per hour, then its going to be apples minus
| > oranges, straw man.
|
| Your straw man still can't carry his own weight. *I* am not trying to
| measure precession in one orbit.
|

| > Go ahead, shithead, you can can measure
| > km/hour in just one second, so measure 0.000 000 08 arc seconds
| > per orbit.
|
| Your arithmetic has a problem. Dividing 43 arc-seconds per century by
| the number of orbits in one century (415.190111) gives 0.104
| arc-seconds per orbit - about 1% of Mercury's diameter. If you look
| around your desk carefully you may find that decimal point you dropped.

Ok...
If I drive from home to London at 80 mph it takes me an hour
to travel 30 miles. Why is that?

|
| > "You don't need to 'clock' a car for an hour to know is speed in
kilometers
| > per hour."
| > That is significant figure abuse, an error expected from strawmen
| > with calculators and no experience.
|
| Apparently your teachers never enlightened you about 'significant
| figures.'

415 orbits is 60*60*360*415 = 537840000 arc seconds.
The anomaly is 43 arc seconds, 1 part in 12,507,907 for an
elliptical orbit which is not in the same plane as the other planets.
You were whining about apples and oranges, I believe.
|
| Sue the school district.
|
| > I'll repeat with more emphasis and spell it out for you:
| > There is no mention of Jupiter or any other planet in Einstein's
| > calculation, therefore his calculation CANNOT be correct,
| > you arrogant, stupid, moronic imbecile and shithead!
|
| Jupiter and the other planets were implicitly included.
|
| The *anomalous* advance of the perihelion is 43 arc-seconds per
| century.
| That is the difference between the *observed* (empirical)
| perihelion advance of 5600 arc-seconds per century and and the *sum* of
| all the secular perturbations due to the planets outside of Mercury's
| orbit - 5557 arc-seconds per century calculated with Newtonian
| mechanics.
|
| The gravitational effect of 7 planets figure into that 5557 number.
| Only Pluto is too far and too small to make a significant contribution.
| The relative contributions of each are as follows
|
| planet arc-sec/century
| ______ ____________
| Jupiter 2257.9
| Venus 2155.5
| Earth 1000.9
| Saturn 109.8
| Mars 30.3
| Uranus 2.1
| Neptune 0.6
|


Jupiter makes 8 orbits of its own in a century, had you forgotten that?

How come it takes me an hour to drive 30 miles to London when I
travel at 80 mph? After all, you don't need to 'clock' a car for an hour
to know its speed in kilometers per hour, do you?

Your straw man still can't carry his own weight. You *should* be trying to
measure precession (of Mercury) in one orbit (of Jupiter).
Venus makes 160 orbits of its own in a century, had you forgotten that?
Earth makes 100 orbits of its own in a century, had you forgotten that?
Saturn makes 3 orbits of its own in a century, had you forgotten that?



| Before you ask, the secular gravitational perturbations vary directly
| with mass and inversely with the *cube* of distance, much like 'tide
| raising force' - a result of differential gravitation.

I didn't ask, but since you mention it, Mercury is in an elliptical orbit,
and aphelion is closest to Jupiter every 11.86 years, furthest
from Jupiter 6 years later. Secular gravitational perturbations vary
inversely with the *cube* of distance. After all, you don't need to
'clock' a car for an hour to know its speed in kilometers per hour,
do you?
Your straw man still can't carry his own weight.
You *should* be trying to measure precession (of Mercury) in one
orbit (of Jupiter) or you will have errors.


|
| Interestingly, Leverrier
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverrier
| who predicted the discovery of Neptune through study of the orbital
| anomalies of Uranus, postulated that the anomalous precession was a
| result of an as-yet-undiscovered planet *inside* the orbit of Mercury
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_%28planet%29
| using the same techniques.

Hey moron! Nobody is denying the precession, what is in question
is why the idiot Einstein left out Jupiter in his calculations.


|
| > THEN WHY DOESN'T THE SHITHEAD EINSTEIN INCLUDE
| > IT IN HIS CALCULATION
|
| He did. It's in the 5557 arc-second term which gets subtracted from
| the observed datum of 5600 arc-seconds.

No he did not.
"On November 18th 1915 Albert Einstein presented a paper entitled
"Explanation of the Motion of Mercury's Perihelion by the Theory of General
Relativity" as a session report of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in
Berlin containing two quantitative evidences for of the correctness of
General Theory of Relativity:


the gravitational inflexion of light of 1.7 arc seconds per sun radia
due to the gravitational field of the sun, correcting the formerly published
0.83 arc seconds (EINSTEIN, 1911) and


the secular perihelic motion of 43 arc seconds of the planet Mercury,
without need to base this phenomenon on any specific hypothesis

EINSTEIN does not mention GM in his paper. Instead he introduces a new
constant named Alpha which has the value of 2GM/c^2"

c = 0/0.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF

| Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you could benefit from a thorough review
| of orbital mechanics.

Perhaps you could benefit from a lobotomy.


|
| > I don't need advice from a fuckwit. All my profanity does is piss off
| > shitheads like you,

Oh, I see you snipped. Likewise, I'm sure.
Androcles



.

Quantcast