When I referred to Tisserand and others, it was a consequence of having read
this passage from the article
http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc on interferometers (I'm still interested in any comments anybody
has to offer):

The relativistic explanations of the well known secular advance of
Mercury's perihelion does not consider that the 1916 experimental value of
the unexplained advance of 43" was corrected in 1930 to 50.9". (30)
Today we know that a new evaluation in necessary. (31) Moreover, Einstein's
explanation (of the advance) was based on the hypothesis that the speed of
Gravitational Interaction is equal to the Speed of Light.
This statement has no experimental evidence. On the contrary Laplace (32)
and Tisserand (33) showed experimental evidence to the contrary.
Today we know that the Sun's solid inner core rotates faster than the
surface, and this can explain the precessions of the planets. (34), (35)
REFS
30) H. R. Morgan, J. O. S. A. 20, 225 (April, 1930).
31) I. I. Shapiro, Centenario di Einstein, Giunti Barbera, Firenze,
1979,
p.221.
32) P. S. de Laplace, Works, Paris 1845, Vol. IV, Book X, Chap. VII,
p.364.
33) F. Tisserand, Mechanique Celeste, Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1896.
Vol.
IV, p.494.
34) P. Burgatti, Acc. Lincei. Atti 19, 199 (4 Febbraio 1934); see also:
Sky
and Telescope, 584 (June 1989).
35) P. A. Sturrock, Physics of the Sun (Reidel 1986). Vol. I,
p.I.

Troublemaker wrote in message
...
When I referred to Tisserand and others, it was a consequence of having
read
this passage from the article

http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc on interferometers (I'm still interested in any comments anybody
has to offer):

The relativistic explanations of the well known secular advance of
Mercury's perihelion does not consider that the 1916 experimental value of
the unexplained advance of 43" was corrected in 1930 to 50.9". (30)

It was also 'corrected' to 32", prior to 1960. The calculation is quite
difficult -- and it is not the determination of the orbital ellipses that
makes the calculation difficult (radar makes the ellipses more precise --
but doesn't affect the precision of the "residual" non-newtonian part). The
procedural errors have not changed significantly since LeVerrier's day. You
have a 10-body problem in real time, and you are looking for a variation
that is a small fraction of dynamic perturbations. Basically, you can get
just about any answer you want. (The latest value "adjusted" Mercury's data
to match GR. Then proudly claimed that this proved GR.)

Interestingly, the value of 43" per century was obtained by Newcomb by
allowing the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. (Newcomb didn't allow
for bending of light during superior conjuctions.) Both Gerber (1898) and
Einstein (1916) appear to have been lead astray by this historical artifact.
Since Einstein, there has been tremendous pressure to "find" 43" per
century. Even though Einstein didn't use Newcomb's varying eccentricities.
Apparently, Einstein was unaware of Newcomb's modifications to Newtonian
dynamics.

Today we know that a new evaluation in necessary. (31) Moreover,
Einstein's
explanation (of the advance) was based on the hypothesis that the speed of
Gravitational Interaction is equal to the Speed of Light.

Correct. The speed of gravity=c exists in the assumptions of GR.

This statement has no experimental evidence.

The perihelion advance *IS* experimental (to be precise, observational)
evidence.

On the contrary Laplace (32)
and Tisserand (33) showed experimental evidence to the contrary.

Laplace used different assumptions than GR. Laplace assumed that orbital
drag was the only force acting via a LeSagian mechanism. Hence, Laplace
worked from an orbital stability assumption. GR includes both drag and
"back action" (by ASSUMING all orbits are stable).

Today we know that the Sun's solid inner core rotates faster than the
surface, and this can explain the precessions of the planets. (34), (35)

But that rotation calculation has not held up in later measurements. It's
not sufficient by itself. ANY finite speed of gravity will result in a
perihelion advance. The question is, how much is needed -- observationally?
What effects have been considered in the calculation? The devil is in the
details.

REFS
30) H. R. Morgan, J. O. S. A. 20, 225 (April, 1930).
31) I. I. Shapiro, Centenario di Einstein, Giunti Barbera, Firenze,
1979,
p.221.
32) P. S. de Laplace, Works, Paris 1845, Vol. IV, Book X, Chap. VII,
p.364.
33) F. Tisserand, Mechanique Celeste, Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1896.
Vol.
IV, p.494.
34) P. Burgatti, Acc. Lincei. Atti 19, 199 (4 Febbraio 1934); see
also:
Sky
and Telescope, 584 (June 1989).
35) P. A. Sturrock, Physics of the Sun (Reidel 1986). Vol. I,
p.I.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

Greywolf, thanks, you certainly seem to know your stuff.

It was also 'corrected' to 32", prior to 1960. The calculation is quite
difficult -- and it is not the determination of the orbital ellipses that
makes the calculation difficult (radar makes the ellipses more precise --
but doesn't affect the precision of the "residual" non-newtonian part). The
procedural errors have not changed significantly since LeVerrier's day. You
have a 10-body problem in real time, and you are looking for a variation
that is a small fraction of dynamic perturbations. Basically, you can get
just about any answer you want. (The latest value "adjusted" Mercury's data
to match GR. Then proudly claimed that this proved GR.)

Might that mean it would vary from one Mercurial year to the next?
(Incidentally, does th 43 arc secs refer to the Mercurial, or the
earth century?


Interestingly, the value of 43" per century was obtained by Newcomb by
allowing the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. (Newcomb didn't allow
for bending of light during superior conjuctions.)

When you say that, do you refer to the fact that the relative
locations of the bodies might have been identified wrongly in the data
he had to hand?
Ought we really to *believe* in the bending of light? Are you talking
about a Newtonian formulation of light bending?

Both Gerber (1898) and
Einstein (1916) appear to have been lead astray by this historical artifact.
Since Einstein, there has been tremendous pressure to "find" 43" per
century. Even though Einstein didn't use Newcomb's varying eccentricities.
Apparently, Einstein was unaware of Newcomb's modifications to Newtonian
dynamics.

Yeh, looks like ad hoc physics. I've seen the same figure of 43"
arrived at through an explanation using the absorption of pico
gravitons of Mercury, as a formulation that does not employ
relativity. In the modern world, I guess you could sell a theory on
the basis that it finds a well-known figure that has been deduced as
opposed to the correct one - whether or not you know it to be
incorrect (in fact, you might have several 'possible' figures to aim
at!).

Today we know that a new evaluation in necessary. (31) Moreover,
Einstein's
explanation (of the advance) was based on the hypothesis that the speed of
Gravitational Interaction is equal to the Speed of Light.

Correct. The speed of gravity=c exists in the assumptions of GR.

But I thought that's how Gerber reached a derivation that obviated
relativity...

This statement has no experimental evidence.

The perihelion advance *IS* experimental (to be precise, observational)
evidence.

On the contrary Laplace (32)
and Tisserand (33) showed experimental evidence to the contrary.

Laplace used different assumptions than GR. Laplace assumed that orbital
drag was the only force acting via a LeSagian mechanism. Hence, Laplace
worked from an orbital stability assumption. GR includes both drag and
"back action" (by ASSUMING all orbits are stable).

I'm not up to speed on these concepts, I must say.

Today we know that the Sun's solid inner core rotates faster than the
surface, and this can explain the precessions of the planets. (34), (35)

But that rotation calculation has not held up in later measurements. It's
not sufficient by itself. ANY finite speed of gravity will result in a
perihelion advance. The question is, how much is needed -- observationally?
What effects have been considered in the calculation? The devil is in the
details.

Personally, on the basis of Mach's prinicple, I'm more inclined to
believe gravity operates instantaneously. But I would not exclude
non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance on the basis of Mach's
principle.

Troublemaker

Versy Tyle wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Greywolf, thanks, you certainly seem to know your stuff.

In this specific area, at any rate.

It was also 'corrected' to 32", prior to 1960. The calculation is quite
difficult -- and it is not the determination of the orbital ellipses
that makes the calculation difficult (radar makes the ellipses more
precise -- but doesn't affect the precision of the "residual"
non-newtonian part). The procedural errors have not changed
significantly since LeVerrier's day. You have a 10-body problem in
real time, and you are looking for a variation that is a small fraction
of dynamic perturbations. Basically, you can get just about any
answer you want. (The latest value "adjusted" Mercury's data
to match GR. Then proudly claimed that this proved GR.)

Might that mean it would vary from one Mercurial year to the next?

Indubitably so. The variations from orbit to orbit swing far more than that
required to average out to a mere 43" per Earth-century. The planets
Jupiter and Venus account for the majority of the variations.

(Incidentally, does th 43 arc secs refer to the Mercurial, or the earth
century?

The 43" per century refers to an Earth-century. This is a historical
situation, because the purpose of calculating the perihelion advance of
mecury was to be able to compute accurate ephemerides for navigational
purposes (in the days before chronometers and GPS).

Interestingly, the value of 43" per century was obtained by Newcomb by
allowing the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. (Newcomb didn't
allow for bending of light during superior conjuctions.)

When you say that, do you refer to the fact that the relative
locations of the bodies might have been identified wrongly in the data
he had to hand?

The problem was that seaborne navigators could use the predicted rising and
setting of planets, and the times of planetary conjuctions to reset their
clocks when they were at sea. The clocks were needed as a way to determine
longitude. The more precisely these values were precalculated, the more
certain you were of your longitude, and the less likely you were to hit a
reef. But the transits had to be known well in advance -- to provide the
navigators with a book of transits and rising and setting times
(ephemerides) that they could carry with them.

When developing the ephemerides, astronomers relied heavily on the
conjunctions of the planets in order to calibrate their Keplerian ellipses.
The observed historical conjunction times of Mercury presented a bit of a
problem (as well as the apsides of Venus, which I won't get into). They
didn't match the predicted Keplerian-Newtonian motions. Lives were
literally at stake.

LeVerrier was the first to identify this theoretical problem. But he simply
accepted the problem, and turned out the ephemerides using the historical
data -- the "why" was not as important as the lives. He came up with a
"non-newtonian" perihelion advance (NNPA) of 38" per century (IIRC).

Newcomb found that he could match the historical data (plus a few more Earth
years of observation) a bit better than LeVerrier, by allowing the
eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. Newcomb did not claim that this
was what was happening, but the variable eccentricity allowed him to fit the
astrometric data a bit better -- hence maybe saving a few lives. His value
for the NNPA was 43" per Earth century.

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb allowed for the bending of light by the Sun --
which affects the apparent visual superior conjuctions (planet on the far
side of the Sun), but does not significantly affect the timing of inferior
conjuctions (planet between the Sun and the Earth).

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb considered any contribution from anything
other than a spherical Sun or the planets (i.e. no oblate Sun, no other
matter orbiting the Sun, no speed-of-gravity delay.)

Ought we really to *believe* in the bending of light? Are you talking
about a Newtonian formulation of light bending?

I'm discussing the observed bending of light. The observations of
light-bending are undeniably positive, though still fairly coarse -- no
better than within 30%. (General relativists claim confirmation to parts in
a thousand, but that's simply hype and circular reasoning.) But, regardless
of the amount of deflection -- whether Newtonian, GR, or something else --
there is a measurable change in the apparent position of a luminous body,
and therefore a change in the apparent time of a superior transit. At the
precisions available (which were excellent, even 130 years ago), this is a
noticable effect.

Both Gerber (1898) and
Einstein (1916) appear to have been lead astray by this historical
artifact. Since Einstein, there has been tremendous pressure to
"find" 43" per century. Even though Einstein didn't use Newcomb's
varying eccentricities. Apparently, Einstein was unaware of Newcomb's
modifications to Newtonian dynamics.

Yeh, looks like ad hoc physics. I've seen the same figure of 43"
arrived at through an explanation using the absorption of pico
gravitons of Mercury, as a formulation that does not employ
relativity. In the modern world, I guess you could sell a theory on
the basis that it finds a well-known figure that has been deduced as
opposed to the correct one - whether or not you know it to be
incorrect (in fact, you might have several 'possible' figures to aim
at!).

I wouldn't call it ad hoc physics. Because there are several physical
reasons that could cause such an advance. It's more a question of physics
by the herd. Once a numerical value gets "accepted" by the herd, there is
tremendous pressure to have observations and experiments duplicate that
value. Especially if a major theory is tied to that value.

One of the first to claim the value of 43" per century was a fellow by the
name of Paul Gerber, in 1898. He developed a finite-speed potential that
resulted in a speed of gravity equal to the speed of light -- starting from
Newcomb's value. GRist's belittle Gerber's attempt, because the theory is
"flawed." Einstein also performed some rather "nonstandard" mathelogical
gyrations to obtain the same potential formula as Gerber. But it does make
the answer come out "right" (i.e. equal to the value of Newcomb's variable
eccentricity model -- but without allowing for variable eccentricity). And
once Einstein had done it, the value became carved in stone. (Some
relativists have publicly claimed and defended precisions of 1 part in
10,000 for this value -- by confusing the theoretical prediction with the
calculated value.)

Today we know that a new evaluation in necessary. (31) Moreover,
Einstein's explanation (of the advance) was based on the hypothesis
that the speed of Gravitational Interaction is equal to the Speed of
Light.

Correct. The speed of gravity=c exists in the assumptions of GR.

But I thought that's how Gerber reached a derivation that obviated
relativity...

Actually, Gerber did the reverse of Einstein. Gerber used the NNPA to
determine the speed of gravity. Einstein assumed the speed of gravity was
equal to the speed of light, and determined the NNPA.

This statement has no experimental evidence.

The perihelion advance *IS* experimental (to be precise, observational)
evidence.

On the contrary Laplace (32)
and Tisserand (33) showed experimental evidence to the contrary.

Laplace used different assumptions than GR. Laplace assumed that
orbital drag was the only force acting via a LeSagian mechanism.
Hence, Laplace worked from an orbital stability assumption.
GR includes both drag and "back action" (by ASSUMING all
orbits are stable).

I'm not up to speed on these concepts, I must say.

Nor are most "modern physicists." So you are in good company.

Today we know that the Sun's solid inner core rotates faster than the
surface, and this can explain the precessions of the planets. (34),
(35)


But that rotation calculation has not held up in later measurements.
It's not sufficient by itself. ANY finite speed of gravity will result
in a perihelion advance. The question is, how much is needed --
observationally? What effects have been considered in the calculation?
The devil is in the details.

Personally, on the basis of Mach's prinicple, I'm more inclined to
believe gravity operates instantaneously. But I would not exclude
non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance on the basis of Mach's
principle.

Personally, I do not accept Mach's principle. Primarily because it has no
cause-and-effect, and because no clear statement of the "principle" exists.

One of the best online sources for such theoretical discussion is from Tom
Van Flandern's webpage: http://metaresearch.org

By the way, I don't agree with Tom's conclusions concerning the
near-infinite speed of the force of gravity (though I think you may be
happier with them). I believe Tom falls into the Laplacian fallacy. But
it's not because he ignores it.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Versy Tyle wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Greywolf, thanks, you certainly seem to know your stuff.

In this specific area, at any rate.

It was also 'corrected' to 32", prior to 1960. The calculation is quite
difficult -- and it is not the determination of the orbital ellipses
that makes the calculation difficult (radar makes the ellipses more
precise -- but doesn't affect the precision of the "residual"
non-newtonian part). The procedural errors have not changed
significantly since LeVerrier's day. You have a 10-body problem in
real time, and you are looking for a variation that is a small fraction
of dynamic perturbations. Basically, you can get just about any
answer you want. (The latest value "adjusted" Mercury's data
to match GR. Then proudly claimed that this proved GR.)

Might that mean it would vary from one Mercurial year to the next?

Indubitably so. The variations from orbit to orbit swing far more than that
required to average out to a mere 43" per Earth-century. The planets
Jupiter and Venus account for the majority of the variations.

Now, all this is very interesting - but what I really need is a good
literary reference that serves to refute the purported confirmation of
GR by way of the NNPA, so I can incoporate it in what I'm putting
together. Might you have one?

(Incidentally, does th 43 arc secs refer to the Mercurial, or the
earth
century?

The 43" per century refers to an Earth-century. This is a historical
situation, because the purpose of calculating the perihelion advance of
mecury was to be able to compute accurate ephemerides for navigational
purposes (in the days before chronometers and GPS).

Interestingly, the value of 43" per century was obtained by Newcomb by
allowing the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. (Newcomb didn't
allow for bending of light during superior conjuctions.)

When you say that, do you refer to the fact that the relative
locations of the bodies might have been identified wrongly in the data
he had to hand?

The problem was that seaborne navigators could use the predicted rising and
setting of planets, and the times of planetary conjuctions to reset their
clocks when they were at sea. The clocks were needed as a way to determine
longitude. The more precisely these values were precalculated, the more
certain you were of your longitude, and the less likely you were to hit a
reef. But the transits had to be known well in advance -- to provide the
navigators with a book of transits and rising and setting times
(ephemerides) that they could carry with them.

When developing the ephemerides, astronomers relied heavily on the
conjunctions of the planets in order to calibrate their Keplerian ellipses.
The observed historical conjunction times of Mercury presented a bit of a
problem (as well as the apsides of Venus, which I won't get into). They
didn't match the predicted Keplerian-Newtonian motions. Lives were
literally at stake.

LeVerrier was the first to identify this theoretical problem. But he simply
accepted the problem, and turned out the ephemerides using the historical
data -- the "why" was not as important as the lives. He came up with a
"non-newtonian" perihelion advance (NNPA) of 38" per century (IIRC).

Newcomb found that he could match the historical data (plus a few more Earth
years of observation) a bit better than LeVerrier, by allowing the
eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. Newcomb did not claim that this
was what was happening, but the variable eccentricity allowed him to fit the
astrometric data a bit better -- hence maybe saving a few lives. His value
for the NNPA was 43" per Earth century.

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb allowed for the bending of light by the Sun --
which affects the apparent visual superior conjuctions (planet on the far
side of the Sun), but does not significantly affect the timing of inferior
conjuctions (planet between the Sun and the Earth).

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb considered any contribution from anything
other than a spherical Sun or the planets (i.e. no oblate Sun, no other
matter orbiting the Sun, no speed-of-gravity delay.)

Ought we really to *believe* in the bending of light? Are you talking
about a Newtonian formulation of light bending?

I'm discussing the observed bending of light. The observations of
light-bending are undeniably positive, though still fairly coarse -- no
better than within 30%.

30% of what? I mean, are we talking results that are closer to Newton
or to Einstein?

(General relativists claim confirmation to parts in
a thousand, but that's simply hype and circular reasoning.)

I must admit that I have been influenced by the Marmet piece that you
are probably familiar with:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html
Where he says that the relativistic correction has not been eliminated
from the mathematics, to me it looks like the purported infinitesimal
margin of error in the 'confirmation' of the GR prediction is in fact
mathematical confirmation, when all mathematical considerations have
been incorporated, that the bending does not occur to any degree
whatsoever.
Of course, the sun's corona is an important influence - indubitably
*that* serves to bend light. I'm interested in your position (any
useful references for me?).

But, regardless
of the amount of deflection -- whether Newtonian, GR, or something else --
there is a measurable change in the apparent position of a luminous body,
and therefore a change in the apparent time of a superior transit. At the
precisions available (which were excellent, even 130 years ago), this is a
noticable effect.

Both Gerber (1898) and
Einstein (1916) appear to have been lead astray by this historical
artifact. Since Einstein, there has been tremendous pressure to
"find" 43" per century. Even though Einstein didn't use Newcomb's
varying eccentricities. Apparently, Einstein was unaware of Newcomb's
modifications to Newtonian dynamics.

Yeh, looks like ad hoc physics. I've seen the same figure of 43"
arrived at through an explanation using the absorption of pico
gravitons of Mercury, as a formulation that does not employ
relativity. In the modern world, I guess you could sell a theory on
the basis that it finds a well-known figure that has been deduced as
opposed to the correct one - whether or not you know it to be
incorrect (in fact, you might have several 'possible' figures to aim
at!).

I wouldn't call it ad hoc physics. Because there are several physical
reasons that could cause such an advance. It's more a question of physics
by the herd. Once a numerical value gets "accepted" by the herd, there is
tremendous pressure to have observations and experiments duplicate that
value. Especially if a major theory is tied to that value.

One of the first to claim the value of 43" per century was a fellow by the
name of Paul Gerber, in 1898. He developed a finite-speed potential that
resulted in a speed of gravity equal to the speed of light -- starting from
Newcomb's value. GRist's belittle Gerber's attempt, because the theory is
"flawed."

"Fundamentally"?

Einstein also performed some rather "nonstandard" mathelogical
gyrations to obtain the same potential formula as Gerber. But it does make
the answer come out "right" (i.e. equal to the value of Newcomb's variable
eccentricity model -- but without allowing for variable eccentricity). And
once Einstein had done it, the value became carved in stone. (Some
relativists have publicly claimed and defended precisions of 1 part in
10,000 for this value -- by confusing the theoretical prediction with the
calculated value.)

Today we know that a new evaluation in necessary. (31) Moreover,
Einstein's explanation (of the advance) was based on the hypothesis
that the speed of Gravitational Interaction is equal to the Speed of
Light.

Correct. The speed of gravity=c exists in the assumptions of GR.

But I thought that's how Gerber reached a derivation that obviated
relativity...

Actually, Gerber did the reverse of Einstein. Gerber used the NNPA to
determine the speed of gravity. Einstein assumed the speed of gravity was
equal to the speed of light, and determined the NNPA.

This statement has no experimental evidence.

The perihelion advance *IS* experimental (to be precise, observational)
evidence.

On the contrary Laplace (32)
and Tisserand (33) showed experimental evidence to the contrary.

Laplace used different assumptions than GR. Laplace assumed that
orbital drag was the only force acting via a LeSagian mechanism.
Hence, Laplace worked from an orbital stability assumption.
GR includes both drag and "back action" (by ASSUMING all
orbits are stable).

I'm not up to speed on these concepts, I must say.

Nor are most "modern physicists." So you are in good company.

I don't know what the bloody hell they mean.

Today we know that the Sun's solid inner core rotates faster than the
surface, and this can explain the precessions of the planets. (34),
(35)


But that rotation calculation has not held up in later measurements.
It's not sufficient by itself. ANY finite speed of gravity will result
in a perihelion advance. The question is, how much is needed --
observationally? What effects have been considered in the calculation?
The devil is in the details.

Personally, on the basis of Mach's prinicple, I'm more inclined to
believe gravity operates instantaneously. But I would not exclude
non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance on the basis of Mach's
principle.

Personally, I do not accept Mach's principle. Primarily because it has no
cause-and-effect, and because no clear statement of the "principle" exists.

I see Mach's principle as more a case of demonstrating how mass
exhibits on an instantaneous basis the prevalence of the fundamental
constants of nature, which in turn acquire their quantitative ratios
with relation to one another by virtue of the existence of a finite
amount of matter existing in a finite volume that is universe, of
which a single body constitutes a determinable fraction. Its inertia
exhibits the fact that the constitution of the universe, and its
condition as copmonent of it, is essentially constant. (I'm not a
great believer that space between objects is a fundamental reality.)

I honestly couldn't see any way to explain gyroscopic inertia in the
absence of Mach's principle.


One of the best online sources for such theoretical discussion is from Tom
Van Flandern's webpage: http://metaresearch.org

Rather interesting, too. Incidentally, reading it I am reminded of the
Nordtvedt effect. I know that there is no evidence for it, but do you
know anything of the theoretical basis for it? I had supposed it was
to do with the fact that relativistic mass imposes a gravitational
effect that is supplementary to rest mass, thus generating a greater
rate of gravitational acceleration.
Incidentally, am I not correct in thinking there can in principle be
singularities in classical physics, by virtue of the weaking of
nuclear forces?


By the way, I don't agree with Tom's conclusions concerning the
near-infinite speed of the force of gravity (though I think you may be
happier with them). I believe Tom falls into the Laplacian fallacy. But
it's not because he ignores it.

Wondering what the Laplacian fallacy is...?
I'm a bit worried about this comment of his: "SR is also a well-tested
and confirmed theory". That's a bit off, isn't it? Only areas of SR
that had been toyed with and essentially discovered, prior to the
laying down of the two postulates, can claim to be confirmed. There
has never been any basis for supposing that rate of electron
transition equals rate of time flow, which is the position at the
heart of it. I don't think he's going very far if he thinks the
relativists have anything more than a turgid, presumptuous (i.e. in
the sense that the path of light can somehow be part of the very
rotation of the objects [frame] it is reflecting off) and circular
explanation of the Sagnac effect.

Cheers,
Troublemaker

Versy Tyle wrote in message
m...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Versy Tyle wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Greywolf, thanks, you certainly seem to know your stuff.

In this specific area, at any rate.

It was also 'corrected' to 32", prior to 1960. The calculation is
quite difficult -- and it is not the determination of the orbital
ellipses
that makes the calculation difficult (radar makes the ellipses more
precise -- but doesn't affect the precision of the "residual"
non-newtonian part). The procedural errors have not changed
significantly since LeVerrier's day. You have a 10-body problem in
real time, and you are looking for a variation that is a small
fraction of dynamic perturbations. Basically, you can get just
about any answer you want. (The latest value "adjusted"
Mercury's data to match GR. Then proudly claimed that this
proved GR.)

Might that mean it would vary from one Mercurial year to the next?

Indubitably so. The variations from orbit to orbit swing far more than
that required to average out to a mere 43" per Earth-century. The
planets Jupiter and Venus account for the majority of the variations.

Now, all this is very interesting - but what I really need is a good
literary reference that serves to refute the purported confirmation of
GR by way of the NNPA, so I can incoporate it in what I'm putting
together. Might you have one?

You'll have to find each of the four or five calculations of the NNPA, and
compare them. There really have only been a few. LeVerrier, Newcomb and
Duncombe (?1958) are described in Roseveare. I believe Anderson is
post-Roseveare.

The best single reference on the value and methodology of data reduction is
given in J.D. Anderson et al., Acta Astronautica 5 (1978) 43. There are two
background books you should read. Roseveare's "The Perihelion Advance of
Mercury, from LeVerrier to Einstein." And Beckmann's "Einstein, Plus Two."
Or -- if you're a serious history buff -- I can refer you to Heaviside.
Roseveare's book is the best of the lot for this background.

Prior to heading to a library, you can try a google search on the thread,
"What about the NNPA of Mercury?" (4/01) Needless to say, you'll never find
such a conclusion published in a status-controlled (peer-reviewed) journal.

I personally ran into a cold trail on the "latest and greatest" claim of GR
and the NNPA (Anderson et al). Anderson et al indicated that they had
'corrected' the perihelion shifts of the 'inner planets' to match GR
predictions -- before performing GR validation calculations. But they did
not quantify the amount of 'correction'. Nor respond to requests for
further information.

See also my post of 11/29/01 on "Relativity versus celestial mechanics" for
further references and comments.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b2...1.onemai n.co
m

[You can follow Steve Carlip's response (which I missed at the time) which
comes down to the following claim: "I ... tend to believe that observers and
their colleagues who work directly with observational data are pretty good
at identifying and correcting for systematic errors, which is what is at
issue here."]

{snip uncommented details on importance to celestial navigation}

LeVerrier was the first to identify this theoretical problem. But he
simply accepted the problem, and turned out the ephemerides
using the historical data -- the "why" was not as important as the
lives. He came up with a "non-newtonian" perihelion advance
(NNPA) of 38" per century (IIRC).

Newcomb found that he could match the historical data (plus a few more
Earth years of observation) a bit better than LeVerrier, by allowing the
eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. Newcomb did not claim that
this was what was happening, but the variable eccentricity allowed him
to fit the astrometric data a bit better -- hence maybe saving a few
lives. His value for the NNPA was 43" per Earth century.

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb allowed for the bending of light by the
Sun -- which affects the apparent visual superior conjuctions (planet on
the far side of the Sun), but does not significantly affect the timing
of inferior conjuctions (planet between the Sun and the Earth).

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb considered any contribution from anything
other than a spherical Sun or the planets (i.e. no oblate Sun, no other
matter orbiting the Sun, no speed-of-gravity delay.)

Ought we really to *believe* in the bending of light? Are you talking
about a Newtonian formulation of light bending?

I'm discussing the observed bending of light. The observations of
light-bending are undeniably positive, though still fairly coarse -- no
better than within 30%.

30% of what? I mean, are we talking results that are closer to Newton
or to Einstein?

Statistical and instrument errors of 30% of the measured values from one
optical measurement to the next. At 30% variation, the results cannot yet
discriminate between the two (or other) theories. Some measurements return
the Newtonian value. One Russian eclipse observation was roughly twice the
GR value. All radio measurements require adjusting the data to eliminate
the Sun's corona. The coronal bending is greater than the value they're
trying to measure. See the Hipparcos paper, below, for some details.

(General relativists claim confirmation to parts in
a thousand, but that's simply hype and circular reasoning.)

I must admit that I have been influenced by the Marmet piece that you
are probably familiar with:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html
Where he says that the relativistic correction has not been eliminated
from the mathematics, to me it looks like the purported infinitesimal
margin of error in the 'confirmation' of the GR prediction is in fact
mathematical confirmation, when all mathematical considerations have
been incorporated, that the bending does not occur to any degree
whatsoever.

That's pretty much it.

Of course, the sun's corona is an important influence - indubitably
*that* serves to bend light. I'm interested in your position (any
useful references for me?).

I have a prior, recent post that touches on this issue. After the Hipparcos
"validation" of GR, the relativists were finally willing to mention the
coronal problems with the attempts to measure light bending with radio
waves.

See the thread "Hipparcos and Gravitational Light-Bending," 5/15/2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vc....supernews.com


But, regardless
of the amount of deflection -- whether Newtonian, GR, or something
else -- there is a measurable change in the apparent position of a
luminous body, and therefore a change in the apparent time of a
superior transit. At the precisions available (which were excellent,
even 130 years ago), this is a noticable effect.

Both Gerber (1898) and
Einstein (1916) appear to have been lead astray by this historical
artifact. Since Einstein, there has been tremendous pressure to
"find" 43" per century. Even though Einstein didn't use Newcomb's
varying eccentricities. Apparently, Einstein was unaware of
Newcomb's modifications to Newtonian dynamics.

Yeh, looks like ad hoc physics. I've seen the same figure of 43"
arrived at through an explanation using the absorption of pico
gravitons of Mercury, as a formulation that does not employ
relativity. In the modern world, I guess you could sell a theory on
the basis that it finds a well-known figure that has been deduced as
opposed to the correct one - whether or not you know it to be
incorrect (in fact, you might have several 'possible' figures to aim
at!).

I wouldn't call it ad hoc physics. Because there are several physical
reasons that could cause such an advance. It's more a question of
physics by the herd. Once a numerical value gets "accepted" by the
herd, there is tremendous pressure to have observations and
experiments duplicate that value. Especially if a major theory is tied
to that value.

One of the first to claim the value of 43" per century was a fellow by
the name of Paul Gerber, in 1898. He developed a finite-speed potential
that resulted in a speed of gravity equal to the speed of light --
starting from Newcomb's value. GRist's belittle Gerber's attempt,
because the theory is "flawed."

"Fundamentally"?

It is not a complete theory of gravity. Only an attempt to impose a finite
speed limit on the gravitational potential. That is a flaw, according to
some. According to others, it is a first step.

Einstein also performed some rather "nonstandard" mathelogical
gyrations to obtain the same potential formula as Gerber. But it does
make the answer come out "right" (i.e. equal to the value of
Newcomb's variable eccentricity model -- but without allowing for
variable eccentricity). And once Einstein had done it, the value
became carved in stone. (Some relativists have publicly claimed and
defended precisions of 1 part in 10,000 for this value -- by confusing
the theoretical prediction with the calculated value.)

{snip higher levels}

Laplace used different assumptions than GR. Laplace assumed that
orbital drag was the only force acting via a LeSagian mechanism.
Hence, Laplace worked from an orbital stability assumption.
GR includes both drag and "back action" (by ASSUMING all
orbits are stable).

I'm not up to speed on these concepts, I must say.

Nor are most "modern physicists." So you are in good company.

I don't know what the bloody hell they mean.

Sorry. I was presuming more historical knowledge in an attempt to cover the
territory.

Georges Louis LeSage was the first to develop a physical derivation for
Newton's gravitational equation. He used a particulate aether (and a quaint
matter model). Matter was 'pushed' together by momentum shadowing of the
aether 'corpuscles.'

Laplace evaluated some of the dynamics of LeSage's model in an attempt to
explain the orbital stability of the Earth and Moon. Since LeSage's
hypothesis of physical bodies creates an unavoidable drag* as matter moves
through the aether. However, Laplace only considered the drag of the medium
and spiral inward of the orbit. Using this fallacial approach (ignoring
aberration), Laplace obtained a value that the speed of gravity must be in
excess of 10^17 c.

GR explicitly assumes that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of
light. This finite speed of gravity leads to a non-central force
constituent called "aberration" (not the same as stellar aberration). Such
a force component will -- if unopposed -- cause an orbit to spiral outward
(increase). One of Tom VF's papers pointed this (well-known, but)
undiscussed portion of GR in 1999. Steve Carlip responded with a paper
that claimed that "back action" made everything work out right. However,
there is no physical basis for 'back action' in GR (unlike in a LeSagian
theory). Instead, GR simply assumes that energy is conserved. So such
back-action *must exist.*

* (predicted at a magnitude roughly equivalent to the Pioneer effect, if the
speed of gravity corpuscles are circa light speed)

{snip}

ANY finite speed of gravity will result
in a perihelion advance. The question is, how much is needed --
observationally? What effects have been considered in the
calculation? The devil is in the details.

Personally, on the basis of Mach's prinicple, I'm more inclined to
believe gravity operates instantaneously. But I would not exclude
non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance on the basis of Mach's
principle.

Personally, I do not accept Mach's principle. Primarily because it has
no cause-and-effect, and because no clear statement of the "principle"
exists.

I see Mach's principle as more a case of demonstrating how mass
exhibits on an instantaneous basis the prevalence of the fundamental
constants of nature, which in turn acquire their quantitative ratios
with relation to one another by virtue of the existence of a finite
amount of matter existing in a finite volume that is universe, of
which a single body constitutes a determinable fraction. Its inertia
exhibits the fact that the constitution of the universe, and its
condition as copmonent of it, is essentially constant. (I'm not a
great believer that space between objects is a fundamental reality.)

In the above views, we part company. But that's OK. I'm more of a
materialist, myself. I lump "instantaneous" in with "infinity" and
"singularity."

I honestly couldn't see any way to explain gyroscopic inertia in the
absence of Mach's principle.

It is quite simple with a physical aether and matter model similar to
Maxwell's aether (EM) and Lorentz' matter model (LET).

One of the best online sources for such theoretical discussion is from
Tom Van Flandern's webpage: http://metaresearch.org

Rather interesting, too. Incidentally, reading it I am reminded of the
Nordtvedt effect. I know that there is no evidence for it, but do you
know anything of the theoretical basis for it? I had supposed it was
to do with the fact that relativistic mass imposes a gravitational
effect that is supplementary to rest mass, thus generating a greater
rate of gravitational acceleration.

Actually, AFAIK, the Nordtvedt effect is more a reflection of the strong
equivalence principle (See MTW, p 1128). Which is fine, but the equivalence
principle is not contained mathematically anywhere in GR*. It's more of a
heuristic aid.

As far as experiment goes, Clifford Will's book gives just a little too much
information, letting the cat out of the bag. See the thread "The Biased
Observer," 5/10/03:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vb....supernews.com

Will (and his primary reference Warbuton and Goodkind) *assume* that any
gravitational "anomalies" are "entireley" due to ocean loading. This is
what GR requires. However, several theories of gravity require SOME
semidiurnal or diurnal load vectors (i.e. from the galactic mass vector).
Thus, this is an outright ASSUMPTION by Will that there are NO external
semidiurnal or diurnal load vectors. After this bald assumption of GR, any
difference is claimed to be "refuted by experiment." In truth, any unwanted
signal is simply assigned as ocean tide noise.

*(IIRC, according to Cao, "Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field
Theories", Whitehead's theory is about as close as theorists have gotten to
GR, starting from the equivalence principle.)

Incidentally, am I not correct in thinking there can in principle be
singularities in classical physics, by virtue of the weaking of
nuclear forces?

There can be singularities in classical mathematics -- but never (to my
knowledge) in classical physics. Singularities and infinities are nature's
was of letting us know the approximation has broken down.

By the way, I don't agree with Tom's conclusions concerning the
near-infinite speed of the force of gravity (though I think you may be
happier with them). I believe Tom falls into the Laplacian fallacy. But
it's not because he ignores it.

Wondering what the Laplacian fallacy is...?

Sorry, it's my own term. Laplace was the first to calculate a near-infinite
speed of gravity (10^17 c) -- based on assuming a drag force resulting from
physical motion through an aether medium. Laplace ignored the contribution
from the oppositely-signed aberration force that results from the same
theory. Hence, I refer to the requirement for near-infinite gravity speed --
due to looking only at one contribution to an orbital system -- as a
Laplacian fallacy.

I'm a bit worried about this comment of his: "SR is also a well-tested
and confirmed theory". That's a bit off, isn't it?

Yes. We have no published experiments that have discriminated between SR
and an aether theory such as LET. SRists simply assume that the aether
cannot be detected. However, they arbitrarily impose a 'synchronization'
procedure that forces measurements to match. Which precludes disproof or
discrimination between field-referred properties (LET) and observer-referred
properties (SR).

Only areas of SR
that had been toyed with and essentially discovered, prior to the
laying down of the two postulates, can claim to be confirmed. There
has never been any basis for supposing that rate of electron
transition equals rate of time flow, which is the position at the
heart of it.

SR -- per se -- has no matter model, or model of the weak nuclear force.
LET does have a rudimentary matter model as a fundamental part of the
theory. Electron/positron emission (beta decay) thus cannot be solely a
proof of SR.

I don't think he's going very far if he thinks the
relativists have anything more than a turgid, presumptuous (i.e. in
the sense that the path of light can somehow be part of the very
rotation of the objects [frame] it is reflecting off) and circular
explanation of the Sagnac effect.

Tom is at least asking pointed questions. He may not reach the ultimate
truth. But he's willing to look, instead of saying "you can't ask that."

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Versy Tyle wrote in message
m...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Versy Tyle wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Greywolf, thanks, you certainly seem to know your stuff.

In this specific area, at any rate.

It was also 'corrected' to 32", prior to 1960. The calculation is
quite difficult -- and it is not the determination of the orbital
ellipses
that makes the calculation difficult (radar makes the ellipses more
precise -- but doesn't affect the precision of the "residual"
non-newtonian part). The procedural errors have not changed
significantly since LeVerrier's day. You have a 10-body problem in
real time, and you are looking for a variation that is a small
fraction of dynamic perturbations. Basically, you can get just
about any answer you want. (The latest value "adjusted"
Mercury's data to match GR. Then proudly claimed that this
proved GR.)

Might that mean it would vary from one Mercurial year to the next?

Indubitably so. The variations from orbit to orbit swing far more than
that required to average out to a mere 43" per Earth-century. The
planets Jupiter and Venus account for the majority of the variations.

Now, all this is very interesting - but what I really need is a good
literary reference that serves to refute the purported confirmation of
GR by way of the NNPA, so I can incoporate it in what I'm putting
together. Might you have one?

You'll have to find each of the four or five calculations of the NNPA, and
compare them. There really have only been a few. LeVerrier, Newcomb and
Duncombe (?1958) are described in Roseveare. I believe Anderson is
post-Roseveare.

The best single reference on the value and methodology of data reduction is
given in J.D. Anderson et al., Acta Astronautica 5 (1978) 43. There are two
background books you should read. Roseveare's "The Perihelion Advance of
Mercury, from LeVerrier to Einstein." And Beckmann's "Einstein, Plus Two."
Or -- if you're a serious history buff -- I can refer you to Heaviside.
Roseveare's book is the best of the lot for this background.

Thanks for that.

Prior to heading to a library, you can try a google search on the thread,
"What about the NNPA of Mercury?" (4/01) Needless to say, you'll never find
such a conclusion published in a status-controlled (peer-reviewed) journal.

Ain't something gotta break, now that that somewhat novel thing, the
'net can foreground the *truth*??

I personally ran into a cold trail on the "latest and greatest" claim of GR
and the NNPA (Anderson et al). Anderson et al indicated that they had
'corrected' the perihelion shifts of the 'inner planets' to match GR
predictions -- before performing GR validation calculations. But they did
not quantify the amount of 'correction'. Nor respond to requests for
further information.

See also my post of 11/29/01 on "Relativity versus celestial mechanics" for
further references and comments.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b2...1.onemai n.co
m

Read that - interesting...

[You can follow Steve Carlip's response (which I missed at the time) which
comes down to the following claim: "I ... tend to believe that observers and
their colleagues who work directly with observational data are pretty good
at identifying and correcting for systematic errors, which is what is at
issue here."]

{snip uncommented details on importance to celestial navigation}

LeVerrier was the first to identify this theoretical problem. But he
simply accepted the problem, and turned out the ephemerides
using the historical data -- the "why" was not as important as the
lives. He came up with a "non-newtonian" perihelion advance
(NNPA) of 38" per century (IIRC).

Newcomb found that he could match the historical data (plus a few more
Earth years of observation) a bit better than LeVerrier, by allowing the
eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to vary. Newcomb did not claim that
this was what was happening, but the variable eccentricity allowed him
to fit the astrometric data a bit better -- hence maybe saving a few
lives. His value for the NNPA was 43" per Earth century.

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb allowed for the bending of light by the
Sun -- which affects the apparent visual superior conjuctions (planet on
the far side of the Sun), but does not significantly affect the timing
of inferior conjuctions (planet between the Sun and the Earth).

Neither LeVerrier nor Newcomb considered any contribution from anything
other than a spherical Sun or the planets (i.e. no oblate Sun, no other
matter orbiting the Sun, no speed-of-gravity delay.)

Ought we really to *believe* in the bending of light? Are you talking
about a Newtonian formulation of light bending?

I'm discussing the observed bending of light. The observations of
light-bending are undeniably positive, though still fairly coarse -- no
better than within 30%.

30% of what? I mean, are we talking results that are closer to Newton
or to Einstein?

Statistical and instrument errors of 30% of the measured values from one
optical measurement to the next. At 30% variation, the results cannot yet
discriminate between the two (or other) theories. Some measurements return
the Newtonian value. One Russian eclipse observation was roughly twice the
GR value. All radio measurements require adjusting the data to eliminate
the Sun's corona. The coronal bending is greater than the value they're
trying to measure. See the Hipparcos paper, below, for some details.

I read your comments, on the paper, though struggled to follow (I'm a
philosopher, not a physicist).
I guess you're saying that the effect if the sun's corona was
eliminated only on an arbitrary basis.


(General relativists claim confirmation to parts in
a thousand, but that's simply hype and circular reasoning.)

I must admit that I have been influenced by the Marmet piece that you
are probably familiar with:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html
Where he says that the relativistic correction has not been eliminated
from the mathematics, to me it looks like the purported infinitesimal
margin of error in the 'confirmation' of the GR prediction is in fact
mathematical confirmation, when all mathematical considerations have
been incorporated, that the bending does not occur to any degree
whatsoever.

That's pretty much it.


Well now this has me confused, because Whittaker (1953) reports the
bending to be of the order of 2 to 2.25", after *revision*. Are we now
saying that even after revision, we have a load of other junk to
contend with (what is that junk - corona?) Also, I thought you were
saying otherwise - I mean, that it is indisputable that gravity *does*
actually affect the path of light!


Of course, the sun's corona is an important influence - indubitably
*that* serves to bend light. I'm interested in your position (any
useful references for me?).

I have a prior, recent post that touches on this issue. After the Hipparcos
"validation" of GR, the relativists were finally willing to mention the
coronal problems with the attempts to measure light bending with radio
waves.

See the thread "Hipparcos and Gravitational Light-Bending," 5/15/2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vc....supernews.com


Yep, read it with interest

But, regardless
of the amount of deflection -- whether Newtonian, GR, or something
else -- there is a measurable change in the apparent position of a
luminous body, and therefore a change in the apparent time of a
superior transit. At the precisions available (which were excellent,
even 130 years ago), this is a noticable effect.

Both Gerber (1898) and
Einstein (1916) appear to have been lead astray by this historical
artifact. Since Einstein, there has been tremendous pressure to
"find" 43" per century. Even though Einstein didn't use Newcomb's
varying eccentricities. Apparently, Einstein was unaware of
Newcomb's modifications to Newtonian dynamics.

Yeh, looks like ad hoc physics. I've seen the same figure of 43"
arrived at through an explanation using the absorption of pico
gravitons of Mercury, as a formulation that does not employ
relativity. In the modern world, I guess you could sell a theory on
the basis that it finds a well-known figure that has been deduced as
opposed to the correct one - whether or not you know it to be
incorrect (in fact, you might have several 'possible' figures to aim
at!).

I wouldn't call it ad hoc physics. Because there are several physical
reasons that could cause such an advance. It's more a question of
physics by the herd. Once a numerical value gets "accepted" by the
herd, there is tremendous pressure to have observations and
experiments duplicate that value. Especially if a major theory is tied
to that value.

One of the first to claim the value of 43" per century was a fellow by
the name of Paul Gerber, in 1898. He developed a finite-speed potential
that resulted in a speed of gravity equal to the speed of light --
starting from Newcomb's value. GRist's belittle Gerber's attempt,
because the theory is "flawed."

"Fundamentally"?

It is not a complete theory of gravity. Only an attempt to impose a finite
speed limit on the gravitational potential. That is a flaw, according to
some. According to others, it is a first step.


This I cannot really get my head around. Because I thought you were
indicating that the GRists insist on a finite speed of gravity (as c).


Einstein also performed some rather "nonstandard" mathelogical
gyrations to obtain the same potential formula as Gerber. But it does
make the answer come out "right" (i.e. equal to the value of
Newcomb's variable eccentricity model -- but without allowing for
variable eccentricity). And once Einstein had done it, the value
became carved in stone. (Some relativists have publicly claimed and
defended precisions of 1 part in 10,000 for this value -- by confusing
the theoretical prediction with the calculated value.)

{snip higher levels}

Laplace used different assumptions than GR. Laplace assumed that
orbital drag was the only force acting via a LeSagian mechanism.
Hence, Laplace worked from an orbital stability assumption.
GR includes both drag and "back action" (by ASSUMING all
orbits are stable).

I'm not up to speed on these concepts, I must say.

Nor are most "modern physicists." So you are in good company.

I don't know what the bloody hell they mean.

Sorry. I was presuming more historical knowledge in an attempt to cover the
territory.

Georges Louis LeSage was the first to develop a physical derivation for
Newton's gravitational equation. He used a particulate aether (and a quaint
matter model). Matter was 'pushed' together by momentum shadowing of the
aether 'corpuscles.'


Trying (in vain, I guess) to get my head around 'momentum
shadowing'....


Laplace evaluated some of the dynamics of LeSage's model in an attempt to
explain the orbital stability of the Earth and Moon. Since LeSage's
hypothesis of physical bodies creates an unavoidable drag* as matter moves
through the aether.

*Is this the same as the drag that MM supposedly refuted?

However, Laplace only considered the drag of the medium
and spiral inward of the orbit. Using this fallacial approach (ignoring
aberration), Laplace obtained a value that the speed of gravity must be in
excess of 10^17 c.

GR explicitly assumes that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of
light. This finite speed of gravity leads to a non-central force
constituent called "aberration" (not the same as stellar aberration).

Ah. I must say it looks to me like GRists have exploited the idea of
stellar aberration to justify GR. Isn't stellar aberration a matter of
the precession resulting from the change in the earth's axis of
rotation? As I say, I'm not trained in these areas, so any info you
give is well received....
(And while you're at it, I wonder what's your view on the other stuff
the GRists come out with - I mean, binary star systems and
astronomical stuff - to justify their BS?)

Such
a force component will -- if unopposed -- cause an orbit to spiral outward
(increase). One of Tom VF's papers pointed this (well-known, but)
undiscussed portion of GR in 1999. Steve Carlip responded with a paper
that claimed that "back action" made everything work out right. However,
there is no physical basis for 'back action' in GR (unlike in a LeSagian
theory). Instead, GR simply assumes that energy is conserved. So such
back-action *must exist.*

So back action is the resistence against ever increasing increasing
orbital radius?

* (predicted at a magnitude roughly equivalent to the Pioneer effect, if the
speed of gravity corpuscles are circa light speed)

{snip}

ANY finite speed of gravity will result
in a perihelion advance. The question is, how much is needed --
observationally? What effects have been considered in the
calculation? The devil is in the details.

Personally, on the basis of Mach's prinicple, I'm more inclined to
believe gravity operates instantaneously. But I would not exclude
non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance on the basis of Mach's
principle.

Personally, I do not accept Mach's principle. Primarily because it has
no cause-and-effect, and because no clear statement of the "principle"
exists.

I see Mach's principle as more a case of demonstrating how mass
exhibits on an instantaneous basis the prevalence of the fundamental
constants of nature, which in turn acquire their quantitative ratios
with relation to one another by virtue of the existence of a finite
amount of matter existing in a finite volume that is universe, of
which a single body constitutes a determinable fraction. Its inertia
exhibits the fact that the constitution of the universe, and its
condition as copmonent of it, is essentially constant. (I'm not a
great believer that space between objects is a fundamental reality.)

In the above views, we part company. But that's OK. I'm more of a
materialist, myself. I lump "instantaneous" in with "infinity" and
"singularity."

Hmm. Well, I maintain it on a slightly different basis: the
fundamental constants of nature do not operate according to a lag
time. Some things are just static realities. I rather see such
concepts as 'infinity' as being spurious mathematical inferences drawn
from the *true* enigma of space (whose inherent integrity, when
physics is considered, implies instantaneity). Kant does a good one:
any representation of space can itself be placed within another
representation of space, hence space is infinitely divisible. I just
call it inherently enigmatic - I mean, not reducible to anything
determinate.

I honestly couldn't see any way to explain gyroscopic inertia in the
absence of Mach's principle.

It is quite simple with a physical aether and matter model similar to
Maxwell's aether (EM) and Lorentz' matter model (LET).

Really? It would frighten me if it was!

One of the best online sources for such theoretical discussion is from
Tom Van Flandern's webpage: http://metaresearch.org

Rather interesting, too. Incidentally, reading it I am reminded of the
Nordtvedt effect. I know that there is no evidence for it, but do you
know anything of the theoretical basis for it? I had supposed it was
to do with the fact that relativistic mass imposes a gravitational
effect that is supplementary to rest mass, thus generating a greater
rate of gravitational acceleration.

Actually, AFAIK, the Nordtvedt effect is more a reflection of the strong
equivalence principle (See MTW, p 1128). Which is fine, but the equivalence
principle is not contained mathematically anywhere in GR*. It's more of a
heuristic aid.

What's MTW? I take it that strong equivalence is merely the
equivalence between acceleration and gravity, in absolutely all
respects (I can see why that doesn't tally!)?
Damned difficult to find anything about the Nordfedt effect on the
'net, but I truly interested in how exactly it relates to the strong
equivalence principle.


As far as experiment goes, Clifford Will's book gives just a little too much
information, letting the cat out of the bag. See the thread "The Biased
Observer," 5/10/03:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vb....supernews.com

Yeh, had a read.


Will (and his primary reference Warbuton and Goodkind) *assume* that any
gravitational "anomalies" are "entireley" due to ocean loading. This is
what GR requires. However, several theories of gravity require SOME
semidiurnal or diurnal load vectors (i.e. from the galactic mass vector).
Thus, this is an outright ASSUMPTION by Will that there are NO external
semidiurnal or diurnal load vectors. After this bald assumption of GR, any
difference is claimed to be "refuted by experiment." In truth, any unwanted
signal is simply assigned as ocean tide noise.

*(IIRC, according to Cao, "Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field
Theories", Whitehead's theory is about as close as theorists have gotten to
GR, starting from the equivalence principle.)

Incidentally, am I not correct in thinking there can in principle be
singularities in classical physics, by virtue of the weaking of
nuclear forces?

There can be singularities in classical mathematics -- but never (to my
knowledge) in classical physics. Singularities and infinities are nature's
was of letting us know the approximation has broken down.

That'll be OK if we're into QM, won't it?


By the way, I don't agree with Tom's conclusions concerning the
near-infinite speed of the force of gravity (though I think you may be
happier with them). I believe Tom falls into the Laplacian fallacy. But
it's not because he ignores it.

Wondering what the Laplacian fallacy is...?

Sorry, it's my own term. Laplace was the first to calculate a near-infinite
speed of gravity (10^17 c) -- based on assuming a drag force

drag upon the motion of a body or drag relating to the motion of the
propagation of particles (gravitons?) 'carrying' gravity?

resulting from
physical motion through an aether medium. Laplace ignored the contribution
from the oppositely-signed aberration force that results from the same
theory. Hence, I refer to the requirement for near-infinite gravity speed --
due to looking only at one contribution to an orbital system -- as a
Laplacian fallacy.

I'm a bit worried about this comment of his: "SR is also a well-tested
and confirmed theory". That's a bit off, isn't it?

Yes. We have no published experiments that have discriminated between SR
and an aether theory such as LET. SRists simply assume that the aether
cannot be detected. However, they arbitrarily impose a 'synchronization'
procedure that forces measurements to match. Which precludes disproof or
discrimination between field-referred properties (LET) and observer-referred
properties (SR).

To be honest, can't say LET convinces me either (I remain Kantian on
the idea of space, if not strictly on time!). But I'd be interested in
hearing the primary issues in the debate.


Only areas of SR
that had been toyed with and essentially discovered, prior to the
laying down of the two postulates, can claim to be confirmed. There
has never been any basis for supposing that rate of electron
transition equals rate of time flow, which is the position at the
heart of it.

SR -- per se -- has no matter model, or model of the weak nuclear force.
LET does have a rudimentary matter model as a fundamental part of the
theory. Electron/positron emission (beta decay) thus cannot be solely a
proof of SR.

Was it ever advanced as such? In what form (sorry - if that's a
complex question, don't bother with it)? (Incidentally, surely atomic
decay doesn't vary according to relativistic time? [Even if it did,
that would be far from verifying the positions assumed in SR]).


I don't think he's going very far if he thinks the
relativists have anything more than a turgid, presumptuous (i.e. in
the sense that the path of light can somehow be part of the very
rotation of the objects [frame] it is reflecting off) and circular
explanation of the Sagnac effect.

Tom is at least asking pointed questions. He may not reach the ultimate
truth. But he's willing to look, instead of saying "you can't ask that."

Yes, well like you, I applaud him for that. Perhaps he would dearly
like to be more radical than he knows he can get away with.

Thanks, Pal.

Troublemaker.

Versy Tyle wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message