Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:37:43 +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>
 <f9f73c8dd7970dacb7ac095847095d8b@www.novabbs.com>
 <02a3ec2d6e0227716a14f854e64b8a27@www.novabbs.com>
 <83224561f48101ccdde65215817f0508@www.novabbs.com>
 <ddffba4d48e6c45e43ce4d92c1722a2b@www.novabbs.com>
 <6c4e2acbcecd3dcc0f34bd1be69fea3e@www.novabbs.com>
 <32d8268b82223911b9982e329b90ad3b@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:37:42 -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: <32d8268b82223911b9982e329b90ad3b@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <MfqdnbA6PpPq1736nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-H9pfzIhvzBqVMwxubL+CJiQrI72KsjLwSfDdOdQu/9ZkVQvdjxddbikfYaOtSUELZzGZn0sFGUKh11A!gzS4xqcbSKYcZADvMSQmOOXfENPDVvyx9I/dKPsqQiP7MfSBFgSmydimUep9fXj6f1TBDuxpXQ==
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: 6138

On 10/28/2024 06:50 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 16:34:48 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:19:34 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 8:13:09 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would contend that Le Verrier Newcomb etc., confronted with a
>>>> discrepancy between theoretical and observed precessions, knew
>>>> better than to employ a naive Gauss ring computation.
>>>
>>> Note: In my "naive" Gauss ring simulation using circular, uniformly
>>> weighted rings, the line representing accumulated precession over
>>> time is completely straight. However, in a computation using
>>> eccentric, weighted rings, the line is slightly curved. Over the
>>> course of thousands of years, as Mercury's line of apsides works
>>> its way around, the rate of precession estimated using a Gauss ring
>>> approximation with eccentric, weighted rings will vary.
>>
>>
>> What do you think about this approximation? It's a rather long article:
>>
>>
>> Newtonian Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion
>>
>> https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm
>
> "Kevin Brown" (MathPages https://tinyurl.com/2xuyj2j4) and
> Prof Fitzpatrick (UT Austin https://tinyurl.com/yck7thzj) provide
> slightly discrepant calculations for what a "naive" Gauss ring
> simulation would predict assuming circular coplanar rings with uniform
> mass distribution. Although my "naive" ring simulation agrees more
> closely with Fitzpatrick's numbers than Brown's numbers, I am hesitant
> to say that Fitzpatrick's numbers are better. Since my code has never
> been peer-reviewed, there is always the possibly that it is my own
> simulation that is at fault.
>
> On the other hand, Price and Rush used a ring approximation to compute
> 531.9 arcsec/century, in amazingly close agreement with the best
> current measured values. (Brown discounts this agreement as being the
> spurious result of them committing two errors in their calculation
> that happen to cancel each other.) https://tinyurl.com/4hzf3u6r
>
> An important fact noted by Fitzpatrick, is that Gauss himself never
> used a naive circular ring calculation, but included orbital
> eccentricities, non-uniform angular velocities etc. in his calculation.
>
> Since Gauss never used a naive circular ring calculation, it is fair
> to assume that LeVerrier never did, either. This would explain why
> LeVerrier's theoretical numbers are so remarkably close to the actual
> values measured using current high precision technologies.
> See Park et al. 2017
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2

(Also there may be considered "intra-Mercurial planets"
like the theoretical "Vulcan" that's figured drifted up
into the ecliptic around 1922.)


"... However, the existence of Vulcan was prompted
initially by mass measurements but then was subsequently
verified by transits." -- https://arxiv.org/html/2403.20281v1


"After this, nobody ever saw Vulcan again,
in spite of several searches at different
total solar eclipses. And in 1916, Albert
Einstein published his General Theory of
Relativity, which explained the deviations
in the motions of Mercury without the need
to invoke an unknown intra-Mercurial planet.
In May 1929 Erwin Freundlich, Potsdam,
photographed the total solar eclipse in Sumatra,
and later carefully examined the plates which
showed a profusion of star images. Comparison
plates were taken six months later. No unknown
object brighter than 9th magnitude was found
near the Sun." -- 
https://www.astro.auth.gr/ANTIKATOPTRISMOI/nineplanets/nineplanets/hypo.html


"Those who study scientific revolutions recognize
that scientific theories remain viable only as long
as they are able to explain observed phenomena and
account for new observations. When a theory ceases
to be able to do this—as when Newtonian gravity was
unable to explain Mercury's orbital precession—
alternative theories are sought." -- 
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/85/2/159/1058307/The-Hunt-for-Vulcan-And-How-Albert-Einstein


Yet, the force of gravity in the solar system
points directly at the _source_ not the _image_,
of the well of gravity, as is well known today,
with none at all differences according to the
propagation of light speed, the propagation of
changes in the field of gravity, as Newtonian.
(As instantaneous.)