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 3 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 18 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 03:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ng970s$np2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #382670 |
HGW <xxx@....> writes: >>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. Ralph, the Messenger spacecraft orbited Mercury for four years, and made 3 flybys of Mercury before then. From that data, we knew exactly where Mercury was, to within several meters. This is almost 4 orders of magnitude better than what you call "barely resolvable". Also, if the orbit of Mercury was as chaotic as you claim, NASA never would have been able to get Messenger into Mercury orbit to begin with. So now we have ~16 complete orbits of extremely accurate positioning, plus accurate positioning from 3 flybys to add to the decades of data (that you are afraid to look at) that prove the GR component of Mercury's precession.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9e2fe73-58c4-4005-a8be-7deea586ae34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382489 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:38:20 PM UTC-5, 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? The precession of Mercury could "sort of" be explained by a 1/r^n force law where n = 2.00000016. Of course that violates various conservation laws such as Gauss' law (thank you Koobee, for reminding me of that) and a value of of exponent that works for Mercury does not work for Venus, Earth, Mars etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19396d6b-c3c9-4ab2-b4bd-5ea639e961ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382501 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > The precession of Mercury could "sort of" be explained by a 1/r^n force law > where n = 2.00000016. Of course that violates various conservation laws such > as Gauss' law (thank you Koobee, for reminding me of that) and a value of > of exponent that works for Mercury does not work for Venus, Earth, Mars etc. So, the assumption of (n = 2.00000016) is wrong. Move on, PD. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 08:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng39u8$rrp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382513 |
On 30/04/16 15:41, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> The precession of Mercury could "sort of" be explained by a 1/r^n force law >> where n = 2.00000016. Of course that violates various conservation laws such >> as Gauss' law (thank you Koobee, for reminding me of that) and a value of >> of exponent that works for Mercury does not work for Venus, Earth, Mars etc. > > So, the assumption of (n = 2.00000016) is wrong. Move on, PD. <shrug> I don't think this is PD again. She is certainly just as stupid but a bit more vocal and she can at least understand some of the questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4198c3c0-779c-4840-9ee5-08c97215f5cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382513 |
W dniu sobota, 30 kwietnia 2016 07:41:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Koobee Wublee napisał: > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > The precession of Mercury could "sort of" be explained by a 1/r^n force law > > where n = 2.00000016. Of course that violates various conservation laws such > > as Gauss' law (thank you Koobee, for reminding me of that) and a value of > > of exponent that works for Mercury does not work for Venus, Earth, Mars etc. > > So, the assumption of (n = 2.00000016) is wrong. Move on, PD. <shrug> The number: 2.000000165 is another fantastic coincidence. 0.000000165 = 1/6mln = m/M; mass of Mercury is just 1/6mln of the Sun mass, hahaha! thus a force: F = GmM/r^(2 + m/M), produces exactly the mentioned precision. The moon orbit: the perige moves 3 degs / orbit, so there the same formula is qute good... very nice serie of fantastic coincidences, haha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ee2153e-d2aa-4712-bb53-8eeec2f0812e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383252 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 1:20:16 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 30 kwietnia 2016 07:41:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Koobee Wublee napisał: > > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > The precession of Mercury could "sort of" be explained by a 1/r^n force law > > > where n = 2.00000016. Of course that violates various conservation laws such > > > as Gauss' law (thank you Koobee, for reminding me of that) and a value of > > > of exponent that works for Mercury does not work for Venus, Earth, Mars etc. > > > > So, the assumption of (n = 2.00000016) is wrong. Move on, PD. <shrug> > > The number: 2.000000165 is another fantastic coincidence. > > 0.000000165 = 1/6mln = m/M; > mass of Mercury is just 1/6mln of the Sun mass, hahaha! > > thus a force: > > F = GmM/r^(2 + m/M), produces exactly the mentioned precision. > > The moon orbit: > the perige moves 3 degs / orbit, so there the same formula is qute good... > > very nice serie of fantastic coincidences, haha! Actually no. Your formula vastly overstates the *anomalous* portion of the Moon's perihelion precession, i.e. that portion which is not explainable in terms of Newtonian dynamics. An r^2.012 power law for the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon should have been noticed centuries ago as a disproof of Newton's Laws.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b90ffa7-c310-41be-b165-53a0adf6d2bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383288 |
W dniu czwartek, 12 maja 2016 15:33:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 1:20:16 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 30 kwietnia 2016 07:41:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Koobee Wublee napisał: > > > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > The precession of Mercury could "sort of" be explained by a 1/r^n force law > > > > where n = 2.00000016. Of course that violates various conservation laws such > > > > as Gauss' law (thank you Koobee, for reminding me of that) and a value of > > > > of exponent that works for Mercury does not work for Venus, Earth, Mars etc. > > > > > > So, the assumption of (n = 2.00000016) is wrong. Move on, PD. <shrug> > > > > The number: 2.000000165 is another fantastic coincidence. > > > > 0.000000165 = 1/6mln = m/M; > > mass of Mercury is just 1/6mln of the Sun mass, hahaha! > > > > thus a force: > > > > F = GmM/r^(2 + m/M), produces exactly the mentioned precision. > > > > The moon orbit: > > the perige moves 3 degs / orbit, so there the same formula is qute good... > > > > very nice serie of fantastic coincidences, haha! > > Actually no. Your formula vastly overstates the *anomalous* portion of the > Moon's perihelion precession, i.e. that portion which is not explainable in > terms of Newtonian dynamics. > An r^2.012 power law for the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon should > have been noticed centuries ago as a disproof of Newton's Laws. Newton predicted 1.5 of the moon peri motion only, and the force type of: r^(2+m/M), and form m/M = 1/80 it produces 2.25, thus better, because error is smaler: 2.25/3 = 75%. 1.5 / 3 = 50%, 25% better! But for Mercury the result is almost perfect: 44''. GR provides still the 1.5 only thus incorrect. So, there is the key... smply: in the formula should be not mass proportion: m/M, but of energies! E_moon / E_earth, in general: E_satelite / E_central_body. Just the Moon has an additional energy, due to the motion around the Sun! Moon/Earth = 1/60 = 1.0165, and then the apse precession is correct: 3 degs!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <844ea350-2b33-4d7f-a0df-1f13dac1af98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383292 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:28 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 12 maja 2016 15:33:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > Your formula vastly overstates the *anomalous* portion of the > > Moon's perihelion precession, i.e. that portion which is not explainable in > > terms of Newtonian dynamics. > > An r^2.012 power law for the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon should > > have been noticed centuries ago as a disproof of Newton's Laws. > > Newton predicted 1.5 of the moon peri motion only, > and the force type of: > > r^(2+m/M), > and form m/M = 1/80 it produces 2.25, > thus better, because error is smaler: 2.25/3 = 75%. > 1.5 / 3 = 50%, 25% better! > > But for Mercury the result is almost perfect: 44''. > > GR provides still the 1.5 only thus incorrect. > > So, there is the key... > smply: in the formula should be not mass proportion: m/M, > but of energies! > > E_moon / E_earth, in general: E_satelite / E_central_body. > > Just the Moon has an additional energy, > due to the motion around the Sun! > > Moon/Earth = 1/60 = 1.0165, and then the apse precession is correct: 3 degs! Your numerology is completely off. For the Earth/Moon system, an exponent of 2.0165 implies that the masses of the Earth and Moon must have been understated by about 18 percent each, and the calculated precession (not counting the known Newtonian contributions) would be 1.25 degrees per orbit. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcUFNSTF84NlQ3TTA You have no theory and your math is terrible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3c57815-a98a-4db1-92af-abda94bfab53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383404 |
W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 14:27:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:28 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 12 maja 2016 15:33:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > Your formula vastly overstates the *anomalous* portion of the > > > Moon's perihelion precession, i.e. that portion which is not explainable in > > > terms of Newtonian dynamics. > > > An r^2.012 power law for the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon should > > > have been noticed centuries ago as a disproof of Newton's Laws. > > > > Newton predicted 1.5 of the moon peri motion only, > > and the force type of: > > > > r^(2+m/M), > > and form m/M = 1/80 it produces 2.25, > > thus better, because error is smaler: 2.25/3 = 75%. > > 1.5 / 3 = 50%, 25% better! > > > > But for Mercury the result is almost perfect: 44''. > > > > GR provides still the 1.5 only thus incorrect. > > > > So, there is the key... > > smply: in the formula should be not mass proportion: m/M, > > but of energies! > > > > E_moon / E_earth, in general: E_satelite / E_central_body. > > > > Just the Moon has an additional energy, > > due to the motion around the Sun! > > > > Moon/Earth = 1/60 = 1.0165, and then the apse precession is correct: 3 degs! > > Your numerology is completely off. > > For the Earth/Moon system, an exponent of 2.0165 implies that the masses of the Earth and Moon must have been understated by about 18 percent each, and the > calculated precession (not counting the known Newtonian contributions) would be 1.25 degrees per orbit. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcUFNSTF84NlQ3TTA > > You have no theory and your math is terrible. You probably maked some mistake in your calclations. The formula for absidal precession, for any central force: r^n, has been derived long ago and by Newton: an absidal angle is: f = pi / sqrt(3+n); for n = -2 it's: 3-2 = 1, thus for a standard force: 1/r^2, the angle is equal pi - between min and max, thus no precession. ... The force type of: n = 2 + a, where a is small, gives the precession: df = pi a, in radians; apse shift over a whole orbit: 2 x pi. radians to degs: df * 180 / pi, thus: df = 180 a, in degs. and for a = 1/60 it's eqal: 180 / 60 = 3 degs, exactly! Mercury: 180 / 6.06 mln = 0.00003 degs / orbit =~ 0.107'' / orbit; per 100 years there is 416 orbits, thus the precession per century is: 0.107 x 416 = 44.5'' / cy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb9c55fa-8c0a-4cfe-9e6f-5d4d18ecc4d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383415 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 14:27:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:28 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 12 maja 2016 15:33:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > > > Your formula vastly overstates the *anomalous* portion of the > > > > Moon's perihelion precession, i.e. that portion which is not explainable in > > > > terms of Newtonian dynamics. > > > > An r^2.012 power law for the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon should > > > > have been noticed centuries ago as a disproof of Newton's Laws. > > > > > > Newton predicted 1.5 of the moon peri motion only, > > > and the force type of: > > > > > > r^(2+m/M), > > > and form m/M = 1/80 it produces 2.25, > > > thus better, because error is smaler: 2.25/3 = 75%. > > > 1.5 / 3 = 50%, 25% better! > > > > > > But for Mercury the result is almost perfect: 44''. > > > > > > GR provides still the 1.5 only thus incorrect. > > > > > > So, there is the key... > > > smply: in the formula should be not mass proportion: m/M, > > > but of energies! > > > > > > E_moon / E_earth, in general: E_satelite / E_central_body. > > > > > > Just the Moon has an additional energy, > > > due to the motion around the Sun! > > > > > > Moon/Earth = 1/60 = 1.0165, and then the apse precession is correct: 3 degs! > > > > Your numerology is completely off. > > > > For the Earth/Moon system, an exponent of 2.0165 implies that the masses of the Earth and Moon must have been understated by about 18 percent each, and the > > calculated precession (not counting the known Newtonian contributions) would be 1.25 degrees per orbit. > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcUFNSTF84NlQ3TTA > > > > You have no theory and your math is terrible. > > You probably maked some mistake in your calclations. > > The formula for absidal precession, > for any central force: r^n, > has been derived long ago and by Newton: > > an absidal angle is: > f = pi / sqrt(3+n); > > for n = -2 it's: > 3-2 = 1, thus for a standard force: 1/r^2, > the angle is equal pi - between min and max, > thus no precession. That's for a central force with an orbiting test particle that is nearly massless relative to the primary body. > ... > > The force type of: n = 2 + a, where a is small, > gives the precession: > > df = pi a, in radians; > apse shift over a whole orbit: 2 x pi. > > radians to degs: df * 180 / pi, thus: > > df = 180 a, in degs. > > and for a = 1/60 it's eqal: > 180 / 60 = 3 degs, exactly! > > Mercury: > > 180 / 6.06 mln = 0.00003 degs / orbit =~ 0.107'' / orbit; > per 100 years there is 416 orbits, thus the precession per century is: > > 0.107 x 416 = 44.5'' / cy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44cf5525-942e-4d6c-a123-d2b70798c2e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383416 |
W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 18:23:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 14:27:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:28 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 12 maja 2016 15:33:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > > > > > Your formula vastly overstates the *anomalous* portion of the > > > > > Moon's perihelion precession, i.e. that portion which is not explainable in > > > > > terms of Newtonian dynamics. > > > > > An r^2.012 power law for the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon should > > > > > have been noticed centuries ago as a disproof of Newton's Laws. > > > > > > > > Newton predicted 1.5 of the moon peri motion only, > > > > and the force type of: > > > > > > > > r^(2+m/M), > > > > and form m/M = 1/80 it produces 2.25, > > > > thus better, because error is smaler: 2.25/3 = 75%. > > > > 1.5 / 3 = 50%, 25% better! > > > > > > > > But for Mercury the result is almost perfect: 44''. > > > > > > > > GR provides still the 1.5 only thus incorrect. > > > > > > > > So, there is the key... > > > > smply: in the formula should be not mass proportion: m/M, > > > > but of energies! > > > > > > > > E_moon / E_earth, in general: E_satelite / E_central_body. > > > > > > > > Just the Moon has an additional energy, > > > > due to the motion around the Sun! > > > > > > > > Moon/Earth = 1/60 = 1.0165, and then the apse precession is correct: 3 degs! > > > > > > Your numerology is completely off. > > > > > > For the Earth/Moon system, an exponent of 2.0165 implies that the masses of the Earth and Moon must have been understated by about 18 percent each, and the > > > calculated precession (not counting the known Newtonian contributions) would be 1.25 degrees per orbit. > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcUFNSTF84NlQ3TTA > > > > > > You have no theory and your math is terrible. > > > > You probably maked some mistake in your calclations. > > > > The formula for absidal precession, > > for any central force: r^n, > > has been derived long ago and by Newton: > > > > an absidal angle is: > > f = pi / sqrt(3+n); > > > > for n = -2 it's: > > 3-2 = 1, thus for a standard force: 1/r^2, > > the angle is equal pi - between min and max, > > thus no precession. > > That's for a central force with an orbiting test particle that is nearly > massless relative to the primary body. Indeed: the Newton's theory is about a revolving orbit of a massless particle. The Newton force is: n = -2, exactly; and there the force is other: n = 2 + a <> 2, and it gives the precession... but mathematicaly only - it's just a numerology! However due to the fantastic coincidences: a = m/M, it's not now a numerology, but experimental hint. Similarly the GR produces the precession, using a modified force, ony described in other form : k/r^2 + b/r^p, in place of: k/r^(2 + a); But in the GR the b numer is just nothing - pure mathematics, thus the GR is still a numerology only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d29941f3-6c71-4c08-93c9-66c0331055ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383420 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 11:43:05 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 18:23:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > That's for a central force with an orbiting test particle that is nearly > > massless relative to the primary body. > > Indeed: the Newton's theory is about a revolving orbit of a massless particle. What are you talking about? Newton's theory applies generally to all sorts of orbits. It is not limited to massless particles. You were, however, guilty of applying one of his derived formulas to an inappropriate scenario. For two bodies of comparable mass, calculating the precession rate as a function of the exponent of r is something that needs to be done numerically rather than by exact analysis. > The Newton force is: n = -2, exactly; > and there the force is other: n = 2 + a <> 2, > and it gives the precession... but mathematicaly only - it's just a numerology! > > However due to the fantastic coincidences: a = m/M, > it's not now a numerology, but experimental hint. > > Similarly the GR produces the precession, using a modified force, > ony described in other form : > > k/r^2 + b/r^p, in place of: k/r^(2 + a); > > But in the GR the b numer is just nothing - pure mathematics, > thus the GR is still a numerology only. I'm afraid that it is *you* who are guilty of numerology. You cannot simply increase the exponent of r in the Earth/Moon system without many, many side effects. To get an apogee of 405500 km, perigee of 363300 km, revolution period 27.3217 days *and* an exponent of 2.0165, then either the value of G has to be increased by 38%, or the product of the masses of Earth and the Moon have to be increased by 38%, or some combination of the two. These are, of course, impossible demands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67a57b23-3b4a-4ae2-ad01-8fb3e4cbdb9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383443 |
W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 22:57:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 11:43:05 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 18:23:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > That's for a central force with an orbiting test particle that is nearly > > > massless relative to the primary body. > > > > Indeed: the Newton's theory is about a revolving orbit of a massless particle. > > What are you talking about? Newton's theory applies generally to all sorts of > orbits. It is not limited to massless particles. I'm talking about the revolution of orbits, which Newton considered long ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_theorem_of_revolving_orbits > You were, however, guilty of applying one of his derived formulas to an > inappropriate scenario. For two bodies of comparable mass, calculating the > precession rate as a function of the exponent of r is something that needs to be done numerically rather than by exact analysis. Simply, a force type of: f = k/r^(2+m/M), reproduces correctly the observed processions in the Solar System; It's a fact, and the fact are indisputable - by nature! > I'm afraid that it is *you* who are guilty of numerology. You cannot simply > increase the exponent of r in the Earth/Moon system without many, many side > effects. To get an apogee of 405500 km, perigee of 363300 km, revolution > period 27.3217 days *and* an exponent of 2.0165, then either the value of G > has to be increased by 38%, or the product of the masses of Earth and the Moon > have to be increased by 38%, or some combination of the two. > > These are, of course, impossible demands. This is just the slightest trouble in this issue. It's easy to justify why you should use: 1/60 instead of 1/80 in the case of the Moon-Earth orbit. The key is a math! Any function can be expanded in a serie. For example: sinx = x - x^3/6 + ... so, try this: k/r^(2 + a) = k/r^2 + ? it's expandable or not? Of course it is! The expansion is just: k/r^2 + b/r4 + ..., where: b = 3(GM/c)^2; according to the GR. this is still the same... idiocy. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 23:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a3841b1-a89c-429c-8213-d53f527a131d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383451 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 22:57:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > You were, however, guilty of applying one of his derived formulas to an > > inappropriate scenario. For two bodies of comparable mass, calculating the > > precession rate as a function of the exponent of r is something that needs to be done numerically rather than by exact analysis. > > Simply, a force type of: > f = k/r^(2+m/M), reproduces correctly the observed processions in the Solar System; > > It's a fact, and the fact are indisputable - by nature! Totally false. The anomalous precession values for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are 43.1, 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36 It is easy to see that your numbers don't work out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <957ba94c-702e-4989-a282-4e5e6ca74e48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383460 |
W dniu niedziela, 15 maja 2016 08:24:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 22:57:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > You were, however, guilty of applying one of his derived formulas to an > > > inappropriate scenario. For two bodies of comparable mass, calculating the > > > precession rate as a function of the exponent of r is something that needs to be done numerically rather than by exact analysis. > > > > Simply, a force type of: > > f = k/r^(2+m/M), reproduces correctly the observed processions in the Solar System; > > > > It's a fact, and the fact are indisputable - by nature! > > Totally false. > The anomalous precession values for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are > 43.1, 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36 > > It is easy to see that your numbers don't work out. The numbers are quite correct! For example using the formula fo Earth, you get a precession: 180 * m/M = 180 / 330000 = 1/1833 degs / y = 2'' / y, so, the result is still quite good. Jupiter! m/M = 1/1050 => precession = 180 / 1050 / Tj Tj = 12 years, thus: p = 617'' / 12 = 52''/y; what is very well know number in the astronomy: the equinox precession is just 50''/ y, because: 52 - 2 of the Earth's precession = 50''/y !! :))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f9dc161-a7df-483a-9855-345cefdbb6ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383467 |
On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 10:39:59 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 15 maja 2016 08:24:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
napisał:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > Simply, a force type of:
> > > f = k/r^(2+m/M), reproduces correctly the observed processions in the Solar
System;
> > >
> > > It's a fact, and the fact are indisputable - by nature!
> >
> > Totally false.
> > The anomalous precession values for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are
> > 43.1, 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36
> >
> > It is easy to see that your numbers don't work out.
>
> The numbers are quite correct!
>
> For example using the formula fo Earth,
> you get a precession:
>
> 180 * m/M = 180 / 330000 = 1/1833 degs / y = 2'' / y,
> so, the result is still quite good.
>
> Jupiter!
>
> m/M = 1/1050 => precession = 180 / 1050 / Tj
> Tj = 12 years, thus:
>
> p = 617'' / 12 = 52''/y;
>
> what is very well know number in the astronomy:
> the equinox precession is just 50''/ y,
> because: 52 - 2 of the Earth's precession = 50''/y !! :))
You are quite THOROUGHLY confused.
The ANOMALOUS precession values for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars represent
that portion of the total precession that are NOT attributable to Newtonian
perturbations by the other planets.
The respective values for the ANOMALOUS precession of the inner planets are:
Mercury 43.1"/cy
Venus 8.61"/cy
Earth 3.85"/cy
Mars 1.36"/cy
The TOTAL observed apsidal precession for the planets are:
Mercury 575"/cy
Venus ~200"/cy (difficult to measure since Venus' orbit is nearly circular)
Earth 1145"/cy
Mars 1628"/cy
Jupiter 655"/cy
Saturn 1950"/cy
Uranus 334"/cy
Neptune 36"/cy
My calculation yields numbers that are totally consistent with your numbers:
Earth+Moon: 3600*180*m/M = 1.97"/y which is totally dreadful
Jupiter: 3600*180*(9.545e-4)/11.86 = 52.15"/y which is also dreadful
The Newtonian precession of Mercury can be broken down into perturbative
contributions from each of the planets and the oblateness of the Sun.
I have tabulated some of the figures that LeVerrier published, along with some
figures published on MathPages using the Gaussian Ring Approximation, as well
as some figures that I generated.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm
I simulated the Newtonian precession using my simulation program, but since I
have the planets all in the same plane, my program tends to overestimate
the precession by a few percent. Take my figures with a bit of salt.
LeVerrier MathPages My_Program's_Overestimate
Venus 280.6 281.6 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse
Earth 83.6 95.9 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty
Jupiter 152.6 161.6 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8
Looking at my Jupiter results, I can see what Kevin Brown of MathPages means
when he says that he considers the ring model to be "dubious". Still, the
results are surprisingly close to those given by a more sophisticated analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7010549d-996a-4edc-a3bb-d0b80e26673b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383486 |
Some of my remarks need clarification: On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 5:31:17 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > "I simulated the Newtonian precession using my simulation program..." I've simulated the Newtonian contribution to Mercury's precession by all of the planets using my simulation program, listing several of my results here... > "Looking at my Jupiter results, I can see what Kevin Brown of MathPages means when he says that he considers the ring model to be 'dubious'. Still, the results are surprisingly close to those given by a more sophisticated analysis." Gauss' Ring Approximation predicts that the overall contribution of Jupiter to Mercury's precession is less than 60% that of Venus. My program agrees with that, but it also predicts the existence of large back-and-forth swings of Mercury's precession corresponding to Jupiter's 12 year orbit. I can see what Kevin Brown of MathPages means when he says that he considers the ring model to be "dubious". Still, the results of the ring model are surprisingly close to the averaged results given by a more sophisticated analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24eda72b-0c27-4377-9bc8-8fdad5e45c87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383486 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 16 maja 2016 00:31:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog > > what is very well know number in the astronomy: > > the equinox precession is just 50''/ y, > > because: 52 - 2 of the Earth's precession = 50''/y !! :)) > > You are quite THOROUGHLY confused. > > The ANOMALOUS precession values for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars represent > that portion of the total precession that are NOT attributable to Newtonian > perturbations by the other planets. > > The respective values for the ANOMALOUS precession of the inner planets are: > Mercury 43.1"/cy > Venus 8.61"/cy > Earth 3.85"/cy > Mars 1.36"/cy > > The TOTAL observed apsidal precession for the planets are: > Mercury 575"/cy > Venus ~200"/cy (difficult to measure since Venus' orbit is nearly circular) > Earth 1145"/cy > Mars 1628"/cy > Jupiter 655"/cy > Saturn 1950"/cy > Uranus 334"/cy > Neptune 36"/cy One problem: wrt of what are these numbers measured? > My calculation yields numbers that are totally consistent with your numbers: > Earth+Moon: 3600*180*m/M = 1.97"/y which is totally dreadful > Jupiter: 3600*180*(9.545e-4)/11.86 = 52.15"/y which is also dreadful The numbers m/M gives the Sun additional motion due to a planet impact, rather than the real precession of the peri... then just the peri moves wrt of the Sun! > The Newtonian precession of Mercury can be broken down into perturbative > contributions from each of the planets and the oblateness of the Sun. > I have tabulated some of the figures that LeVerrier published, along with some > figures published on MathPages using the Gaussian Ring Approximation, as well > as some figures that I generated. > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm > > I simulated the Newtonian precession using my simulation program, but since I > have the planets all in the same plane, my program tends to overestimate > the precession by a few percent. Take my figures with a bit of salt. > > LeVerrier MathPages My_Program's_Overestimate > Venus 280.6 281.6 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse > Earth 83.6 95.9 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8 > > Looking at my Jupiter results, I can see what Kevin Brown of MathPages means > when he says that he considers the ring model to be "dubious". Still, the > results are surprisingly close to those given by a more sophisticated analysis. You should not use the ring model, because it dont work correctly! For example: try to use the ring model for the Moon precession - and what is a result?! 1.5 degs, only, instead of 3!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 17:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4bb5eaf4-f0fb-4e71-b585-2ceba9826da9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383516 |
On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 8:39:51 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 16 maja 2016 00:31:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog > > The TOTAL observed apsidal precession for the planets are: > > Mercury 575"/cy > > Venus ~200"/cy (difficult to measure since Venus' orbit is nearly circular) > > Earth 1145"/cy > > Mars 1628"/cy > > Jupiter 655"/cy > > Saturn 1950"/cy > > Uranus 334"/cy > > Neptune 36"/cy > > One problem: wrt of what are these numbers measured? In most modern treatments, I see them measured with respect to the ICFR. > > My calculation yields numbers that are totally consistent with your numbers: > > Earth+Moon: 3600*180*m/M = 1.97"/y which is totally dreadful > > Jupiter: 3600*180*(9.545e-4)/11.86 = 52.15"/y which is also dreadful > > The numbers m/M gives the Sun additional motion due to a planet impact, > rather than the real precession of the peri... > then just the peri moves wrt of the Sun! Garbage is garbage. Your numbers don't correspond in any way with reality, and you have no adequate explanation. > > Looking at my Jupiter results, I can see what Kevin Brown of MathPages means > > when he says that he considers the ring model to be "dubious". Still, the > > results are surprisingly close to those given by a more sophisticated analysis. > > You should not use the ring model, because it dont work correctly! > > For example: try to use the ring model for the Moon precession - > and what is a result?! > 1.5 degs, only, instead of 3! You can't use the ring model for the Moon. Nobody tries. What are you ranting about? You have a failed "theory" that gives garbage numbers. Live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23a3fd44-83f0-4dda-91fc-04a1230228f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383460 |
W dniu niedziela, 15 maja 2016 08:24:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 maja 2016 22:57:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > You were, however, guilty of applying one of his derived formulas to an > > > inappropriate scenario. For two bodies of comparable mass, calculating the > > > precession rate as a function of the exponent of r is something that needs to be done numerically rather than by exact analysis. > > > > Simply, a force type of: > > f = k/r^(2+m/M), reproduces correctly the observed processions in the Solar System; > > > > It's a fact, and the fact are indisputable - by nature! > > Totally false. > The anomalous precession values for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are > 43.1, 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36 > > It is easy to see that your numbers don't work out. BTW. Thise numbers are completely wrong. The correct values for the apsidal precession are (according to naive astronomical observations, because relative to the ecliptic, which precesses and wobbles too!): Mercury: 570'' / cy =~ 6''/y Venus: 200'' / cy = 2/y (decreased due to the Earth!) Earth: 1150'' / cy = 11/y (increased due to the Venus!) Mars: 1620''/cy = 16 / y The greatest precession has: Saturn: 2000'' /cy = 20'' /y, due to the Jupiter, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web