Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<02a3ec2d6e0227716a14f854e64b8a27@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr century,. Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:56:57 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <02a3ec2d6e0227716a14f854e64b8a27@www.novabbs.com> References: <52e47bd51177fb5ca4e51c4c255be1a6@www.novabbs.com> <26ec5dc08548f7ca167c178333b2009d@www.novabbs.com> <9ee53574f9a20a5a9d9ed159d5c474b3@www.novabbs.com> <f9f73c8dd7970dacb7ac095847095d8b@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3991676"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$AVpfLHm0zfia3mjeZbhm6Owu2P5kFEYH022g06l.t6SXvLbeHyQRK X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7537 Lines: 120 I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon. I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON GENERAL RELATIVITY. You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities, but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively. On the other hand, simplifications used since Le Verrier and as of today are based on Gauss gravitational torus (Le Verrier, Newcomb, Clemence, etc.), which give almost the same numbers (with some "enhancements"): 575"/cy observed versus 532"/cy derived from theoretical calculations. And all of them (due to Gauss simplifications) give an unexplained difference of about 43"/cy, which (allegedly) Einstein verified theoretically. ************** All the time that I wrote about the HOAX on Mercury mystery, I was based on the impossibility (analytical and numerical) to SOLVE THE N-BODY PROBLEM, in order to include EVEN the slightest influence of one planet, moon, etc., over ANY OTHER PLANET. And that is BECAUSE applying Newton to the 9 planets has to account the influence of every planet over every each other, which become a problem of ALMOST INFINITE RECURSION. Starting with the two heavier planets, for instance, requires computing the MUTUAL EFFECT on both planets from their barycenter, to LATER apply the gravitational effect of the Sun on each one, WHICH FORCES A NEW CALCULATION on the influence of one planet over the other, AND SO ON. Where is the limit of such problem of recursion? Just take as an example the work of Lagrange on the 3-Body problem (Sun, Earth, Moon). With all the efforts done by Lagrange, its solutions are not final, because the Lagrangian points ARE NOT STEADY and have complicated motions. It's accepted that, in the average, these motions can be included in orbital calculations for spatial observatories, but still there is not a conclusive solution. Not to mention IF another perturbation, like Jupiter, is included. So, my posture is that the adoption of the 562"/cy for Mercury's perihelion advance IS AN APPROXIMATION, which gives the famous 43"/cy. BUT, if the N-Body problem is included (instead of Gauss Torus), the result of the general influence WILL NOT BE of 532"/cy (or 5.32"/year), but MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT, bringing down the famous 43"/cy (WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN STONE, FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH OF PHYSICISTS). Anyone questioning it is immediately labeled as a crank, crackpot, etc. But there are voices of reason that question such result, which is one of the PILLARS of the validity of the general relativity. Here are some comments and papers that I searched for this post: ---------------------------- The N-body problem is considered unsolved, as of today. There are solutions to special cases of the problem, such as when there are only two bodies. ---------------------------- The many multiple (n-body) interactions have historically made any exact solution intractable. ---------------------------- Why is an N-body system so unpredictable? It remains an article of faith that such a statistical validity holds for the Newtonian N-body problem (Heggie 1991). Chaos, however, leads to unpredictability due to temporal discretization, round-off, and uncertainty in the initial realization (Miller 1964). ----------------------------- Why is the N-body problem unsolvable? The bad news is that there are certain aspects of the n-body problem which make it unlikely we could ever put a solution on a t-shirt: collisions that are singularities, resonances when frequencies of multiple bodies lead to instabilities, and the lack of enough constants of motion to lead to simple answers. ------------------------------ The n-body problem, which involves predicting the individual motions of a group of celestial bodies interacting with each other gravitationally, is a complex issue in physics and mathematics. While the two-body problem can be solved analytically, the n-body problem (for three or more bodies) is generally not solvable in a straightforward analytical way due to its chaotic nature. Current Understanding and Approaches: Numerical Methods: For practical purposes, scientists and astronomers typically use numerical simulations to approximate solutions to the n-body problem. These methods can provide highly accurate predictions over limited time frames. Special Cases: Certain special cases of the n-body problem can be solved analytically. For example, the restricted three-body problem, where one body has negligible mass, has known solutions. Chaos Theory: The n-body problem is sensitive to initial conditions, meaning small changes can lead to vastly different outcomes. This chaotic behavior complicates long-term predictions. Advancements in Computing: As computational power increases, more complex simulations can be run, allowing for better approximations of the n-body problem in various contexts (e.g., astrophysics, molecular dynamics). ----------------------------------- The N-body problem https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4780668&fileOId=4780676 Abstract The N-body problem has been studied for many centuries and is still of interest in contemporary science. A lot of effort has gone into solving this problem but it’s unlikely that a general solution will be found with the mathematical tools we have today. We review some of the progress that has been made over the centuries in solving it. We take a look at the first integrals, existence of solutions and where singularities can occur. We solve the two body problem and take a look at the special case of central configurations. We find all the possible three-body central configurations, which are known as Euler’s and Lagrange’s solutions. When analytic solutions are missing it is natural to use numerical methods. -----------------------------------