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.

"dr_strangelove" wrote in message
...
: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.

Hardly surprising, David. Orbital precession has never been in question,
only the amount.
The figure usually contrived is 43 arc seconds per century,
as calculated by Le Verrier using Newtonian Mechanics,
but that's a so-what.
In one Earth century Mercury will complete 415 orbits,
or 415 * 360 * 60 * 60 arc seconds.
An error of 43 arc seconds
is
43
epsilon = ------------------ * 100% = 0.00008%
537840000
Since Einstein was not an astronomer and Le Verrier
was working with recorded data, it would be ludicrous indeed
to call an error that miniscule significant.

I see you've claimed
"Mercury orbits the sun 414.9378 times in one earth century, so the
precession per century is: 42.9195 arc seconds per century in excellent
agreement with observation and GR."

I would add

"Mercury orbits the sun 414.9378 times in one earth century, so the
precession per century is: 42.9195 arc seconds per century in excellent
agreement with observation and Newtonian Mechanics"

In reality, of course, you've taken no observations at all and the
precession

is NOT 0.429195 arc seconds per YEAR or 0.10347715068493150684931506849315
arc seconds per Mercurial orbit,

but 0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between

June 2004 and Sept 2004.

Go measure it and see.

On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

Hardly surprising, David. Orbital precession has never been in question,
only the amount.
The figure usually contrived is 43 arc seconds per century,
as calculated by Le Verrier using Newtonian Mechanics,
but that's a so-what.

Yes, what Le Verrier calculated based on data being collected since
his great grandfather's time was actually 5,600 arc seconds per 100
earth years. Out of the 5,600, 5,025 arc seconds can be accounted for
through the 26,000-year-cycle precession or wobbling of earth's
rotational axis. 532 arc seconds were calculated by him due to other
planets. Each stage of reductions introduces errors. Yes, these
error bars become very significant. Where the hell is Professor
Roberts when you need him to qualify this error bar? He went
ballistic on every accounts complaining about error bars. Why does he
ignore the significance of the error introduced on this one (and
others)? Does faith have any impact on his behavior of favoritism?
If so, he is not doing physics. shrug

"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.

"JMA" escreveu na mensagem
...

"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.

Damn link above is not the good one.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...v/grel.html#c2

On Nov 27, 10:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Yes, what Le Verrier calculated based on data being collected since
his great grandfather's time was actually 5,600 arc seconds per 100
earth years. Out of the 5,600, 5,025 arc seconds can be accounted for
through the 26,000-year-cycle precession or wobbling of earth's
rotational axis. 532 arc seconds were calculated by him due to other
planets. Each stage of reductions introduces errors. Yes, these
error bars become very significant. Where the hell is Professor
Roberts when you need him to qualify this error bar? He went
ballistic on every accounts complaining about error bars. Why does he
ignore the significance of the error introduced on this one (and
others)? Does faith have any impact on his behavior of favoritism?
If so, he is not doing physics. shrug

Oh oh! I just received 23 one-star ratings to this post without
attacking SR or GR. It was totally based on the experimental errors
raised by Androcles. I am willing to bet my money on the fact that
the nitwit Dono must have read my post.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:01:31 -0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Nov 27, 10:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Yes, what Le Verrier calculated based on data being collected since
his great grandfather's time was actually 5,600 arc seconds per 100
earth years. Out of the 5,600, 5,025 arc seconds can be accounted for
through the 26,000-year-cycle precession or wobbling of earth's
rotational axis. 532 arc seconds were calculated by him due to other
planets. Each stage of reductions introduces errors. Yes, these
error bars become very significant. Where the hell is Professor
Roberts when you need him to qualify this error bar? He went
ballistic on every accounts complaining about error bars. Why does he
ignore the significance of the error introduced on this one (and
others)? Does faith have any impact on his behavior of favoritism?
If so, he is not doing physics. shrug

Oh oh! I just received 23 one-star ratings to this post without
attacking SR or GR. It was totally based on the experimental errors
raised by Androcles. I am willing to bet my money on the fact that
the nitwit Dono must have read my post.

Odd - you don't really care that you have no understanding of
relativity, but you do care that other peopel recognize this and vote
accordingly.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:50:19 -0000, "JMA" wrote:


"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.


The other-than-43 stuff is imposed by perturbations from other
planets, and the effect from a rotating coordinate system.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:58:37 -0800 (PST), 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.

You are obviously wrong without even getting into the idiocies of
using SR and Newton together to explain something gravitational in
nature.

By assuming a 1/r potential you have already determined the physics.
There is no precession of perihelia in a 1/r attractive potential. You
are doubly dead on arrival.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
: On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
:
: Hardly surprising, David. Orbital precession has never been in question,
: only the amount.
: The figure usually contrived is 43 arc seconds per century,
: as calculated by Le Verrier using Newtonian Mechanics,
: but that's a so-what.
:
: Yes, what

do not snip or you will be snipped


From: Tom Roberts
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:13:12 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 20 2005 5:13 pm

That page is useless. It only looks at ANCIENT measurements, and does
not include an error analysis at all. In fact, it is extremely likely
that when the errorbars of those measurements are included, they will be
consistent with modern measurements.

Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars.


That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which VASTLY
smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed of light in
many different situations.


Tom Roberts

You don't expect a relativist to be anything other than a
trolling hypocrite, do you?

Hardly surprising, David. Orbital precession has never been in question,
only the amount.
The figure usually contrived is 43 arc seconds per century,
as calculated by Le Verrier using Newtonian Mechanics,
but that's a so-what.
In one Earth century Mercury will complete 415 orbits,
or 415 * 360 * 60 * 60 arc seconds.
An error of 43 arc seconds
is
43
epsilon = ------------------ * 100% = 0.00008%
537840000
Since Einstein was not an astronomer and Le Verrier
was working with recorded data, it would be ludicrous indeed
to call an error that miniscule significant.

I see you've claimed
"Mercury orbits the sun 414.9378 times in one earth century, so the
precession per century is: 42.9195 arc seconds per century in excellent
agreement with observation and GR."

I would add

"Mercury orbits the sun 414.9378 times in one earth century, so the
precession per century is: 42.9195 arc seconds per century in excellent
agreement with observation and Newtonian Mechanics"

In reality, of course, you've taken no observations at all and the
precession

is NOT 0.429195 arc seconds per YEAR or 0.10347715068493150684931506849315
arc seconds per Mercurial orbit,

but 0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between

June 2004 and Sept 2004.

Go measure it and see.