Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382346 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-18 11:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 347 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Cully When <cullywhen@invalid.net> - 2016-04-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-27 17:15 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:43 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:17 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 07:56 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 19:39 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 04:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 23:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 07:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 14:03 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 10:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 15:40 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 14:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 11:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-29 20:37 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-30 10:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-30 05:28 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 08:59 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 02:46 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-30 10:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 07:51 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 05:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 03:35 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 07:58 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 21:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 03:45 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-01 12:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:12 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 09:54 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-02 19:23 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 03:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-03 03:47 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:00 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-11 11:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 06:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-12 08:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 05:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 09:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 09:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 13:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 23:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-15 08:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 15:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 21:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-16 06:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 17:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-15 09:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-15 20:46 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-16 06:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-17 01:59 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 02:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 22:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 02:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 09:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 10:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-17 08:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 17:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 09:22 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 18:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-18 19:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 06:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 11:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 11:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 22:18 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 23:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 03:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-20 08:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 11:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 13:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 15:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 16:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 19:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-22 09:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 11:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-22 11:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 06:31 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 03:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 09:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 22:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 06:41 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 17:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 19:52 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 20:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-26 06:44 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-27 12:03 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-30 13:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 04:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 05:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-31 08:08 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-31 08:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 00:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-01 15:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 16:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 20:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 05:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 22:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:37 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 20:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 02:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-06 08:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 07:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-08 09:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-09 10:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 18:03 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-09 16:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 11:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 04:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 11:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-10 16:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 18:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 09:46 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 06:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-11 09:42 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 14:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 21:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 04:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 13:20 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 09:21 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 10:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 20:16 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 14:12 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 15:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 15:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 16:50 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 17:12 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 17:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 22:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-12 23:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 04:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-13 06:02 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 01:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again tomyee3@gmail.com - 2016-06-14 04:22 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 04:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-14 05:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 06:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 09:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-14 19:13 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-14 21:34 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 09:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 10:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:36 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 13:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 17:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 21:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 14:31 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-18 10:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 04:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 11:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 16:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 18:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 18:28 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 20:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-20 11:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 14:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 23:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 10:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 11:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-15 23:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 00:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 00:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 05:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-13 15:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again tomyee3@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-11 09:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 15:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 10:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 20:37 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 11:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 20:39 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 22:25 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 23:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-09 17:47 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-02 10:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-01 06:38 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 21:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-17 08:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-17 17:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 17:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:14 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 12:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 17:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 03:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-03 13:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 15:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 04:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 10:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 16:06 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 10:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-02 10:28 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-02 09:36 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-05 13:27 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-05 17:50 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 22:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-07 09:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-08 06:41 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-09 03:42 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-08 12:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 12:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-09 19:44 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 05:21 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-09 08:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-07 15:42 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:05 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 15:02 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:23 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-09 09:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-10 09:10 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-10 09:20 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-11 07:00 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 15:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:19 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:14 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 16:15 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 20:01 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 02:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 02:50 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 17:13 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 19:48 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 06:53 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-30 10:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 06:41 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 02:16 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:43 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-01 21:52 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 21:12 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 09:54 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:57 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 05:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:39 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:49 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 10:02 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-17 02:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-01 17:35 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:59 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:56 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 10:08 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:19 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:26 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 03:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:09 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:56 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:55 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 19:17 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:08 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 21:21 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 19:51 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-04-28 17:30 -0400
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-03 07:05 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 18:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 18:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 20:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 16:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-13 07:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 11:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 11:01 -0700
Page 2 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 18 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c491ec3-020e-4d3c-b1f4-8dae63484700@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382449 |
W dniu piątek, 29 kwietnia 2016 09:06:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Koobee Wublee > > > You should compute the fill preccesion of Mercury: > > > 570 arcsecs, using the GR model for the whole Sol. sys. > > There is no valid model as explained by the following. <shrug> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/2Zu4U9oVk-g/_im2QBsLBQAJ Nonsense. Any motion can be described by the simple equation: force/accleration = f(r,v); thus in the newtonian machanics - exactly! That is just of the pure math consequence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ng0gms$p01$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #382478 |
alsor@interia.pl writes: >Nonsense. >Any motion can be described by the simple equation: >force/accleration =3D f(r,v); >thus in the newtonian machanics - exactly! >That is just of the pure math consequence. That got me wondering. If we disregard the other planets and consider only Mercury and the sun, can we (from a distance, outside the Sun's gravitational well) view the motion of Mercury as if it was due to the sum of two forces? The largest force is the strictly Newtonian force F=GMm/r^2, with a much smaller GR (pseudo)force added to it to result in the GR 43 arc seconds/century precession. Is the GR pseudoforce of the form F=KMm*r^x ? M is mass of the sun, m is mass of Mercury, r is Mercury-sun distance, K some constant, and x some exponent (-2 for pure Newtonian mechanics)? What is x? If not, what is the form of the add-on pseudoforce F(M,m,r)? Does anyone know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 10:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng0tos$1fgj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382489 |
On 30/04/16 06:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > alsor@interia.pl writes: > >> Nonsense. >> Any motion can be described by the simple equation: >> force/accleration =3D f(r,v); > >> thus in the newtonian machanics - exactly! > >> That is just of the pure math consequence. > > That got me wondering. > > If we disregard the other planets and consider only Mercury and the sun, > can we (from a distance, outside the Sun's gravitational well) view the > motion of Mercury as if it was due to the sum of two forces? The largest > force is the strictly Newtonian force F=GMm/r^2, with a much smaller GR > (pseudo)force added to it to result in the GR 43 arc seconds/century > precession. Is the GR pseudoforce of the form F=KMm*r^x ? M is mass of > the sun, m is mass of Mercury, r is Mercury-sun distance, K some constant, > and x some exponent (-2 for pure Newtonian mechanics)? What is x? If not, > what is the form of the add-on pseudoforce F(M,m,r)? Does anyone know? Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 05:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ng1fpd$sd1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #382499 |
HGW <HGW@....> writes: >On 30/04/16 06:37, Michael Moroney wrote: >> That got me wondering. >> >> If we disregard the other planets and consider only Mercury and the sun, >> can we (from a distance, outside the Sun's gravitational well) view the >> motion of Mercury as if it was due to the sum of two forces? The largest >> force is the strictly Newtonian force F=GMm/r^2, with a much smaller GR >> (pseudo)force added to it to result in the GR 43 arc seconds/century >> precession. Is the GR pseudoforce of the form F=KMm*r^x ? M is mass of >> the sun, m is mass of Mercury, r is Mercury-sun distance, K some constant, >> and x some exponent (-2 for pure Newtonian mechanics)? What is x? If not, >> what is the form of the add-on pseudoforce F(M,m,r)? Does anyone know? >Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not >balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted >before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side. Ralph, I am not interested in comments from the peanut gallery trying to defend a failed BaThwater theory, I was looking for someone who actually knows the actual physics. And thanks to alsor@interia.pl for the answer. Besides, ignoring the fact the solar wind is much too small for such an effect on a planet, an isotropic solar wind would be a repulsive force that follows the inverse square law anyway. That would make the apparent mass of the sun smaller or decrease G (depending on your point of view) and Mercury would orbit without precession.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qeSdnQ2eRdrVJ7nKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382511 |
On 4/30/16 4/30/16 12:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@....> writes: >> Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not >> balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted >> before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side. > > Besides, ignoring the fact the solar wind is much too small for such an > effect on a planet, an isotropic solar wind would be a repulsive force > that follows the inverse square law anyway. That would make the apparent > mass of the sun smaller or decrease G (depending on your point of view) > and Mercury would orbit without precession. While that is the dominant effect of the solar wind, there is a small additional effect: The solar wind would be Doppler shifted slightly by the motion of mercury around its orbit. So there would be a tiny net force that retards the planet's motion. This is, of course, BACKWARDS from the observed precession. HGW relies on his PERSONAL IGNORANCE, tempered with a major dose of stupidity. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 02:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng2nhe$1uo9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382531 |
On 30/04/16 23:59, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/30/16 4/30/16 12:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <HGW@....> writes: >>> Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not >>> balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted >>> before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side. >> >> Besides, ignoring the fact the solar wind is much too small for such an >> effect on a planet, an isotropic solar wind would be a repulsive force >> that follows the inverse square law anyway. That would make the apparent >> mass of the sun smaller or decrease G (depending on your point of view) >> and Mercury would orbit without precession. > > While that is the dominant effect of the solar wind, there is a small > additional effect: The solar wind would be Doppler shifted slightly by > the motion of mercury around its orbit. So there would be a tiny net > force that retards the planet's motion. This is, of course, BACKWARDS > from the observed precession. You are wrong, as usual...You have no figures to prove the effect is tiny or that its effect is backwards. The solar wind and radiation pressure is a lot stronger there than here and is known to be deflected by Mercury's magnetic field. ....and why you worry about the Doppler shift, I dunno. Other factors that influence Mercury's precession are the finite speed of gravity, the rotation of our galaxy and particularly the general movements of our our 'local region' relative to the whole galaxy. One thing is certain, mathematical equations based on fallacies cannot cause or explain physical effects. .. > HGW relies on his PERSONAL IGNORANCE, tempered with a major dose of > stupidity. How sad. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3c21b68-a78f-4c83-b26d-b26e2568a9f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382544 |
W dniu sobota, 30 kwietnia 2016 18:46:42 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > You are wrong, as usual...You have no figures to prove the effect is > tiny or that its effect is backwards. The solar wind and radiation > pressure is a lot stronger there than here and is known to be deflected > by Mercury's magnetic field. ....and why you worry about the Doppler > shift, I dunno. The radiation pressure is rather in opposite direction to the gravity - no? > Other factors that influence Mercury's precession are the finite speed > of gravity, the rotation of our galaxy and particularly the general > movements of our our 'local region' relative to the whole galaxy. > > One thing is certain, mathematical equations based on fallacies cannot > cause or explain physical effects. Relly? Then show the results of your... galactic model of the Mercurys precession..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 07:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng39d4$r3l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382548 |
On 01/05/16 03:53, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 30 kwietnia 2016 18:46:42 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > >> You are wrong, as usual...You have no figures to prove the effect is >> tiny or that its effect is backwards. The solar wind and radiation >> pressure is a lot stronger there than here and is known to be deflected >> by Mercury's magnetic field. ....and why you worry about the Doppler >> shift, I dunno. > > The radiation pressure is rather in opposite direction to the gravity - no? > >> Other factors that influence Mercury's precession are the finite speed >> of gravity, the rotation of our galaxy and particularly the general >> movements of our our 'local region' relative to the whole galaxy. >> >> One thing is certain, mathematical equations based on fallacies cannot >> cause or explain physical effects. > > Relly? Then show the results of your... galactic model of the Mercurys precession.. There is no model. The precession is chaotic. Mercury could even fly off altogether if a big asteroid went close to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <169183d0-f7a3-4d89-9760-6820d0e37cea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382499 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 7:20:48 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not > balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted > before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side. Nope. The numbers don't work out. Let's do an order-of-magnitude calculation, using extra significant figures in the intermediate results but discarding them at the end to acknowledge the various simplifying assumptions that I make, using numbers from Wikipedia's article on solar sails and elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail The force on a solar sail is dominated by radiation pressure. The pressure due to the solar wind is about three orders of magnitude less. Mercury is neither perfectly black nor perfectly reflective, so figure the force per square meter at 1 AU ~= 7x10^-6 N/m^2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radius of Mercury is 2.439x10^6 m, and its distance from the Sun averages about 0.38 AU, so figure the total force due to radiation pressure averages 10^9 N -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compare that figure with the average force exerted on Mercury by Venus. The mass of Mercury is 3.30x10^23 kg, and the mass of Venus is 4.87^24 kg The distance between Mercury and Venus ranges from 37-178x10^9 m, so figure an average of about 107x10^9 m. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plug these numbers into Newton's equation, and we figure that the average force exerted on Mercury due to Venus is about 10^16 N -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The force exerted on Mercury by radiation pressure is dwarfed by the forces exerted on Mercury by the other planets of the Solar System.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 03:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng2qd7$40m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382528 |
On 30/04/16 22:49, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 7:20:48 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> >> Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not >> balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted >> before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side. > > Nope. The numbers don't work out. > > Let's do an order-of-magnitude calculation, using extra significant figures in > the intermediate results but discarding them at the end to acknowledge the > various simplifying assumptions that I make, using numbers from Wikipedia's > article on solar sails and elsewhere. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail It uses Einstein's equation.... :) > The force on a solar sail is dominated by radiation pressure. The pressure due > to the solar wind is about three orders of magnitude less. > > Mercury is neither perfectly black nor perfectly reflective, so figure the > force per square meter at 1 AU ~= 7x10^-6 N/m^2 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Radius of Mercury is 2.439x10^6 m, and its distance from the Sun averages about > 0.38 AU, so figure the total force due to radiation pressure averages 10^9 N > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... Maybe plus a lot more due to Mercury's magnetic field. > Compare that figure with the average force exerted on Mercury by Venus. > > The mass of Mercury is 3.30x10^23 kg, and the mass of Venus is 4.87^24 kg > > The distance between Mercury and Venus ranges from 37-178x10^9 m, so figure > an average of about 107x10^9 m. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Plug these numbers into Newton's equation, and we figure that the average force > exerted on Mercury due to Venus is about 10^16 N > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The force exerted on Mercury by radiation pressure is dwarfed by the forces > exerted on Mercury by the other planets of the Solar System. Idiot! Different problem. It is the sun/Venus barycentre that you should be worrying about. Venus causes the sun to wobble significantly relative to Mercury. Therefore its overall effect on Mercury over time is is very complicated. Your comments only reinforce my correct claim that the precession of Mercury is chaotic and can never be calculated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77fac2f9-bb3d-47f2-ab1c-92c16de3c5d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382547 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 12:35:40 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 30/04/16 22:49, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 7:20:48 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> > >> Precession is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. It is not > >> balanced because the orbit is elliptical and the perihelion is shifted > >> before the opposite process occurs on the 'inward' side. > > > > Nope. The numbers don't work out. > > > > Let's do an order-of-magnitude calculation, using extra significant figures in > > the intermediate results but discarding them at the end to acknowledge the > > various simplifying assumptions that I make, using numbers from Wikipedia's > > article on solar sails and elsewhere. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail > > It uses Einstein's equation.... :) The pressure due to light has been experimentally measured and corresponds to theoretical prediction. The first measurements of radiation pressure were in 1900 by Pyotr Lebedev and in 1901 by Ernest Nichols and Gordon Hull. Oh, wait, I forgot. Your fantasy imaginings outweigh hundreds of years of theoretical analysis and experimental measurement. > > The force on a solar sail is dominated by radiation pressure. The pressure due > > to the solar wind is about three orders of magnitude less. > > > > Mercury is neither perfectly black nor perfectly reflective, so figure the > > force per square meter at 1 AU ~= 7x10^-6 N/m^2 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Radius of Mercury is 2.439x10^6 m, and its distance from the Sun averages about > > 0.38 AU, so figure the total force due to radiation pressure averages 10^9 N > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ... Maybe plus a lot more due to Mercury's magnetic field. There is a small amount of truth in what you say. Mercury's magnetic field is about 1.1% that of Earth. Despite its weakness, it extends in space sufficiently to increase Mercury's effective cross section to charged particles by a factor of around three. The total pressure acting on Mercury is still totally dominated by radiation pressure, with only an insignificant contribution by the solar wind. > > Compare that figure with the average force exerted on Mercury by Venus. > > > > The mass of Mercury is 3.30x10^23 kg, and the mass of Venus is 4.87^24 kg > > > > The distance between Mercury and Venus ranges from 37-178x10^9 m, so figure > > an average of about 107x10^9 m. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Plug these numbers into Newton's equation, and we figure that the average force > > exerted on Mercury due to Venus is about 10^16 N > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The force exerted on Mercury by radiation pressure is dwarfed by the forces > > exerted on Mercury by the other planets of the Solar System. > > Idiot! Different problem. It is the sun/Venus barycentre that you should > be worrying about. Venus causes the sun to wobble significantly relative > to Mercury. Therefore its overall effect on Mercury over time is is very > complicated. Too complicated for *you* maybe. The Sun is about 400,000 times as massive as Venus, and the movements of the Sun about the barycenter are *already* taken into account in all modern analyses. > Your comments only reinforce my correct claim that the precession of > Mercury is chaotic and can never be calculated. You have no understanding of the meaning of "chaotic" in this context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 07:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng39qf$rrp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382552 |
On 01/05/16 07:17, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 12:35:40 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >>> Radius of Mercury is 2.439x10^6 m, and its distance from the Sun averages about >>> The force exerted on Mercury by radiation pressure is dwarfed by the forces >>> exerted on Mercury by the other planets of the Solar System. >> >> Idiot! Different problem. It is the sun/Venus barycentre that you should >> be worrying about. Venus causes the sun to wobble significantly relative >> to Mercury. Therefore its overall effect on Mercury over time is is very >> complicated. > > Too complicated for *you* maybe. The Sun is about 400,000 times as massive as > Venus, and the movements of the Sun about the barycenter are *already* taken > into account in all modern analyses. Look here, moron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter Look at the diagram that shows how the sun has been wobbling chaotically. How the hell can you determine a minute shift in Mercury's major axis each orbit with all that going on. >> Your comments only reinforce my correct claim that the precession of >> Mercury is chaotic and can never be calculated. > > You have no understanding of the meaning of "chaotic" in this context. I know what chaotic means in your thinking process. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d844e871-244a-4486-8e91-106ccaede4f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382554 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 01/05/16 07:17, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Too complicated for *you* maybe. The Sun is about 400,000 times as massive as > > Venus, and the movements of the Sun about the barycenter are *already* taken > > into account in all modern analyses. > > Look here, moron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter > > Look at the diagram that shows how the sun has been wobbling chaotically. > How the hell can you determine a minute shift in Mercury's major axis > each orbit with all that going on. Again, you display a ***FUNDAMENTAL*** misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "chaotic". The path of the barycenter is complex, but is absolutely not, repeat ***NOT*** chaotic over the fifty year span of the graph that you cite. Let me illustrate what I mean. I still own the old celestial mechanics textbook that I used in the science camp that I attended in 1968. In the appendix are orbital elements of Solar System objects as they were known fifty years ago. There are many, many differences between the numbers in the appendix of this old book compared with the vastly more accurate numbers that are available today, especially in the masses of the planets, where today, most masses have a stated accuracy (relative to the mass of the Sun) of at least seven significant figures, while the relative mass of the Earth-Moon system is known to ten significant figures. I cannot overstate the major improvements made possible by the use of interplanetary probes. ftp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/eph/planets/ioms/ExplSupplChap8.pdf Despite the relatively inaccurate numbers (sometimes less than three significant figure accuracy) available in this old textbook, I daresay that I could take these figures and write a program that will create a graph of the motions of the Solar System barycenter that would be ***VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE*** from the graph that you cite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg 1) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic". 2) Chaotic systems have a characteristic time scale that tells us how long reliable simulations can be run. 3) For the Solar System, this characteristic timescale, called the Lyapunov time, is on the order of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time 4) Fifty years is virtually nothing compared with this characteristic time scale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d7321f5-dc7c-4dda-a80b-257e335cb69c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382570 |
W dniu niedziela, 1 maja 2016 06:29:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > On 01/05/16 07:17, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Too complicated for *you* maybe. The Sun is about 400,000 times as massive as > > > Venus, and the movements of the Sun about the barycenter are *already* taken > > > into account in all modern analyses. > > > > Look here, moron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter > > > > Look at the diagram that shows how the sun has been wobbling chaotically. > > How the hell can you determine a minute shift in Mercury's major axis > > each orbit with all that going on. > > Again, you display a ***FUNDAMENTAL*** misunderstanding of the meaning of the > word "chaotic". The path of the barycenter is complex, but is absolutely not, > repeat ***NOT*** chaotic over the fifty year span of the graph that you cite. > > Let me illustrate what I mean. I still own the old celestial mechanics textbook > that I used in the science camp that I attended in 1968. In the appendix are > orbital elements of Solar System objects as they were known fifty years ago. > There are many, many differences between the numbers in the appendix of this old > book compared with the vastly more accurate numbers that are available today, > especially in the masses of the planets, where today, most masses have a stated > accuracy (relative to the mass of the Sun) of at least seven significant figures, > while the relative mass of the Earth-Moon system is known to ten significant > figures. I cannot overstate the major improvements made possible by the use of > interplanetary probes. > ftp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/eph/planets/ioms/ExplSupplChap8.pdf > > Despite the relatively inaccurate numbers (sometimes less than three significant > figure accuracy) available in this old textbook, I daresay that I could take > these figures and write a program that will create a graph of the motions of > the Solar System barycenter that would be ***VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE*** > from the graph that you cite. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg > > 1) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic". > 2) Chaotic systems have a characteristic time scale that tells us how long > reliable simulations can be run. Really? What determines the time scale... maybe a precission of an input data, or the numerical precision, like 15 digits, or so? > 3) For the Solar System, this characteristic timescale, called the Lyapunov time, > is on the order of millions of years. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time Lapunow in the Kepler problem? Nonsense... there even an error in the |r| position, of order 1/quintilion, gives a camplete instabilty in the sense of Lapov...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 03:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng5fc8$1r0u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382570 |
On 01/05/16 14:29, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> On 01/05/16 07:17, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> Too complicated for *you* maybe. The Sun is about 400,000 times as massive as >>> Venus, and the movements of the Sun about the barycenter are *already* taken >>> into account in all modern analyses. >> >> Look here, moron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter >> >> Look at the diagram that shows how the sun has been wobbling chaotically. >> How the hell can you determine a minute shift in Mercury's major axis >> each orbit with all that going on. > > Again, you display a ***FUNDAMENTAL*** misunderstanding of the meaning of the > word "chaotic". The path of the barycenter is complex, but is absolutely not, > repeat ***NOT*** chaotic over the fifty year span of the graph that you cite. > > Let me illustrate what I mean. I still own the old celestial mechanics textbook > that I used in the science camp that I attended in 1968. In the appendix are > orbital elements of Solar System objects as they were known fifty years ago. > There are many, many differences between the numbers in the appendix of this old > book compared with the vastly more accurate numbers that are available today, > especially in the masses of the planets, where today, most masses have a stated > accuracy (relative to the mass of the Sun) of at least seven significant figures, > while the relative mass of the Earth-Moon system is known to ten significant > figures. I cannot overstate the major improvements made possible by the use of > interplanetary probes. > ftp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/eph/planets/ioms/ExplSupplChap8.pdf > > Despite the relatively inaccurate numbers (sometimes less than three significant > figure accuracy) available in this old textbook, I daresay that I could take > these figures and write a program that will create a graph of the motions of > the Solar System barycenter that would be ***VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE*** > from the graph that you cite. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg > > 1) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic". > 2) Chaotic systems have a characteristic time scale that tells us how long > reliable simulations can be run. > 3) For the Solar System, this characteristic timescale, called the Lyapunov time, > is on the order of millions of years. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time > 4) Fifty years is virtually nothing compared with this characteristic time scale. You're talking nonsense again. Did you know that Venus has about the same pull on Mercury at its closest encounter as Jupiter does? The Earth's influence is also comparable. The configuration of all the planet is complex in the broad sense but certainly chaotic when the individual interactions are taken into account. I would challenge your figure of 'millions of years'. The plain fact is planetary configurations vary continuously and will never be the same twice. That is chaotic. Since their configuration rather than just their presence determines Mercury's precession, it is obvious that the precession is just an variable and chaotic as that configuration. It will vary widely over 100 years. I wouldn't be surprised if it even went the opposite way occasionally. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b228dd63-7e65-4c5c-a29d-5b50db54b3fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382596 |
W dniu niedziela, 1 maja 2016 19:45:48 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > On 01/05/16 14:29, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> On 01/05/16 07:17, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > >>> Too complicated for *you* maybe. The Sun is about 400,000 times as massive as > >>> Venus, and the movements of the Sun about the barycenter are *already* taken > >>> into account in all modern analyses. > >> > >> Look here, moron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter > >> > >> Look at the diagram that shows how the sun has been wobbling chaotically. > >> How the hell can you determine a minute shift in Mercury's major axis > >> each orbit with all that going on. > > > > Again, you display a ***FUNDAMENTAL*** misunderstanding of the meaning of the > > word "chaotic". The path of the barycenter is complex, but is absolutely not, > > repeat ***NOT*** chaotic over the fifty year span of the graph that you cite. > > > > Let me illustrate what I mean. I still own the old celestial mechanics textbook > > that I used in the science camp that I attended in 1968. In the appendix are > > orbital elements of Solar System objects as they were known fifty years ago. > > There are many, many differences between the numbers in the appendix of this old > > book compared with the vastly more accurate numbers that are available today, > > especially in the masses of the planets, where today, most masses have a stated > > accuracy (relative to the mass of the Sun) of at least seven significant figures, > > while the relative mass of the Earth-Moon system is known to ten significant > > figures. I cannot overstate the major improvements made possible by the use of > > interplanetary probes. > > ftp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/eph/planets/ioms/ExplSupplChap8.pdf > > > > Despite the relatively inaccurate numbers (sometimes less than three significant > > figure accuracy) available in this old textbook, I daresay that I could take > > these figures and write a program that will create a graph of the motions of > > the Solar System barycenter that would be ***VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE*** > > from the graph that you cite. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg > > > > 1) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic". > > 2) Chaotic systems have a characteristic time scale that tells us how long > > reliable simulations can be run. > > 3) For the Solar System, this characteristic timescale, called the Lyapunov time, > > is on the order of millions of years. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time > > 4) Fifty years is virtually nothing compared with this characteristic time scale. > > You're talking nonsense again. > Did you know that Venus has about the same pull on Mercury at its > closest encounter as Jupiter does? The Earth's influence is also > comparable. > The configuration of all the planet is complex in the broad sense but > certainly chaotic when the individual interactions are taken into > account. I would challenge your figure of 'millions of years'. The configuration is very simple, and predictable... for bilions years! > The plain fact is planetary configurations vary continuously and will > never be the same twice. That is chaotic. No, thhere is nothing chaotic... it's just a simple non-periodic motion only. > Since their configuration > rather than just their presence determines Mercury's precession, it is > obvious that the precession is just an variable and chaotic as that > configuration. It will vary widely over 100 years. I wouldn't be > surprised if it even went the opposite way occasionally. You are talking nonsense... the apsidal precession is quite stable. And the chaos is just a nonsensical term... it's just a typical symptom of nihilism; very popular in the dogmatic regimes: religions, superstitions, mythology, pseudoscience, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8MadnWksp9TG7LvKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382596 |
On 5/1/16 5/1/16 12:45 PM, HGW wrote: > On 01/05/16 14:29, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> Again, you display a ***FUNDAMENTAL*** misunderstanding of the meaning of the >> word "chaotic". [...] >> 1) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic". >> 2) Chaotic systems have a characteristic time scale that tells us how long >> reliable simulations can be run. >> 3) For the Solar System, this characteristic timescale, called the Lyapunov time, >> is on the order of millions of years. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time >> 4) Fifty years is virtually nothing compared with this characteristic time scale. > > You're talking nonsense again. No, YOU are. > Did you know that Venus has about the same pull on Mercury at its closest > encounter as Jupiter does? The Earth's influence is also comparable. > The configuration of all the planet is complex in the broad sense Yes. Complex, BUT NOT UNKNOWN. Indeed we know the planets' masses and positions quite accurately, and from that we can calculate their effect on the orbit of mercury QUITE ACCURATELY. > but certainly > chaotic when the individual interactions are taken into account. No. There you go again basing your claims on your personal ignorance. The whole point of solar-system models is to take into account all the individual interactions among the planets. Such models can ACCURATELY predict the motions of the planets for thousands of years into the future (and into the past). Ancient solar eclipses have been accurately modeled. > I would > challenge your figure of 'millions of years'. Of course you would, because you are so IGNORANT. The Lyapunov time for the solar system is well known among people who actually understand this; it is indeed millions of years. > The plain fact is planetary configurations vary continuously and will never be > the same twice. Sure. So what? They are still PREDICTABLE over timescales short compared to the Lyapunov time. Chaos, _REAL_ chaos and not your fantasy, happens when such predictions break down because tiny mis-measurements of trajectories grow into large differences; Lyapunov analyzed the general case and characterized the time this takes. > That is chaotic. No. You merely display your personal IGNORANCE. That is COMPLICATED, but not "chaotic". > [... further nonsense based on the above errors] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 09:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ctnfib9lm2o462tn6rdjgtt84k0tjo2hja@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #382608 |
On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:12:59 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 5/1/16 5/1/16 12:45 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 01/05/16 14:29, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> Again, you display a ***FUNDAMENTAL*** misunderstanding of the meaning of the >>> word "chaotic". [...] >>> 1) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic". >>> 2) Chaotic systems have a characteristic time scale that tells us how long >>> reliable simulations can be run. >>> 3) For the Solar System, this characteristic timescale, called the Lyapunov time, >>> is on the order of millions of years. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time >>> 4) Fifty years is virtually nothing compared with this characteristic time scale. >> >> You're talking nonsense again. > >No, YOU are. > > >> Did you know that Venus has about the same pull on Mercury at its closest >> encounter as Jupiter does? The Earth's influence is also comparable. >> The configuration of all the planet is complex in the broad sense > >Yes. Complex, BUT NOT UNKNOWN. Indeed we know the planets' masses and positions >quite accurately, and from that we can calculate their effect on the orbit of >mercury QUITE ACCURATELY. Tom, here are some three body simulations showing how ONE large planet in about the orbit of Venus would affect the orbit of Mercury. Can you provide your equations that produces these chaotic curves? http://www.scisite.info/precession1.jpg (small planet to check method used) http://www.scisite.info/precession2.jpg http://www.scisite.info/precession3.jpg http://www.scisite.info/precession4.jpg These are exaggerated by the use of very large orbiting masses but are typical of what really happens. Can you realize how chaotic things become when 8 planets are included, all interacting with each other? I would love to see your equation that predicts that behaviour... >> but certainly >> chaotic when the individual interactions are taken into account. > >No. There you go again basing your claims on your personal ignorance. The whole >point of solar-system models is to take into account all the individual >interactions among the planets. Such models can ACCURATELY predict the motions >of the planets for thousands of years into the future (and into the past). Absolute crap. The claimed anomaly is around 30 km per orbit...barely resolvable. From the simulations, it is pretty obvious that most of the precession is purely Newtonian and due to the movement of the sun's barycentre. It has nothing to do with any silly GR claim. > Ancient solar eclipses have been accurately modeled. Sure...using NM only. No GR needed. >> I would >> challenge your figure of 'millions of years'. > >Of course you would, because you are so IGNORANT. The Lyapunov time for the >solar system is well known among people who actually understand this; it is >indeed millions of years. Are they the same people who have an equation that can predict the above orbits? Do you realize that the claimed anomaly is only about 30 kms per orbit?...and astronomers are still stupid enough to be assuming the existence of the aether and are basing all their theories on constant light speed? >> The plain fact is planetary configurations vary continuously and will never be >> the same twice. > >Sure. So what? They are still PREDICTABLE over timescales short compared to the >Lyapunov time. Chaos, _REAL_ chaos and not your fantasy, happens when such >predictions break down because tiny mis-measurements of trajectories grow into >large differences; Lyapunov analyzed the general case and characterized the time >this takes. He was probably trying to make a name for himself by associating his name with Einstein. >> That is chaotic. > >No. You merely display your personal IGNORANCE. That is COMPLICATED, but not >"chaotic". Tom you are braindead. I am sorry. Do the simulations yourself and you will soon see that the precession of Mercury is unprectable. I will do the 4 body simulation for you today if I have time. >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 19:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b7ednV0GZ-DwcrrKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382670 |
On 5/2/16 5/2/16 6:54 PM, HGW wrote: > here are some three body simulations showing how ONE large planet in about > the orbit of Venus would affect the orbit of Mercury. > Can you provide your equations that produces these chaotic curves? [...] But of course they are NOT "chaotic". After all, you WERE able to compute them. You REALLY need to learn what the word means -- your IGNORANCE is showing and your GUESSES are wrong. > The claimed anomaly is around 30 km per orbit...barely resolvable Again your IGNORANCE shows. One report [1] of mercury's ephemeris from Messinger ranging gave errors of 24 meters, and they reference a more comprehensive report with residuals of 2.8 meters. [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/exportCitation/doi/10.1002/2014JE004675 Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 03:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngam3j$pp8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382676 |
On 03/05/16 10:23, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/2/16 5/2/16 6:54 PM, HGW wrote: >> here are some three body simulations showing how ONE large planet >> in about the orbit of Venus would affect the orbit of Mercury. Can >> you provide your equations that produces these chaotic curves? >> [...] > > But of course they are NOT "chaotic". After all, you WERE able to > compute them. So in your mind, chaotic processes cannot occur at all because they can be computed. Such computations are only approximate. > You REALLY need to learn what the word means -- your IGNORANCE is > showing and your GUESSES are wrong. You obviously haven't a clue. There are many aspects to Chaos but one basic idea is that infinitesimal and unpredictable effects can lead massive changes down the track. Computing Mercury's orbit after considering the influence and interactions of all the planets plus passing asteroids and comets is chaotic and impossible even in the short term. >> The claimed anomaly is around 30 km per orbit...barely resolvable > > Again your IGNORANCE shows. One report [1] of mercury's ephemeris > from Messinger ranging gave errors of 24 meters, and they reference a > more comprehensive report with residuals of 2.8 meters. I was talking about the last hundred and fifty years. It was impossible for any astronomer to measure chaotic differences in the precession of Mercury between each orbit. > [1] > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/exportCitation/doi/10.1002/2014JE004675 Naturally the figures will be more accurate than those determined from Earth....but they are still using c rather than c+v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web