Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:57:30 +0000 Subject: Re: Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr century,. Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <52e47bd51177fb5ca4e51c4c255be1a6@www.novabbs.com> <26ec5dc08548f7ca167c178333b2009d@www.novabbs.com> <9ee53574f9a20a5a9d9ed159d5c474b3@www.novabbs.com> <02a3ec2d6e0227716a14f854e64b8a27@www.novabbs.com> <83224561f48101ccdde65215817f0508@www.novabbs.com> <6c4e2acbcecd3dcc0f34bd1be69fea3e@www.novabbs.com> <2YqdnWcO05_prb36nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:57:36 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2YqdnWcO05_prb36nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 157 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-T0Dy1e218bU9DWvbAOppvOx23bKM5X1dxa6go9JkyMw/UwOus0Ug9RkRVNocHBFS5DuXBNsrAPDr84i!sZmSOJxHGvn3sqKuGTgETwylYBHon7eTJTyBubo9A3k+Kim5i4238g9MNKgwbS05hx2bf+Y9Ug== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 8374 On 10/28/2024 05:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/28/2024 03:55 PM, rhertz wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:11:48 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> >>> Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous justification." >>> This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian. >>> >>> That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the >>> "t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science. >> >> >> >> One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was >> when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was >> close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century. >> >> This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries, >> until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years >> ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar >> system's influences. >> >> The equation for Mercury's precession is, APPROXIMATELY: >> >> 5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy >> >> This fundamental aspect of observational astronomy was, first, noticed >> by Le Verrier (1842 - 1857), who WONDERED about the precession of >> Mercury IF IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SUN'S CENTER OF REFERENCE. >> >> Le Verrier invested more than 15 years in developing methods to >> calculate the influence of each of the KNOWN PLANETS on Mercury's >> perihelion shift. >> >> As the base equations were non-linear, and involved elliptic integrals, >> he decomposed them using series up to the 7th. power. He worked in >> solitude, secluded in a house in the countryside. His efforts were >> recognized by the French National Academy, which honored him soon after >> his death. >> >> He was THE FIRST to try this approach (Sun center as a reference), which >> was followed BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1857. >> >> >> The 5,025"/cy precession of Earth correspond to a cycle of 25,791 years >> for a full revolution of 360 degrees (see attached figure). >> >> Of the 575"/cy, Le Verrier could justify (theoretically) only 526.7"/cy, >> being the remaining 48.3"/cy a mystery for him, and causing a storm of >> theories to justify it (planet Vulcan, stellar dust, etc.). >> >> I want TO REMARK that, until recently, ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND >> MEASUREMENTS involved Earth's precession. >> >> >> Unfortunately, the 5,025"/cy have been taken as AN ABSOLUTE TRUE, but >> the fact is that observational astronomy has measured Mercury's >> precession AS SEEN FROM EARTH, being ESTIMATED in 5,600"/cy. >> >> >> The above HAS TO BE AN EYE OPENER for anybody, because the infamous >> 575"/cy value IS A PRODUCT OF A CALCULATION by astronomers, NOT A REAL >> MEASUREMENT. With the technology available until recently, it was >> impossible from astronomers being at Earth to measure such tiny >> difference of 5.75"/year (or 575"/cy). >> >> The PLOT THICKENS when you think that Newcomb (1898) or Clemence (1947) >> kept working with A DIFFERENCE, assuming that they knew 100% the exact >> value of Earth's precession. >> >> Anyone analyzing this subject has to be aware of two facts: >> >> 1) The problem of Mercury's precession attracted very little attention >> of astronomers since 1900. This issue GAINED RELEVANCE after WWII, when >> the movement to promote the figure of Einstein gained momentum, until it >> was UNBEARABLE in the 60s and 70s. >> >> 2) The table with the composition of the 575"/cy is what is widely >> known, HIDING THE FACT that even such result comes from a DIFFERENCE >> with the real observations of 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/cy. >> >> >> CONCLUSION: A new factor has to be included in the uncertainties, which >> is EARTH'S PRECESSION. The sum of all the effects is what was really >> able to be measured UNTIL A FEW DECADES AGO. >> >> Now, think and doubt about the missing 43"/cy. HOW REAL IS THIS VALUE? >> >> What proved Einstein from 1913 to 1915? Read THE LOST 54 PAGES >> MANUSCRIPT, that Besso kept until his death. You'll find some answers by >> analyzing the 1913 Einstein-Besso approach to the problem. >> > > Polaris, you mean, "The Hearth"? > > This is about that, the axial position, Sol's, and Earth's, > to Polaris, vis-a-vis, Sol's, and Earth's, to a different > north star, is meaningful in celestial dynamics, moreso than > the merely its epochal immobility, also with regards to > interstellar flux, immobile, vis-a-vis traveling, the planets. > > > Also it's to be kept in mind that man's motions about the > Earth, though miniscule, are not inconsequential. > > > There's not ignored Jupiter as with regards to for example > the "Cradle", usually enough with regards to the Babylonian, > about the astronoeisis. > > > Lots of people including some quantum spin foam analysts > find that a Fatio/LeSage theory of gravitation is the best > explanation of the mechanism. > > The idea that Sol is basically an outlet of the North Star > in a sort of lattice of stars, is an astronomical theory > what precedes antiquity. > > There's a book by R. Newton called "Ancient Planetary Observations > and the Validity of Ephemeris Time". > > Polaris the Pole-Star or Pollaris or "Pul" or "Bil", the > Allen's "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" has "... there > is no certainty as to which was intended, for it should be > remembered that during many milleniums the polar point has > gradually been approach our pole-star, which 2000 years ago > was far removed from it, ... Miss Clerke writes as to this: > The entire millenium before the Christian era may count as > an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha Draconis had > ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah had not yet > assumed it." > > > > Picked up a copy of "The Evolution of Physics: The > Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and > Quantum Mechanics", maybe that will help. > > Recently or a year or two ago now there was a great > survey of results the experiments and settings and > their configurations and energies, establishing > "validating" relativity, as with regards to the > wider surrounds, a Mach-ian or total theory, > as with regards to varieties of aether theory, > complementing completions in relativity theory, > which of course must be mathematical and needn't > admit partial, incomplete linearisations. > > I.e. "aether theory" usually reintroduces itself, > then as with regards to Fatio/LeSage style theories > of the gravitic, as rather, the gravific. > > You might as well ask "for what planets is Sol their pole-star?".