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 4 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 18 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhan6n$qv6$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #383471 |
alsor@interia.pl writes: >> 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 _ANOMALOUS_ precession. What you list is total precession. Anomalous precession is the part of the total that can't be described by Newtonian mechanics, and for which Einstein came up with an answer. >Mercury: 570'' / cy =3D~ 6''/y >Venus: 200'' / cy =3D 2/y (decreased due to the Earth!) >Earth: 1150'' / cy =3D 11/y (increased due to the Venus!) >Mars: 1620''/cy =3D 16 / y >The greatest precession has: >Saturn: 2000'' /cy =3D 20'' /y, due to the Jupiter, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1848a12d-e10c-4454-89a8-f5281736bf90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383478 |
W dniu niedziela, 15 maja 2016 22:46:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > alsor@interia.pl writes: > > >> 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 > > _ANOMALOUS_ precession. What you list is total precession. Anomalous > precession is the part of the total that can't be described by Newtonian > mechanics, and for which Einstein came up with an answer. What is the 'anomalous' is undefined yet, because it's strongly 'model dependend'! Esspecialy these numbers: 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36 has been never measured, but just computed using the GR model. Unfortunately the GR model cant reproduce the moon precession, thus the model is useless... in general! Additionaly: the GR is for planar orbits, ie. 2D version only, thus totaly incompatibile to any planet in Sol sys, esspecialy the Mercury, which has rather big inclination: 6 degs!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84e18053-a59b-4e00-9c22-e179dbfb0582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383513 |
On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 8:31:00 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 15 maja 2016 22:46:51 UTC+2 uzytkownik Michael Moroney napisal:
> > alsor@interia.pl writes:
> >
> > >> 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
> >
> > _ANOMALOUS_ precession. What you list is total precession. Anomalous
> > precession is the part of the total that can't be described by Newtonian
> > mechanics, and for which Einstein came up with an answer.
>
> What is the 'anomalous' is undefined yet,
> because it's strongly 'model dependend'!
"Anomalous" refers to that part of the precession that Newton can't account for.
What other theories did you have in mind resulting in this "model dependency"?
> Esspecialy these numbers:
> 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36
>
> has been never measured, but just computed using the GR model.
Nope. These are ***MEASURED*** values.
Here is a quote my source for these numbers:
"We mentioned previously that the small eccentricities of Venus and Earth make it
difficult to determine their lines of apsides with precision, but modern
measurement techniques (including the use of interplanetary space probes and
radar ranging) and computerized analysis of the data have enabled the fitting of
the entire solar system to a parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) model that
encompasses a fairly wide range of theories (including general relativity). Once
the parameters of this model have been fit to all the available data for the Sun
and planets, the model can then be used to compute the "best observational fit"
for the precessions of the individual planets based on the PPN formalism. This
gives precessions (in excess of the Newtonian predictions) of 43.1, 8.65, 3.85,
and 1.36 arcseconds per century for the four inner planets respectively, in
remarkable agreement with the predictions of general relativity."
http://mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
> Unfortunately the GR model cant reproduce the moon precession,,
> thus the model is useless... in general!
Repeating a lie does not give it validity. Hundreds of years have been spent in
studying the factors underlying the Moon's observed motion. The factors include
not merely the the attractions between the Moon, Earth, planets and Sun, but
also the effects of tides and other geophysical effects. Modern Lunar Laser
Ranging techniques monitor the position of the Moon to within millimeters, and
General Relativity has been shown to be essential for formulating a precise
theory of lunar motions, which has been explained to within centimeters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory
> Additionaly: the GR is for planar orbits, ie. 2D version only,
> thus totaly incompatibile to any planet in Sol sys,
> esspecialy the Mercury, which has rather big inclination: 6 degs!
Another lie. Just because my own simulation is limited to 2D, you should not
ascribe the limitations of my simple model (on which I have spent a grand total
of eight evenings of work) to those of others who have worked on these issues
for decades.
Despite the simplicity of my simulation, I can reproduce to within 5% the
generally accepted values for the Newtonian contributions to the precession of
Mercury, and I observe very interesting effects that do not generally get
reported in popular expositions of the subject, but which I am sure have been
noted by generations of students taking college courses in Celestial Mechanics.
I am under no illusion that I have discovered anything new in regards to the
large, regularly periodic back-and-forth swings in Mercury's perihelion caused
by the gas giants, but which startled me when I first observed them in my
simulation. Because of these swings, I need to take care if I want to fit an
accurate regression line to the total:
Venus http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse
Earth http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty
Jupiter http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8
Total http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 01:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhdtuk$6gv$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #383571 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes: >> > >BTW. Thise numbers are completely wrong. >> > >> > >The correct values for the apsidal precession are >> > >> > _ANOMALOUS_ precession. What you list is total precession. Anomalous >> > precession is the part of the total that can't be described by Newtonian >> > mechanics, and for which Einstein came up with an answer. >> >> What is the 'anomalous' is undefined yet, >> because it's strongly 'model dependend'! >"Anomalous" refers to that part of the precession that Newton can't >account for. >What other theories did you have in mind resulting in this "model dependency"? > >> Esspecialy these numbers: >> 8.65, 3.85, and 1.36 >> >> has been never measured, but just computed using the GR model. >Nope. These are ***MEASURED*** values. Yup. The measured anomalous precession, the difference between observation and what Newton predicts. >Despite the simplicity of my simulation, I can reproduce to within 5% the >generally accepted values for the Newtonian contributions to the precession of >Mercury, and I observe very interesting effects that do not generally get >reported in popular expositions of the subject, but which I am sure have been >noted by generations of students taking college courses in Celestial Mechanics. >I am under no illusion that I have discovered anything new in regards to the >large, regularly periodic back-and-forth swings in Mercury's perihelion caused >by the gas giants, but which startled me when I first observed them in my >simulation. Because of these swings, I need to take care if I want to fit an >accurate regression line to the total: > Venus http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse > Earth http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty > Jupiter http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8 > Total http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 Cool. Thanks for posting that. Now I am curious. Can you post the effects of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as well?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 02:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8ca6481-670c-418a-954d-7c32d6bbe796@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383580 |
On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 9:00:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >Despite the simplicity of my simulation, I can reproduce to within 5% the
> >generally accepted values for the Newtonian contributions to the precession of
> >Mercury, and I observe very interesting effects that do not generally get
> >reported in popular expositions of the subject, but which I am sure have been
> >noted by generations of students taking college courses in Celestial Mechanics.
> >I am under no illusion that I have discovered anything new in regards to the
> >large, regularly periodic back-and-forth swings in Mercury's perihelion caused
> >by the gas giants, but which startled me when I first observed them in my
> >simulation. Because of these swings, I need to take care if I want to fit an
> >accurate regression line to the total:
> > Venus http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse
> > Earth http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty
> > Jupiter http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8
> > Total http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7
>
> Cool. Thanks for posting that. Now I am curious. Can you post the effects
> of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as well?
Sure. Since observing this phenomenon, I've spent a fair amount of time doing
simulations and analysis trying to understand how LeVerrier, Newcombe, Clemence
etc. could have performed fits with two and three significant figure accuracy
given such seemingly massive swings in the perihelion angle. The important
points that I have learned are as follows:
1) The perihelion angle is not a measured quantity. Rather, it is a *derived*
value.
2) The periodic back-and-forth tugs of Jupiter, Saturn etc. on Mercury do not
cause bona fide back-and-forth precession of the best-fit Keplerian ellipse.
Rather, they distort the orbit so that it is no longer elliptical.
3) Small distortions of orbit from elliptical result in disproportionate effects
on the computed perihelion point. By way of analogy, consider the old puzzle
of the kilometer-long railroad track that expands by one meter when heated by
the Sun. How much does the track buckle in the middle? Answer: 22.4 meters.
A closer analogy would be to consider a 100 meter string suspended between
two points with a slight sag. Lightly depressing the string near one end by
a few millimeters can cause the position of the bottom of the string to
shift by tens of meters.
4) The primary data with which these early computational astronomers worked
were transit timings, i.e. measurements of the time at which Mercury reached
defined points in its orbit. In contrast to the position of the perihelion, I
have found in my analysis that these timings would be affected to only a
minor degree by the regular distorting effects of the gas giants.
5) In other words, LeVerrier et al. did not have any difficulty fitting their
models of perihelion advance to the data because there *weren't* any major
anomalies in the timing data for them to contend with.
LeVerrier MathPages My Program's Probable Overestimate
Venus 280.6 281.6 less than 287 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse
Earth 83.6 95.9 less than 101 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty
Mars 2.6 2.4 less than 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r
Jupiter 152.6 161.6 less than 166 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8
Saturn 7.2 7.8 less than 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e
Uranus 0.1 0.14 less than 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765
Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk
Total 526.7 549.7 less than 564 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <766b6fa5-00d5-45a1-9e34-ad18e29ef2ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383592 |
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 4:20:02 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 9:00:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Cool. Thanks for posting that. Now I am curious. Can you post the effects
> > of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as well?
>
> Sure. Since observing this phenomenon, I've spent a fair amount of time doing
> simulations and analysis trying to understand how LeVerrier, Newcombe, Clemence
> etc. could have performed fits with two and three significant figure accuracy
> given such seemingly massive swings in the perihelion angle. The important
> points that I have learned are as follows:
>
> 1) The perihelion angle is not a measured quantity. Rather, it is a *derived*
> value.
> 2) The periodic back-and-forth tugs of Jupiter, Saturn etc. on Mercury do not
> cause bona fide back-and-forth precession of the best-fit Keplerian ellipse.
> Rather, they distort the orbit so that it is no longer elliptical.
> 3) Small distortions of orbit from elliptical result in disproportionate effects
> on the computed perihelion point. By way of analogy, consider the old puzzle
> of the kilometer-long railroad track that expands by one meter when heated by
> the Sun. How much does the track buckle in the middle? Answer: 22.4 meters.
> A closer analogy would be to consider a 100 meter string suspended between
> two points with a slight sag. Lightly depressing the string near one end by
> a few millimeters can cause the position of the bottom of the string to
> shift by tens of meters.
> 4) The primary data with which these early computational astronomers worked
> were transit timings, i.e. measurements of the time at which Mercury reached
> defined points in its orbit. In contrast to the position of the perihelion, I
> have found in my analysis that these timings would be affected to only a
> minor degree by the regular distorting effects of the gas giants.
> 5) In other words, LeVerrier et al. did not have any difficulty fitting their
> models of perihelion advance to the data because there *weren't* any major
> anomalies in the timing data for them to contend with.
>
> LeVerrier MathPages My Program's Probable Overestimate
> Venus 280.6 281.6 less than 287 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse
> Earth 83.6 95.9 less than 101 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty
> Mars 2.6 2.4 less than 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r
> Jupiter 152.6 161.6 less than 166 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8
> Saturn 7.2 7.8 less than 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e
> Uranus 0.1 0.14 less than 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765
> Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk
> Total 526.7 549.7 less than 564 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable)
WHOOPS!!!
I made a boo boo. The precession simulations for Venus, Earth and Jupiter
that I presented above were made with an *old* version of my program that used
Heun's Method for performing integration. The current version of my program uses
fourth-order Runga Kutta, which is considerably more accurate for any given step
size.
LeVerrier MathPages Simulation using Runga Kutta
Venus 280.6 281.6 279 http://tinyurl.com/hzjxtqm (NEW!)
Earth 83.6 95.9 93 http://tinyurl.com/jfp5ast (NEW!)
Mars 2.6 2.4 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r
Jupiter 152.6 161.6 154 http://tinyurl.com/j25edex (NEW!)
Saturn 7.2 7.8 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e
Uranus 0.1 0.14 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765
Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 526.7 549.7 536 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, when using RK4, I obtain numbers that are totally consistent
with other published figures breaking down the contributions of the different
planets to Mercury's Newtonian precession.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ab135ef-dddd-40f1-b4d3-4d9f790f4076@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383666 |
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > LeVerrier MathPages My Program's Probable Overestimate > Venus 280.6 281.6 less than 287 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse > Earth 83.6 95.9 less than 101 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty > Mars 2.6 2.4 less than 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 less than 166 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8 > Saturn 7.2 7.8 less than 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e > Uranus 0.1 0.14 less than 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765 > Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk > Total 526.7 549.7 less than 564 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable) Koobee Wublee would like to point out that all these numbers are just fictitious predictions based on faulty mathematical models not on physical observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <234dbe6b-fa42-4706-a649-33ca6dc929a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383672 |
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 12:52:17 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > LeVerrier MathPages My Program's Probable Overestimate > > Venus 280.6 281.6 less than 287 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse > > Earth 83.6 95.9 less than 101 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty > > Mars 2.6 2.4 less than 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r > > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 less than 166 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8 > > Saturn 7.2 7.8 less than 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e > > Uranus 0.1 0.14 less than 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765 > > Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk > > Total 526.7 549.7 less than 564 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable) > > Koobee Wublee would like to point out that all these numbers are just fictitious predictions based on faulty mathematical models not on physical observations. The perihelion precession of Mercury is an OBSERVED phenomenon, and the above table lists estimates of the NEWTONIAN contribution to the observed precession. I know that you hate GR, but there is not a single hint of GR in any of the above figures. You are therefore denying the validity of Newtonian mechanics as well? With what theory do you propose to replace Newtonian mechanics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fce7ad07-dd43-45d4-aade-2659f417745d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383666 |
W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 03:04:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 4:20:02 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 9:00:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Cool. Thanks for posting that. Now I am curious. Can you post the effects > > > of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as well? > > > > Sure. Since observing this phenomenon, I've spent a fair amount of time doing > > simulations and analysis trying to understand how LeVerrier, Newcombe, Clemence > > etc. could have performed fits with two and three significant figure accuracy > > given such seemingly massive swings in the perihelion angle. The important > > points that I have learned are as follows: > > > > 1) The perihelion angle is not a measured quantity. Rather, it is a *derived* > > value. > > 2) The periodic back-and-forth tugs of Jupiter, Saturn etc. on Mercury do not > > cause bona fide back-and-forth precession of the best-fit Keplerian ellipse. > > Rather, they distort the orbit so that it is no longer elliptical. > > 3) Small distortions of orbit from elliptical result in disproportionate effects > > on the computed perihelion point. By way of analogy, consider the old puzzle > > of the kilometer-long railroad track that expands by one meter when heated by > > the Sun. How much does the track buckle in the middle? Answer: 22.4 meters. > > A closer analogy would be to consider a 100 meter string suspended between > > two points with a slight sag. Lightly depressing the string near one end by > > a few millimeters can cause the position of the bottom of the string to > > shift by tens of meters. > > 4) The primary data with which these early computational astronomers worked > > were transit timings, i.e. measurements of the time at which Mercury reached > > defined points in its orbit. In contrast to the position of the perihelion, I > > have found in my analysis that these timings would be affected to only a > > minor degree by the regular distorting effects of the gas giants. > > 5) In other words, LeVerrier et al. did not have any difficulty fitting their > > models of perihelion advance to the data because there *weren't* any major > > anomalies in the timing data for them to contend with. > > > > LeVerrier MathPages My Program's Probable Overestimate > > Venus 280.6 281.6 less than 287 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse > > Earth 83.6 95.9 less than 101 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty > > Mars 2.6 2.4 less than 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r > > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 less than 166 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8 > > Saturn 7.2 7.8 less than 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e > > Uranus 0.1 0.14 less than 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765 > > Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk > > Total 526.7 549.7 less than 564 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable) > > WHOOPS!!! > I made a boo boo. The precession simulations for Venus, Earth and Jupiter > that I presented above were made with an *old* version of my program that used > Heun's Method for performing integration. The current version of my program uses > fourth-order Runga Kutta, which is considerably more accurate for any given step > size. > > LeVerrier MathPages Simulation using Runga Kutta > Venus 280.6 281.6 279 http://tinyurl.com/hzjxtqm (NEW!) > Earth 83.6 95.9 93 http://tinyurl.com/jfp5ast (NEW!) > Mars 2.6 2.4 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 154 http://tinyurl.com/j25edex (NEW!) > Saturn 7.2 7.8 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e > Uranus 0.1 0.14 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765 > Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Total 526.7 549.7 536 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > As you can see, when using RK4, I obtain numbers that are totally consistent > with other published figures breaking down the contributions of the different > planets to Mercury's Newtonian precession. Indeed, because the rk4 is just the most popular... the popularised number are just computed by the rk4, haha! Use some 8-order method, further 12, ect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83e5a20f-6684-4d45-8022-0a4b51f48340@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383666 |
W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 03:04:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 4:20:02 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 9:00:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Cool. Thanks for posting that. Now I am curious. Can you post the effects > > > of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as well? > > > > Sure. Since observing this phenomenon, I've spent a fair amount of time doing > > simulations and analysis trying to understand how LeVerrier, Newcombe, Clemence > > etc. could have performed fits with two and three significant figure accuracy > > given such seemingly massive swings in the perihelion angle. The important > > points that I have learned are as follows: > > > > 1) The perihelion angle is not a measured quantity. Rather, it is a *derived* > > value. > > 2) The periodic back-and-forth tugs of Jupiter, Saturn etc. on Mercury do not > > cause bona fide back-and-forth precession of the best-fit Keplerian ellipse. > > Rather, they distort the orbit so that it is no longer elliptical. > > 3) Small distortions of orbit from elliptical result in disproportionate effects > > on the computed perihelion point. By way of analogy, consider the old puzzle > > of the kilometer-long railroad track that expands by one meter when heated by > > the Sun. How much does the track buckle in the middle? Answer: 22.4 meters. > > A closer analogy would be to consider a 100 meter string suspended between > > two points with a slight sag. Lightly depressing the string near one end by > > a few millimeters can cause the position of the bottom of the string to > > shift by tens of meters. > > 4) The primary data with which these early computational astronomers worked > > were transit timings, i.e. measurements of the time at which Mercury reached > > defined points in its orbit. In contrast to the position of the perihelion, I > > have found in my analysis that these timings would be affected to only a > > minor degree by the regular distorting effects of the gas giants. > > 5) In other words, LeVerrier et al. did not have any difficulty fitting their > > models of perihelion advance to the data because there *weren't* any major > > anomalies in the timing data for them to contend with. > > > > LeVerrier MathPages My Program's Probable Overestimate > > Venus 280.6 281.6 less than 287 http://tinyurl.com/gwsdwse > > Earth 83.6 95.9 less than 101 http://tinyurl.com/hcpjsty > > Mars 2.6 2.4 less than 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r > > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 less than 166 http://tinyurl.com/h2blzm8 > > Saturn 7.2 7.8 less than 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e > > Uranus 0.1 0.14 less than 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765 > > Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk > > Total 526.7 549.7 less than 564 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable) > > WHOOPS!!! > I made a boo boo. The precession simulations for Venus, Earth and Jupiter > that I presented above were made with an *old* version of my program that used > Heun's Method for performing integration. The current version of my program uses > fourth-order Runga Kutta, which is considerably more accurate for any given step > size. > > LeVerrier MathPages Simulation using Runga Kutta > Venus 280.6 281.6 279 http://tinyurl.com/hzjxtqm (NEW!) > Earth 83.6 95.9 93 http://tinyurl.com/jfp5ast (NEW!) > Mars 2.6 2.4 2.9 http://tinyurl.com/grg535r > Jupiter 152.6 161.6 154 http://tinyurl.com/j25edex (NEW!) > Saturn 7.2 7.8 6.8 http://tinyurl.com/h4oqb3e > Uranus 0.1 0.14 0.16 http://tinyurl.com/gmud765 > Neptune - 0.04 - http://tinyurl.com/zbudngk > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Total 526.7 549.7 536 http://tinyurl.com/gmsqkc7 (variable) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > As you can see, when using RK4, I obtain numbers that are totally consistent > with other published figures breaking down the contributions of the different > planets to Mercury's Newtonian precession. And additionaly: you still don't say wrt of what these numbers are mesured.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6caf5cc-0b73-4298-9781-497c1c22c68b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383580 |
W dniu wtorek, 17 maja 2016 04:00:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Yup. The measured anomalous precession, the difference between observation > and what Newton predicts. Realy? So, what Newton predicts for the moon precession? 1.5 degs.. so, go to school. another impotent banannos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab593248-9449-4cd3-b9c1-23153d196a26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383621 |
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 10:51:08 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 17 maja 2016 04:00:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > > > Yup. The measured anomalous precession, the difference between observation > > and what Newton predicts. > > Realy? > So, what Newton predicts for the moon precession? > > 1.5 degs.. > > so, go to school. another impotent banannos. You are over 250 years out of date. True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton could not work out. During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to create accurate lunar tables. a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be modified, and Euler did not disagree. The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no need to modify them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 18th-century battle over lunar motion Siegfried Bodenmann Physics Today January 2010 page 27 http://tinyurl.com/zmte6se --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22f67233-fd8f-4fe4-b6d3-83cd358f6dd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383665 |
W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 02:59:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 10:51:08 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 17 maja 2016 04:00:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > > > > > Yup. The measured anomalous precession, the difference between observation > > > and what Newton predicts. > > > > Realy? > > So, what Newton predicts for the moon precession? > > > > 1.5 degs.. > > > > so, go to school. another impotent banannos. > > You are over 250 years out of date. > > True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of > the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting > for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton > could not work out. > > During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial > one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining > longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical > means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible > option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to > create accurate lunar tables. > > a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, > and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's > motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be > modified, and Euler did not disagree. > > The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some > previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. > Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous > suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and > d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. > Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no > need to modify them. Your enthusiasm is very fantastic! So, then show me the explanation/derivation of the 3 degrees of precession for the moon apse, instead of 1.5, what Newton derived. And be aware: in this simple exercise is hidden a big hack, trap! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 18:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f096b1aa-dd2e-4563-a8ec-d1619ff3717e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383691 |
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:22:45 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 02:59:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 10:51:08 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 17 maja 2016 04:00:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > > > > > > > Yup. The measured anomalous precession, the difference between observation > > > > and what Newton predicts. > > > > > > Realy? > > > So, what Newton predicts for the moon precession? > > > > > > 1.5 degs.. > > > > > > so, go to school. another impotent banannos. > > > > You are over 250 years out of date. > > > > True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of > > the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting > > for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton > > could not work out. > > > > During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial > > one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining > > longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical > > means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible > > option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to > > create accurate lunar tables. > > > > a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, > > and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's > > motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be > > modified, and Euler did not disagree. > > > > The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some > > previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. > > Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous > > suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and > > d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. > > Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no > > need to modify them. > > Your enthusiasm is very fantastic! > So, then show me the explanation/derivation of the 3 degrees of precession > for the moon apse, instead of 1.5, what Newton derived. > > And be aware: in this simple exercise is hidden a big hack, trap! :) Strange how the moon an Mercury behave erratically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f33e809-4239-48fe-a096-b6e1656d8079@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383735 |
Mercury's Precession Is in correct because y'all are assuming the vacuum impedance to always be 376.730313 Z0/(little g)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14125cb8-e418-4e42-8574-36380081efb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383691 |
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:22:45 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 02:59:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of > > the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting > > for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton > > could not work out. > > > > During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial > > one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining > > longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical > > means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible > > option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to > > create accurate lunar tables. > > > > a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, > > and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's > > motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be > > modified, and Euler did not disagree. > > > > The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some > > previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. > > Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous > > suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and > > d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. > > Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no > > need to modify them. > > Your enthusiasm is very fantastic! > So, then show me the explanation/derivation of the 3 degrees of precession > for the moon apse, instead of 1.5, what Newton derived. > > And be aware: in this simple exercise is hidden a big hack, trap! :) My 2D simulation overestimates the precession by about 0.5 degree per anomalistic month, which is not surprising given that it is 2D and the fact that I used various other simplifications, such as placing the Earth/Moon barycenter in circular orbit around the Sun, etc. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYUdsa2pXZkY5bkE The basic take-home lesson is that Newtonian mechanics works. You don't need a modified law of gravity to get double Newton's figure. So what is the trap?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ccb7847-cdcd-4e7a-84d1-8ce2f716a396@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383768 |
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:41:04 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:22:45 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 02:59:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of > > > the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting > > > for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton > > > could not work out. > > > > > > During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial > > > one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining > > > longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical > > > means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible > > > option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to > > > create accurate lunar tables. > > > > > > a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, > > > and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's > > > motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be > > > modified, and Euler did not disagree. > > > > > > The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some > > > previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. > > > Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous > > > suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and > > > d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. > > > Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no > > > need to modify them. > > > > Your enthusiasm is very fantastic! > > So, then show me the explanation/derivation of the 3 degrees of precession > > for the moon apse, instead of 1.5, what Newton derived. > > > > And be aware: in this simple exercise is hidden a big hack, trap! :) > > My 2D simulation overestimates the precession by about 0.5 degree per > anomalistic month, which is not surprising given that it is 2D and the fact > that I used various other simplifications, such as placing the Earth/Moon > barycenter in circular orbit around the Sun, etc. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYUdsa2pXZkY5bkE > > The basic take-home lesson is that Newtonian mechanics works. You don't need > a modified law of gravity to get double Newton's figure. > > So what is the trap? I uploaded a new version with a corrected barycenter-Moon distance, and the resulting estimate of apsides advance is much closer to the observed value, only about 0.15 arcsec per orbit too high.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4aa2ceda-58b2-4ced-8115-170e4ed1ec7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383768 |
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:41:04 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:22:45 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 02:59:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of > > > the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting > > > for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton > > > could not work out. > > > > > > During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial > > > one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining > > > longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical > > > means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible > > > option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to > > > create accurate lunar tables. > > > > > > a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, > > > and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's > > > motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be > > > modified, and Euler did not disagree. > > > > > > The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some > > > previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. > > > Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous > > > suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and > > > d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. > > > Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no > > > need to modify them. > > > > Your enthusiasm is very fantastic! > > So, then show me the explanation/derivation of the 3 degrees of precession > > for the moon apse, instead of 1.5, what Newton derived. > > > > And be aware: in this simple exercise is hidden a big hack, trap! :) > > My 2D simulation overestimates the precession by about 0.5 degree per > anomalistic month, which is not surprising given that it is 2D and the fact > that I used various other simplifications, such as placing the Earth/Moon > barycenter in circular orbit around the Sun, etc. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYUdsa2pXZkY5bkE > > The basic take-home lesson is that Newtonian mechanics works. You don't need > a modified law of gravity to get double Newton's figure. > > So what is the trap? I uploaded a new version with a corrected barycenter-Moon distance, and the result is a much better match with the observed value of apsides advance, only about 0.15 degrees/orbit too high.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cceffcb-1a41-466a-8a0d-f838d5cd0b46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383768 |
W dniu czwartek, 19 maja 2016 15:41:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:22:45 AM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 18 maja 2016 02:59:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > True, Newton found that he could account for only half of the Moon's motion of > > > the apsides. The Moon is attracted to both the Earth and the Sun, so accounting > > > for its motions involves solving a difficult three-body problem that even Newton > > > could not work out. > > > > > > During the 18th century, the problem of solving the Moon's motion was a crucial > > > one. Accurate navigation depended on developing a reliable means of determining > > > longitude, and with accurate chronometers still well in the future, astronomical > > > means of determining longitude were considered the only immediately feasible > > > option for meeting the needs of the nautical community. Hence the need to > > > create accurate lunar tables. > > > > > > a long and contentious dispute ran on between Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, > > > and Jean le Rond d'Alembert concerning the correct explanation of the Moon's > > > motion. Clairaut actually suggested that perhaps Newton's laws needed to be > > > modified, and Euler did not disagree. > > > > > > The solution to the problem ultimately rested on the discovery that some > > > previously neglected higher-order perturbative terms were actually important. > > > Clairaut was first to come to this realization, retracting his previous > > > suggestions that perhaps Newton's laws were not universal, but Euler and > > > d'Alembert also had certain claims to priority. Newton's laws were vindicated. > > > Correctly applied, they fully explained the motions of the Moon. There was no > > > need to modify them. > > > > Your enthusiasm is very fantastic! > > So, then show me the explanation/derivation of the 3 degrees of precession > > for the moon apse, instead of 1.5, what Newton derived. > > > > And be aware: in this simple exercise is hidden a big hack, trap! :) > > My 2D simulation overestimates the precession by about 0.5 degree per > anomalistic month, which is not surprising given that it is 2D and the fact > that I used various other simplifications, such as placing the Earth/Moon > barycenter in circular orbit around the Sun, etc. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYUdsa2pXZkY5bkE > > The basic take-home lesson is that Newtonian mechanics works. You don't need > a modified law of gravity to get double Newton's figure. > > So what is the trap? Nice.. You just computed numericaly some apse precession of an wobbling orbit, but using flat planar motion, haha! I asked for an analitical derivation of moon precession. Maybe the Moon has 1.5 degs precession only, but astrologists observed 3 degs - due to the (backward) wobbling of the whole orbital plane...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a638d5b2-b0b3-485d-96f1-5ff285a1ff94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383789 |
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:01:36 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 19 maja 2016 15:41:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > My 2D simulation overestimates the precession by about 0.5 degree per > > anomalistic month, which is not surprising given that it is 2D and the fact > > that I used various other simplifications, such as placing the Earth/Moon > > barycenter in circular orbit around the Sun, etc. > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcYUdsa2pXZkY5bkE > > > > The basic take-home lesson is that Newtonian mechanics works. You don't need > > a modified law of gravity to get double Newton's figure. > > > > So what is the trap? > > Nice.. You just computed numericaly some apse precession > of an wobbling orbit, but using flat planar motion, haha! > > I asked for an analitical derivation of moon precession. For Alexis Clairaut's pioneering treatment, see http://tinyurl.com/gp7ofa2 The most important publication dealing with the Moon's motion in the 20th century was Earnest Brown's treatise: http://tinyurl.com/jjeraqg For other publications on Lunar Theory, see the Bibliography in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory > Maybe the Moon has 1.5 degs precession only, > but astrologists observed 3 degs - due to the (backward) > wobbling of the whole orbital plane... No, not at all. See my response to Michael Moroney on a closely related topic: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/mOK4P9IC5zY/WtoDTI-YKwAJ Until the last part of the 20th century, the timing and position of the Moon's perigee was never directly measurable. The apsidal crossing could only be inferred on the basis of measurable values, the most accurate of which were regularly conducted timings of the crossing of the leading and trailing edges of the Moon through the crosshairs of a north-south mounted meridian telescope such as the one at Greenwich Observatory. I wish you to consider carefully the following analogy. Consider a 100 meter length of string, mounted horizontally between two pegs, but with a sag of about 1 cm in the middle. Lightly depressing either end of the string by mere millimeters will cause the lowest point of the string to shift back and forth by tens of meters. On the other hand, if you have beads strung along the length of the string, depressing the ends of the string will cause virtually no change in the measured position of the beads. In the same way, the (once upon a time) non-measurable position of the Moon's apsidal point is exquisitely sensitive to distortions of its orbit from a Keplerian ellipse as a result of the Sun's gravitational attraction. On the other hand, the meridian crossing times of the Moon are not affected to anywhere near the same degree. Furthermore, calculation of the apsidal point is model dependent. If one fits a regularly precessing Keplerian ellipse to the meridian observations, i.e. if one presumes that one focus of the ellipse necessarily corresponds to the Earth- Moon barycenter and that advancement of the apsidal point takes place at a constant rate, then one simply WILL NOT OBSERVE the sorts of back-and-forth swings in perigee angle that I calculated, which do not represent true shifts of the apsidal point of a best-fit Keplerian ellipse, but rather represent distortion of the orbit from a Keplerian ellipse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web