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 14 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 18 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 10:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3NednQUphPW977rKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382473 |
On 4/29/16 4/29/16 - 12:19 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El jueves, 28 de abril de 2016, 17:06:28 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: >> On 4/28/16 4/28/16 1:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> The 575=532+43 shows that the 98% of Solar system mass (Sun) provokes a 43 >>> effect on Mercury, and the rest 2% a 532 one. That does not seem to me >>> completely logic (even forgetting that GR is not a linear theory). >> >> This merely shows how completely disconnected from physics you actually are. >> The relevant approximation to GR is linear; [...] > Which "approximation to GR" are you talking about? The post-Newtonian approximation to GR, of course. This is well known. > I am afraid that you are > committing here another absurd anachronism. Nope. You are just displaying your personal ignorance. > The computation of Mercury's orbit > precession by the perturbation method is a completely Newtonian mechanics (NM) > topic, having absolutely no relation at all with any posterior Relativity > theory, and much less with the more recent GR. Nope. The usual calculations use the post-Newtonian approximation to GR. >>> Computing >>> the 43 ignoring the presence of what provokes 532? >> >> This approximation to GR is LINEAR. One does not "ignore" the 532, one ADDS them >> to obtain the observed value: 575 arcsec/century. >> > Does not exist here any "approximation to GR" (linear or not). Sure there is such an approximation. It is called the post-Newtonian approximation to GR, and is linear. You merely display your personal ignorance of very basic physics. > The 532 plays no > role at all in the 1915 Einstein's 43 derivation. Yes. Because unlike you he knew that the approximation he was using is linear, so he can simply add the result of his calculation to the calculation for the other planets' effects on mercury's orbit. >> (The forces add, not necessarily the precession; but a calculation >> shows that precessions do add.) >> > The 532 is a Newtonian derivation using gravitational forces; the 43 is a GR > derivation where gravitational forces DO NOT EXIST AT ALL by principle, and > besides, the supposed bodies generating them do not exist in the model. Again you are confused. The 532 is ALSO the value one obtains using the post-Newtonian approximation to GR. In that approximation, there are terms which are identical to gravitational force in Newtonian mechanics. It is silly to not call them that in this approximation. There are, of course, additional terms, because this is a POST-Newtonian approximation. > If applying NM to the Solar system we obtain 532 arcsec/century for Mercury's > precession, apply then GR (or any other theory addressing gravity, as 1905R) to > the SAME Solar system to obtain the measured 575 one. The application of the post-Newtonian approximation to GR yields the value 575 arcsec/century, in excellent agreement with observations. People performing the post-Newtonian calculation do not bother to re-compute the effects of the other planets, because THEY DON'T NEED TO -- the "other terms" of the post-Newtonian approximation are negligible for the other planets. > If you are worried about GR abilities, this case is relatively simple compared > with the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors resolve with only > 1905R since already almost 4 decades, not receiving me yet an adequate answer > from your part. You are still confused. GPS receiver calculations are not really using "Newtonian equations", they are calculations using the ECI coordinate system (which has been specifically constructed to make the calculations easier). As those coordinates are not valid for Newtonian physics, this is INHERENTLY a GR calculation (which can, of course, use any coordinates). The "I" in "ECI" stands for "inertial". These coordinates are LOCALLY inertial in the GR sense, and for the accuracy of the GPS their valid 4-volume includes all GPS satellite orbits and a duration sufficient for light propagation between satellites and the ground. They are NOT inertial in the sense of either Newtonian mechanics or SR (or "1905R"). They are, of course, sufficient for the needs of the GPS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02d0e691-bf13-4018-99aa-1f77f7a2f938@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382647 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 2 maja 2016 17:28:34 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 4/29/16 4/29/16 - 12:19 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El jueves, 28 de abril de 2016, 17:06:28 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > >> On 4/28/16 4/28/16 1:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> The 575=532+43 shows that the 98% of Solar system mass (Sun) provokes a 43 > >>> effect on Mercury, and the rest 2% a 532 one. That does not seem to me > >>> completely logic (even forgetting that GR is not a linear theory). > >> > >> This merely shows how completely disconnected from physics you actually are. > >> The relevant approximation to GR is linear; [...] > > Which "approximation to GR" are you talking about? > > The post-Newtonian approximation to GR, of course. This is well known. > > > > I am afraid that you are > > committing here another absurd anachronism. > > Nope. You are just displaying your personal ignorance. > > > > The computation of Mercury's orbit > > precession by the perturbation method is a completely Newtonian mechanics (NM) > > topic, having absolutely no relation at all with any posterior Relativity > > theory, and much less with the more recent GR. > > Nope. The usual calculations use the post-Newtonian approximation to GR. > > > >>> Computing > >>> the 43 ignoring the presence of what provokes 532? > >> > >> This approximation to GR is LINEAR. One does not "ignore" the 532, one ADDS them > >> to obtain the observed value: 575 arcsec/century. > >> > > Does not exist here any "approximation to GR" (linear or not). > > Sure there is such an approximation. It is called the post-Newtonian > approximation to GR, and is linear. You merely display your personal ignorance > of very basic physics. > > > > The 532 plays no > > role at all in the 1915 Einstein's 43 derivation. > > Yes. Because unlike you he knew that the approximation he was using is linear, > so he can simply add the result of his calculation to the calculation for the > other planets' effects on mercury's orbit. > > > >> (The forces add, not necessarily the precession; but a calculation > >> shows that precessions do add.) > >> > > The 532 is a Newtonian derivation using gravitational forces; the 43 is a GR > > derivation where gravitational forces DO NOT EXIST AT ALL by principle, and > > besides, the supposed bodies generating them do not exist in the model. > > Again you are confused. The 532 is ALSO the value one obtains using the > post-Newtonian approximation to GR. > > In that approximation, there are terms which are identical to > gravitational force in Newtonian mechanics. It is silly to > not call them that in this approximation. There are, of course, > additional terms, because this is a POST-Newtonian approximation. > > > > If applying NM to the Solar system we obtain 532 arcsec/century for Mercury's > > precession, apply then GR (or any other theory addressing gravity, as 1905R) to > > the SAME Solar system to obtain the measured 575 one. > > The application of the post-Newtonian approximation to GR yields the value 575 > arcsec/century, in excellent agreement with observations. > > People performing the post-Newtonian calculation do not bother > to re-compute the effects of the other planets, because THEY > DON'T NEED TO -- the "other terms" of the post-Newtonian > approximation are negligible for the other planets. > > > > If you are worried about GR abilities, this case is relatively simple compared > > with the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors resolve with only > > 1905R since already almost 4 decades, not receiving me yet an adequate answer > > from your part. > > You are still confused. GPS receiver calculations are not really using > "Newtonian equations", they are calculations using the ECI coordinate system > (which has been specifically constructed to make the calculations easier). As > those coordinates are not valid for Newtonian physics, this is INHERENTLY a GR > calculation (which can, of course, use any coordinates). > > The "I" in "ECI" stands for "inertial". These coordinates are > LOCALLY inertial in the GR sense, and for the accuracy of the > GPS their valid 4-volume includes all GPS satellite orbits and > a duration sufficient for light propagation between satellites > and the ground. They are NOT inertial in the sense of either > Newtonian mechanics or SR (or "1905R"). They are, of course, > sufficient for the needs of the GPS. > > > Tom Roberts Do not pretend to be.., imbecile. You never solved, computent anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc0d201f-1b67-485d-8ca3-7835b550e089@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382647 |
El lunes, 2 de mayo de 2016, 11:28:34 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > On 4/29/16 4/29/16 - 12:19 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El jueves, 28 de abril de 2016, 17:06:28 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > >> On 4/28/16 4/28/16 1:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> The 575=532+43 shows that the 98% of Solar system mass (Sun) provokes a 43 > >>> effect on Mercury, and the rest 2% a 532 one. That does not seem to me > >>> completely logic (even forgetting that GR is not a linear theory). > >> > >> This merely shows how completely disconnected from physics you actually are. > >> The relevant approximation to GR is linear; [...] > > Which "approximation to GR" are you talking about? > > The post-Newtonian approximation to GR, of course. This is well known. > Yes, it is well known; but you are here referring to a development realized AFTER 1915GR, that CANNOT alter at all how 1915GR addresses the 532 arcsec/century NM prediction of Mercury's perihelion shift. > > > I am afraid that you are > > committing here another absurd anachronism. > > Nope. You are just displaying your personal ignorance. > That the post-Newtonian development occurs after 1915GR is an elemental historical fact. You are assuming again (without any reason at all), that the negation of the presence of a future development in any moment of its past implies the ignorance of it. > > > The computation of Mercury's orbit > > precession by the perturbation method is a completely Newtonian mechanics (NM) > > topic, having absolutely no relation at all with any posterior Relativity > > theory, and much less with the more recent GR. > > Nope. The usual calculations use the post-Newtonian approximation to GR. > 1905 Einstein DOES NOT use the post-Newtonian approximation to GR when defining the time of a stationary system, neither the 1915 one when developing his then new GR and explaining Mercury's perihelion shift. > > >>> Computing > >>> the 43 ignoring the presence of what provokes 532? > >> > >> This approximation to GR is LINEAR. One does not "ignore" the 532, one ADDS them > >> to obtain the observed value: 575 arcsec/century. > >> > > Does not exist here any "approximation to GR" (linear or not). > > Sure there is such an approximation. It is called the post-Newtonian > approximation to GR, and is linear. You merely display your personal ignorance > of very basic physics. > And you seem here displaying your personal ignorance about how all historical events occur in a sequence order that nobody has the right to change. > > > The 532 plays no > > role at all in the 1915 Einstein's 43 derivation. > > Yes. Because unlike you he knew that the approximation he was using is linear, > so he can simply add the result of his calculation to the calculation for the > other planets' effects on mercury's orbit. > He knows surely that the Newtonian perturbation method can be considered linear taking into account a Sun's mass very much greater than the planet ones. But he also knows surely that the action of the Sun over Mercury (without any other planet present) is very different from the other planet ones (we only need to remember that in the Sun's case, a gravitational force does not exist at all). You fail to comment this topic. > > >> (The forces add, not necessarily the precession; but a calculation > >> shows that precessions do add.) > >> > > The 532 is a Newtonian derivation using gravitational forces; the 43 is a GR > > derivation where gravitational forces DO NOT EXIST AT ALL by principle, and > > besides, the supposed bodies generating them do not exist in the model. > > Again you are confused. The 532 is ALSO the value one obtains using the > post-Newtonian approximation to GR. > Yes, but the post-Newtonian approximation to GR DOES NOT exist yet in 1915. > In that approximation, there are terms which are identical to > gravitational force in Newtonian mechanics. It is silly to > not call them that in this approximation. There are, of course, > additional terms, because this is a POST-Newtonian approximation. > You are explaining it in a very clear way. It is really silly not understand which was the goal when creating the POST-Newtonian approximation to GR. > > > If applying NM to the Solar system we obtain 532 arcsec/century for Mercury's > > precession, apply then GR (or any other theory addressing gravity, as 1905R) to > > the SAME Solar system to obtain the measured 575 one. > > The application of the post-Newtonian approximation to GR yields the value 575 > arcsec/century, in excellent agreement with observations. > The application of only 1905R (without the need of any post-approximation) yields the same value 575 arcsec/century, in excellent agreement with observations. > People performing the post-Newtonian calculation do not bother > to re-compute the effects of the other planets, because THEY > DON'T NEED TO -- the "other terms" of the post-Newtonian > approximation are negligible for the other planets. > 1905R has already excellent results INCLUDING the other planets. > > > If you are worried about GR abilities, this case is relatively simple compared > > with the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors resolve with only > > 1905R since already almost 4 decades, not receiving me yet an adequate answer > > from your part. > > You are still confused. GPS receiver calculations are not really using > "Newtonian equations", they are calculations using the ECI coordinate system > (which has been specifically constructed to make the calculations easier). As > those coordinates are not valid for Newtonian physics, this is INHERENTLY a GR > calculation (which can, of course, use any coordinates). > > The "I" in "ECI" stands for "inertial". These coordinates are > LOCALLY inertial in the GR sense, and for the accuracy of the > GPS their valid 4-volume includes all GPS satellite orbits and > a duration sufficient for light propagation between satellites > and the ground. They are NOT inertial in the sense of either > Newtonian mechanics or SR (or "1905R"). They are, of course, > sufficient for the needs of the GPS. > N. Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System", p.16 [ Suppose for a moment there were no gravitational fields. Then one could picture an underlying non-rotating reference frame, a local inertial frame, unattached to the spin of the earth, but with its origin at the center of the earth. In this non-rotating frame, a fictitious set of standard clocks is introduced, available anywhere, all of them being synchronized by the Einstein synchronization procedure,and running at agreed upon rates such that synchronization is maintained. These clocks read the coordinate time t. ] Surely you trust in N. Ashby. See how he has no other choice than to abandon the GR orthodoxy disconnecting at least for a moment the gravity field, revealing the truth that there is not other GPS ECI time than the 1905R one, with Euclidean geometry, 3-space Cartesian coordinates, with all operative clocks synchronized in the 1905 Einstein sense, the necessary physical conditions for the successful solution of the system of Newtonian equations in all GPS receptors. Yes, Newtonian ones, based in the more elemental NM process, a uniform velocity moving agent from one rest space point to another, the carrier frequency signals broadcasted from the satellites, received and processed in the GPS receptors, always at the light speed c and following the 1905R second postulate, starting at c independent on the satellite velocity v. Your SR (perhaps already not following the second postulate) plays no role at all here. I do not know if Ashby realized or not that once all operative GPS clocks are 1905R synchronized, all local SR times disappear by the action of the relativistic 1905R and GR correction (-7+45=+38) on the clocks, a fact that you seem still not understanding. With all my respect to Ashby, no, there is no need to disconnect gravity in GPS (even for a moment). Since the design epoch, gravity was (and continue being) a fundamental physical condition to take into account, present today in the necessary correction in all satellite clocks (the +45 part). What remain being needed is to understand that 1905R seems being very much appropriate to explain GPS than SR-GR. BTW, 1905R is able to explain both (the-7 and +45 parts) in a way very much simpler than GR. In this moment, all the huge experimental evidence derived from the existence of the very successful GPS is supporting 1905R, reason for me more than sufficient to continue vindicating 1905 Einstein's work. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-05 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <H9qdncttmqcyDbbKnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382737 |
On 5/3/16 5/3/16 4:20 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 2 de mayo de 2016, 11:28:34 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: >> On 4/29/16 4/29/16 - 12:19 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> El jueves, 28 de abril de 2016, 17:06:28 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: >>>> On 4/28/16 4/28/16 1:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>>>> The 575=532+43 shows that the 98% of Solar system mass (Sun) provokes a 43 >>>>> effect on Mercury, and the rest 2% a 532 one. That does not seem to me >>>>> completely logic (even forgetting that GR is not a linear theory). >>>> This merely shows how completely disconnected from physics you actually are. >>>> The relevant approximation to GR is linear; [...] >>> Which "approximation to GR" are you talking about? >> >> The post-Newtonian approximation to GR, of course. This is well known. >> > Yes, it is well known; but you are here referring to a development realized > AFTER 1915GR, that CANNOT alter at all how 1915GR addresses the 532 > arcsec/century NM prediction of Mercury's perihelion shift. (Sigh) _I_ am not the one treating Einstein's ancient writings as if they were Holy Writ. In any case, Einstein knew that the approximation to GR he used is linear, and also that for the effects of other planets the terms beyond Newton are completely negligible. So he knew he could just add the Newtonian calculations of the precession from other planets to the one he computed in GR for the sun. (Or equivalently, subtract the planets' contributions from the observation and compare to the GR calculation for the sun). Didn't you even bother to read his paper??? -- after all THAT IS WHAT HE DID. Do you really think he would do something that was not mathematically justified? _HE_KNEW_IN_1915_THIS_WAS_JUSTIFIED._ >>> I am afraid that you are >>> committing here another absurd anachronism. Look at a calendar and see who is actually "committing here another absurd anachronism". > [... more repetitions of the same errors] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-05 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dd2cf3c-0d0c-45f1-bc1c-70059e0795e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382823 |
El jueves, 5 de mayo de 2016, 14:28:01 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > On 5/3/16 5/3/16 4:20 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El lunes, 2 de mayo de 2016, 11:28:34 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > >> On 4/29/16 4/29/16 - 12:19 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> El jueves, 28 de abril de 2016, 17:06:28 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > >>>> On 4/28/16 4/28/16 1:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>>>> The 575=532+43 shows that the 98% of Solar system mass (Sun) provokes a 43 > >>>>> effect on Mercury, and the rest 2% a 532 one. That does not seem to me > >>>>> completely logic (even forgetting that GR is not a linear theory). > >>>> This merely shows how completely disconnected from physics you actually are. > >>>> The relevant approximation to GR is linear; [...] > >>> Which "approximation to GR" are you talking about? > >> > >> The post-Newtonian approximation to GR, of course. This is well known. > >> > > Yes, it is well known; but you are here referring to a development realized > > AFTER 1915GR, that CANNOT alter at all how 1915GR addresses the 532 > > arcsec/century NM prediction of Mercury's perihelion shift. > > (Sigh) _I_ am not the one treating Einstein's ancient writings as if they were > Holy Writ. > > In any case, Einstein knew that the approximation to GR he used is linear, and > also that for the effects of other planets the terms beyond Newton are > completely negligible. So he knew he could just add the Newtonian calculations > of the precession from other planets to the one he computed in GR for the sun. > (Or equivalently, subtract the planets' contributions from the observation and > compare to the GR calculation for the sun). > 1915 Einstein does NOT use ANY approximation to GR, the post-Newtonian approximation to GR that you mention is developed many years later. Have no sense at all to claim that 1915 Einstein knows what does not exist yet. NO, in any case 1915 Einstein NOT knows (and much less can use) what does not exist yet. The anachronisms that you are committing lead always you to a totally absurd position. > Didn't you even bother to read his paper??? -- after all THAT IS WHAT HE DID. Do > you really think he would do something that was not mathematically justified? > _HE_KNEW_IN_1915_THIS_WAS_JUSTIFIED._ > You are now the one that seems considering 1915 Einstein's papers as if they were Holy Writ. I consider the Einstein of all epochs a totally honest person. The 1915 one knows the 43 (or near value) arcsecond/century Newtonian prediction of Mercury's perihelion shift (with NO relation at all with your post-Newtonian approximation of the future), and applies his new GR in the unique way possible in that moment, considering the dominant Sun at rest the unique body affecting the space-time, ignoring all the other planets very small masses, focusing his attention in the computation of Mercury's geodesic. I can imagine 1915 Einstein feeling when obtaining the 43 value, a very convincing sign about the capacity of GR to describe the world we inhabit (as you usually says), accepted since then by the scientific community as a very strong GR support. The adding 532+43=575 MUST be valid, even being the adding terms derived from contradictory theories, one talking about gravitational forces not existing in the other one mentioning the effect of the mass-energy over the space-time taken from SR. The later post-Newtonian effort is designed to visualize NM as an approximation to GR at low velocities and weak gravitational field, introducing all the necessary parameters with that goal. After deriving from 1905R in 2010 the same Earth's gravitational red shift than GR, I also derive in 2012 the same than GR Mercury's 1905R relativistic perihelion shift under the same 1915 Einstein conditions. Put your attention in the fact that I am then supporting 1905R with GR, even being contradictory theories, but always emphasizing that 1905R is very much simpler than GR. Since 2012 I had increased very much the experimental evidence supporting 1905R, confirming its original strong relation with NM (more specifically, with 1686NM), applying it to the Solar system and the more general gravitational n-body problem; but the most important is just now the ability of 1905R to explain GPS better than GR, a topic that I am debating still with you, wanting and hoping to maintain your interest in it as a very valuable opponent. > > >>> I am afraid that you are > >>> committing here another absurd anachronism. > > Look at a calendar and see who is actually "committing here another absurd > anachronism". > We are in 2016, and I do not know what consequence you are deriving from it. Can you specify what thing do you think I am considering present before its creation or development? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > [... more repetitions of the same errors] > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-05 17:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7682ed6-8d48-4be3-b8f9-802681d4786f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382831 |
W dniu piątek, 6 maja 2016 01:45:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato > I can imagine 1915 Einstein feeling when obtaining the 43 value, a very > convincing sign about the capacity of GR to describe the world we inhabit (as > you usually says), accepted since then by the scientific community as a very > strong GR support. The adding 532+43=575 MUST be valid, even being the adding > terms derived from contradictory theories, one talking about gravitational > forces not existing in the other one mentioning the effect of the mass-energy > over the space-time taken from SR. The later post-Newtonian effort is designed > to visualize NM as an approximation to GR at low velocities and weak > gravitational field, introducing all the necessary parameters with that goal. La Verrier noticed 38 only; so due to what reason actually it is: 43 ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-05 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79c8d476-7eda-42cd-9084-0bcc3c16c4a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382838 |
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:50:25 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > La Verrier noticed 38 only; > so due to what reason actually it is: 43 ? How about, more than a century of additional data, including data collected by interplanetary spacecraft...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8b612e8-9f1f-4df8-bf65-fd8f9139c1da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382853 |
W dniu piątek, 6 maja 2016 07:05:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:50:25 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > La Verrier noticed 38 only; > > so due to what reason actually it is: 43 ? > > How about, more than a century of additional data, including data collected > by interplanetary spacecraft... The history of the precession is quite different. Simply: Newcomb discovered the axial precession of the Earth grows! Then the the Mercury's precession rapidly increased to 43''. So, the whole situation is quite idiotic: the Merc. precession has been never measured in fact, due to the many other parameters/conditions, which are just unknown! One simple question: wrt to what the Merc. apsidal precession has been measured/observed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 06:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngljt0$1h6u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382955 |
On 08/05/16 02:31, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 6 maja 2016 07:05:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: >> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:50:25 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: >> >>> La Verrier noticed 38 only; >>> so due to what reason actually it is: 43 ? >> >> How about, more than a century of additional data, including data collected >> by interplanetary spacecraft... > > The history of the precession is quite different. > > Simply: Newcomb discovered the axial precession of the Earth grows! > > Then the the Mercury's precession rapidly increased to 43''. > > So, the whole situation is quite idiotic: > the Merc. precession has been never measured in fact, > due to the many other parameters/conditions, which are just unknown! > > One simple question: > wrt to what the Merc. apsidal precession has been measured/observed? Good question. ..but there is no point in asking this silly prokaryotic female anything. She will just fabricate some kind of irrelevant answer in an attempt to appear intelligent. Mercury's orbit is being measured right now with MESSENGER. No doubt they have already found that its precession is wandering all over the place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ecd468c-cde2-4dae-9ab8-ab4953e61679@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382984 |
W dniu sobota, 7 maja 2016 22:41:08 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW: > Mercury's orbit is being measured right now with MESSENGER. No doubt > they have already found that its precession is wandering all over the > place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. So, wrt of what the Messenger measured the precession? 1. to the node, which is relative to the ecliptic plane 2. to the invariant plane ? 3. or maybe to the orbit itself?! 4. or to the distant stars - how?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 03:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngntqe$reu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382986 |
On 08/05/16 07:03, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 7 maja 2016 22:41:08 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW: > >> Mercury's orbit is being measured right now with MESSENGER. No doubt >> they have already found that its precession is wandering all over the >> place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. > > So, wrt of what the Messenger measured the precession? > > 1. to the node, which is relative to the ecliptic plane > 2. to the invariant plane ? > 3. or maybe to the orbit itself?! > 4. or to the distant stars - how? They try to measure it relative to the sun's barycentre with all the planets and then measure the angle using the 'fixed stars'. I'm sure they can get just about any answer they want. The whole galaxy is rotating too. ...and our region of it might be swirling around. So it wouldn't be hard to come up with Einstein's prediction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d5d7873-8975-4ef2-a125-b9dea4b73b65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383045 |
W dniu niedziela, 8 maja 2016 19:42:42 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: > On 08/05/16 07:03, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 7 maja 2016 22:41:08 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW: > > > >> Mercury's orbit is being measured right now with MESSENGER. No doubt > >> they have already found that its precession is wandering all over the > >> place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. > > > > So, wrt of what the Messenger measured the precession? > > > > 1. to the node, which is relative to the ecliptic plane > > 2. to the invariant plane ? > > 3. or maybe to the orbit itself?! > > 4. or to the distant stars - how? > > They try to measure it relative to the sun's barycentre with all the > planets and then measure the angle using the 'fixed stars'. > I'm sure they can get just about any answer they want. So, you suppose 4. ? it's probably wrong, because when the plane of an orbit precesses, then the whole orbit must turn around, tegether with its periapses. In this case, as I suppose, you just measure some fictitious precession: w' = W' x sine of inclination.. where W' = precession of nodes; inclination of Mercury's orbit: i = 6.3 degs, wrt the invariant plane of the Solar Sys.: sin 6.3 = 0.1, and a nodal precession of Mercury is about: 400-450''/cy, thus you get: 0.1 x 400-450 = 40-45'' / cy; ... HAHAHA! > The whole galaxy is rotating too. ...and our region of it might be > swirling around. So it wouldn't be hard to come up with Einstein's > prediction. Do not improvise too much... the galaxy rotation is still undetectable in any human measurement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8e32278-9a66-456d-a220-b74e58170958@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382986 |
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 4:03:34 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 7 maja 2016 22:41:08 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW: > > > Mercury's orbit is being measured right now with MESSENGER. No doubt > > they have already found that its precession is wandering all over the > > place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. > > So, wrt of what the Messenger measured the precession? > > 1. to the node, which is relative to the ecliptic plane > 2. to the invariant plane ? > 3. or maybe to the orbit itself?! > 4. or to the distant stars - how? Focusing on a single number, the longitude of the perihelion, would literally be throwing away 99.9999+% of the relevant tracking data available from the MESSENGER spacecraft, which orbited Mercury from 2011 to 2015. Tracking the advance of the perihelion was a CLASSICAL test of relativity, and it is currently COMPLETELY outdated by the characteristics, quality, and volume of the data available today from missions to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. In any event, tracking the perihelion would be senseless over the mere four-year period of the Mercury mission. There are significant year-to-year changes in the shape of Mercury's orbit due to perturbations by other planets, such that it is only a long-term average of the anomalous perihelion advance that could meaningfully be compared with a single number based on a hand calculation starting with Einstein's equations. The modern approach is to obtain an accurate orbit for Mercury (distance residuals less than 6 meters, velocity residuals less than 0.1 mm/s) based on long term MESSENGER tracking data. The updated planetary ephemerides can then be compared with relativistic predictions, and the results of these comparisons would then be expressed in terms of the PPN formalism. An early report based on 1/3 of the available MESSENGER tracking data is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 19:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngpm4k$19pd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #383053 |
On 09/05/16 05:23, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Focusing on a single number, the longitude of the perihelion, would literally > be throwing away 99.9999+% of the relevant tracking data available from the > MESSENGER spacecraft, which orbited Mercury from 2011 to 2015. > > Tracking the advance of the perihelion was a CLASSICAL test of relativity, and > it is currently COMPLETELY outdated by the characteristics, quality, and volume > of the data available today from missions to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and > Saturn. > > In any event, tracking the perihelion would be senseless over the mere four-year > period of the Mercury mission. There are significant year-to-year changes in the > shape of Mercury's orbit due to perturbations by other planets, such that it is > only a long-term average of the anomalous perihelion advance that could > meaningfully be compared with a single number based on a hand calculation > starting with Einstein's equations. I told you so....but you and all your dingleberry friends argued against me then. Einstein thought the precession was constant and doctored his theory to predict the precession for what he thought was the same amount every orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 05:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a00e290-9b33-4141-8036-3042eb72ceef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383104 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 3:43:50 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Einstein thought the precession was constant and doctored his theory to > predict the precession for what he thought was the same amount every orbit. Funny how the guy who can't do arithmetic right can tell when higher mathematics is "doctored" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4ab8599-7c8d-476b-9c17-5551714f8e30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383053 |
W dniu niedziela, 8 maja 2016 21:23:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog: > An early report based on 1/3 of the available MESSENGER tracking data is > available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 Very Nice. Thus where the angle has been measured: 574''/cy, or maybe 569'' - by Le Verrier? 1. between the two eccentricity vectors 2. relative to the node position, because it's a standard in astronomy 3. wrt the distant stars or maybe: 4. wrt... the GR proposition.. which is about the strict planar motion only, hehe! The great physic, only the physics teachers look.. like the dwarfs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af3cb78d-8d5c-4211-bc06-1f68c224b3c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382984 |
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-6, King of Baloney wrote: > > Mercury's orbit is being measured right now with MESSENGER. No doubt > they have already found that its precession is wandering all over the > place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. The King of Baloney has also crowned himself the king of conspiracy theorists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngq1ug$1ta6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382984 |
On 5/7/2016 3:41 PM, HGW wrote: > No doubt they have already found that its precession is wandering all > over the place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. Nice of you to know experimental results even before they are published. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngq8pc$9m5$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #383114 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 5/7/2016 3:41 PM, HGW wrote: >> No doubt they have already found that its precession is wandering all >> over the place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. >Nice of you to know experimental results even before they are published. Mercury is making a transit of the sun right now, which will add a couple more data points which will be more coffin nails for Ralph's discredited BaThwater theory. Not that he will notice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 11:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngqdgu$h3n$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #383121 |
On 5/9/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/7/2016 3:41 PM, HGW wrote: >>> No doubt they have already found that its precession is wandering all >>> over the place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. > >> Nice of you to know experimental results even before they are published. > > Mercury is making a transit of the sun right now, which will add a couple > more data points which will be more coffin nails for Ralph's discredited > BaThwater theory. Not that he will notice. > Are you sure it's making a transit? After all, the orbit of Mercury is so randomized by the influences of the other planets, who knows when it will ever be seen to transit the sun again? LOL. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web