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>
 <f9f73c8dd7970dacb7ac095847095d8b@www.novabbs.com>
 <02a3ec2d6e0227716a14f854e64b8a27@www.novabbs.com>
 <83224561f48101ccdde65215817f0508@www.novabbs.com>
 <ddffba4d48e6c45e43ce4d92c1722a2b@www.novabbs.com>
 <6c4e2acbcecd3dcc0f34bd1be69fea3e@www.novabbs.com>
 <c70154631f945cac40dfcaa9693c225e@www.novabbs.com>
 <b0ca0da5d500e501b3f5ebf79c93900c@www.novabbs.com>
 <2YqdnWcO05_prb36nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
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: <eJGcnR2rnbRnr736nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
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?".