On Nov 27, 4:58 pm, dr_strangelove wrote:
I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
can be viewed at:http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf

I await your personal attacks and name calling.

Thank you very much.



Hmm, your paper concludes with the "discovery" that the "precession
per century is 42.91 arcseconds" .

Last we all checked 43 arcseconds was the DIFERENCE between the
Newtonian prediction on one hand and the GR prediction and
experimental observation on the other hand.

"Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
k...

"JMA" wrote in message
...
:
: "Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
: . uk...
:
: "JMA" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "dr_strangelove" escreveu na mensagem
: :
...
: : I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not
require
: : GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math.
It
: : can be viewed at:
: : http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf
: :
: : I await your personal attacks and name calling.
: :
: : Thank you very much.
: :
: : The mercury's perihelion advance is 5599 arc second,
: : or two degrees per century.
: : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
: :
: : The value you need to find is 5599, not 43.
:
: Mercury's perihelion advance was
: 0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between
: June 2004 and Sept 2004 as measured by me, which is
: 134.88924824245825366867083570342 arc seconds per
: century. That's the value you need to find. Go measure it and
: see. Get Einstein to hold your telescope steady for you, because
: Einstein didn't have one, you can't use his (if you can even find
: Mercury, not many have ever seen it).
:
: David has done exactly what Einstein did, contrived a result
: he wanted in the hope of gaining recognition as a bull****ter.
:
: You claim you have measured the perihelion advance.

Sure, it's fairly easy. Astronomers have been doing such work
for hundreds of years.


: How did you measure it? with a telescope?

Sighted it with a telescope, sure. What are you asking? How to read
angles of right ascension and declination?

: Do you know what the trajectory should be, if there is
: no precession ?

What's this "if"? The orbit should be an ellipse if there are
no other planets, but there are.

I don't have a telescope, nor skills with telescopes.
But, the orbit is always the same exact ellipse.
The plane of that ellipse rotates around the line that
cross the foci (where the Sun is placed) and is orthogonal
to the line defined by the perihelion and aphelion.
That is, rotation of the orbit plane around the line defined
by the apogee, foci and perigee.


: You need to observe during minimum two orbites and then
: measure the perihelion advance.
:
: Actually I cannot see how precession could occur without
: a torque orthogonal to the plane of precession.

There's Jupiter, Venus, Earth ... Mars and the outer planets to
a lesser extent ... plenty of "torque". It's different for every orbit.

I see the picture and the way I see it (there is no other
way if see it) I see a variable torque.
Actually I see a very variable torque.

The point is:
Constant precession requires constant torque.


: So far, here on earth, without torque nobody could make
: anything undergo precession.
:
: What is really a mystery is how people talk about
: precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
: what precession is, and what causes the torque that
: causes precession.

Don't be silly, of course I know what it is and the cause!
Take a look at this:
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html
Example 5 precesses 90 degrees per orbit, that's enough,
isn't it?

The three body motion...?
No, there is no solution for the three body motion.

I guess you don't know where the vector torque points
relative to the plane of the orbit and the line of rotation
(rotation of the orbit plane around the line defined
by the apogee, foci and perigee).

: Most of the people don't even know
: how torque should be applied (where the vector points)
: to achieve precession of a rotating system.
:
: Many people around here believe on precession without
: torque (that is, precession by means of magic).

Yeah, that's Einstein's crap. Most people have their heads
up their arse and go for Einstein's magic, but as you say, they
have no idea. They just want to sound knowledgeable, that's all.

"bz" escreveu na mensagem
98.139...
"JMA" wrote in :

What is really a mystery is how people talk about
precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
what precession is

[quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precession]
1. The rotational motion of the axis of a spinning body, such as the
wobbling of a spinning top, caused by torque applied to the body along its
axis of rotation.
2. The motion of this kind made by the Earth's axis, caused mainly by the
gravitational pull of the Sun, Moon, and other planets. The precession of
Earth's axis has a period of nearly 25,800 years, during which time the
reference points on the equatorial coordinate system (the celestial poles
and celestial equator) will gradually shift their positions on the
celestial sphere. The precession of the equinoxes is the slow westward
shift of the autumnal and vernal equinoxes along the ecliptic, resulting
from precession of the Earth's axis. See also nutation.
[unquote]

For instance:
A 3 years old kid knows very well what light is.
But a 3 years old kid knows nothing about what light really is and
how he can be fooled by light.

Some facts about precession:
1 - Constant precession requires constant torque.
Where is the constant torque? The torque is highly variable.

2 - Where does the kinetic energy come from?
The kinetic energy comes from the potential energy.
Since energy is conserved, potential energy needs to be
dissipated. That is, a smaller secondary motion, called
nutation, occurs.

escreveu na mensagem
...
On Nov 29, 5:55 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:55:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

[...]



His posts are constructive. I wonder sometimes if it's difficult for
you to appreciate anything but destruction.

Stupidity is not constructive. He doesn't know the difference between
force and the scalar potential.

That's nice. Why don't you get off your rear and explain it to him
instead of just flapping your jaw randomly to "hear" the sound of your
own voice?

Because every time he wants to explain anything he slips and
shows how limited and ignorant he is. He's just a kid that tries
to swim with the sharks.

"JMA" wrote in :


"bz" escreveu na mensagem
98.139...
"JMA" wrote in
:

What is really a mystery is how people talk about
precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
what precession is

[quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precession]
1. The rotational motion of the axis of a spinning body, such as the
wobbling of a spinning top, caused by torque applied to the body along
its axis of rotation.
2. The motion of this kind made by the Earth's axis, caused mainly by
the gravitational pull of the Sun, Moon, and other planets. The
precession of Earth's axis has a period of nearly 25,800 years, during
which time the reference points on the equatorial coordinate system
(the celestial poles and celestial equator) will gradually shift their
positions on the celestial sphere. The precession of the equinoxes is
the slow westward shift of the autumnal and vernal equinoxes along the
ecliptic, resulting from precession of the Earth's axis. See also
nutation. [unquote]

For instance:
A 3 years old kid knows very well what light is.
But a 3 years old kid knows nothing about what light really is and
how he can be fooled by light.

Some facts about precession:
1 - Constant precession requires constant torque.
Where is the constant torque? The torque is highly variable.

2 - Where does the kinetic energy come from?
The kinetic energy comes from the potential energy.
Since energy is conserved, potential energy needs to be
dissipated. That is, a smaller secondary motion, called
nutation, occurs.

My [not so clear] point was that they mean [to paraphrase slightly] is
that "the precession of mercury is the slow shift of the point of nearest
approach to the sun along the orbital plane," whatever the cause of said
drift.

After taking into account the gravitational effects of all the planets,
there was still some 'precession' left over. They first attributed it to a
small [as yet to be observed] planet inside mercury's orbit, but that
theory was rejected because such an orbit would not be stable.

GR came to the rescue and explained the drift.

No specific constant 'torque' need be supplied, but the planet 'Vulcan'
would have supplied such a torque if Vulcan existed.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"JMA" wrote in message
...
:
: "Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
: k...
:
: "JMA" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
: : . uk...
: :
: : "JMA" wrote in message
: : ...
: : :
: : : "dr_strangelove" escreveu na mensagem
: : :
: ...
: : : I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not
: require
: : : GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some
math.
: It
: : : can be viewed at:
: : : http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf
: : :
: : : I await your personal attacks and name calling.
: : :
: : : Thank you very much.
: : :
: : : The mercury's perihelion advance is 5599 arc second,
: : : or two degrees per century.
: : : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
: : :
: : : The value you need to find is 5599, not 43.
: :
: : Mercury's perihelion advance was
: : 0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between
: : June 2004 and Sept 2004 as measured by me, which is
: : 134.88924824245825366867083570342 arc seconds per
: : century. That's the value you need to find. Go measure it and
: : see. Get Einstein to hold your telescope steady for you, because
: : Einstein didn't have one, you can't use his (if you can even find
: : Mercury, not many have ever seen it).
: :
: : David has done exactly what Einstein did, contrived a result
: : he wanted in the hope of gaining recognition as a bull****ter.
: :
: : You claim you have measured the perihelion advance.
:
: Sure, it's fairly easy. Astronomers have been doing such work
: for hundreds of years.
:
:
: : How did you measure it? with a telescope?
:
: Sighted it with a telescope, sure. What are you asking? How to read
: angles of right ascension and declination?
:
: : Do you know what the trajectory should be, if there is
: : no precession ?
:
: What's this "if"? The orbit should be an ellipse if there are
: no other planets, but there are.
:
: I don't have a telescope, nor skills with telescopes.

Then you should not call into question the skills of those that do.

: But, the orbit is always the same exact ellipse.

Nope, it precesses. Spirograph is a good toy, quite cheap.
Invest in one. This one is free:
http://wordsmith.org/~anu/java/spirograph.html

: The plane of that ellipse rotates around the line that
: cross the foci (where the Sun is placed) and is orthogonal
: to the line defined by the perihelion and aphelion.
: That is, rotation of the orbit plane around the line defined
: by the apogee, foci and perigee.

That is an ideal, in the real universe other bodies exist. BTW, the
words you want are aphelion and perihelion, Mercury does not orbit
the Earth.


: : You need to observe during minimum two orbites and then
: : measure the perihelion advance.
: :
: : Actually I cannot see how precession could occur without
: : a torque orthogonal to the plane of precession.
:
: There's Jupiter, Venus, Earth ... Mars and the outer planets to
: a lesser extent ... plenty of "torque". It's different for every orbit.
:
: I see the picture and the way I see it (there is no other
: way if see it) I see a variable torque.
: Actually I see a very variable torque.
:
So orbits precess variably due to a variable torque. shrug


: The point is:
: Constant precession requires constant torque.

The point is the precession isn't constant and there is no reason
to assume it is. You are seeking ideals again.


: : So far, here on earth, without torque nobody could make
: : anything undergo precession.
: :
: : What is really a mystery is how people talk about
: : precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
: : what precession is, and what causes the torque that
: : causes precession.
:
: Don't be silly, of course I know what it is and the cause!
: Take a look at this:
: http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html
: Example 5 precesses 90 degrees per orbit, that's enough,
: isn't it?
:
: The three body motion...?
: No, there is no solution for the three body motion.

Well then, Einstein shouldn't pretend there is just to make
a name for himself.


:
: I guess you don't know where the vector torque points
: relative to the plane of the orbit and the line of rotation
: (rotation of the orbit plane around the line defined
: by the apogee, foci and perigee).

You can guess all you want to, but I won't guess.

:
: : Most of the people don't even know
: : how torque should be applied (where the vector points)
: : to achieve precession of a rotating system.
: :
: : Many people around here believe on precession without
: : torque (that is, precession by means of magic).
:
: Yeah, that's Einstein's crap. Most people have their heads
: up their arse and go for Einstein's magic, but as you say, they
: have no idea. They just want to sound knowledgeable, that's all.
:
:
:

On Nov 29, 10:03 am, Dono wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:58 pm, dr_strangelove wrote:

I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
can be viewed at:http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf

I await your personal attacks and name calling.

Thank you very much.

Hmm, your paper concludes with the "discovery" that the "precession
per century is 42.91 arcseconds" .

Last we all checked 43 arcseconds was the DIFERENCE between the
Newtonian prediction on one hand and the GR prediction and
experimental observation on the other hand.

Dallas,

He has already explained that this assumption of yours is incorrect.
He realizes that 43 is not the total, and that you are deliberately
misinterpreting his dialogue. Refer to the thread on physorg.com if
you don't remember.

Of course, you do that to me as well, so it's apparent where the
problem lies.

- Shawn

On Nov 29, 10:19 am, wrote:


- Shawn-


http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...5/35092155.JPG

On Nov 29, 1:37 pm, Dono wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:19 am, wrote:



- Shawn-

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...5/35092155.JPG

Ever brilliant.

- Shawn

On Nov 29, 3:34 pm, wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:37 pm, Dono wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:19 am, wrote:

- Shawn-

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...5/35092155.JPG

Ever brilliant.

- Shawn

This is a test of the google posting system. I tried twice to respond
to previous postings but they evaporated some where in cyber space.