Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #560106 > unrolled thread

The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000
    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000
    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600
      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000
                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100
                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> - 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100
    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100
      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600
                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000
                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500
                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100
                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100
              EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:15 -0800
                Re: EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:01 -0800
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000
                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100
                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100
                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100
                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100
                        'slunars noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:46 -0700
                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100
                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:08 +0100
                          a. precession noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:29 -0700
                            a.p noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:14 -0700
                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:15 -0500
                      herr doktor-professor e. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:30 -0700
                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 11:38 +0000
                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:58 -0500
                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:16 +1100
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 21:07 -0500
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:39 -0500
                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 06:15 +1100
                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:37 -0500
                                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:38 +1100
                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500
                                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100
                                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000
                                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100
                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500
                                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100
                                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500
                                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100
                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000
                                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100
                                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500
                                                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100
                                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
                                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000
                                                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100
                                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:26 -0700
                                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000
                                                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100
                                                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000
                                                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:51 -0700
                                                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100
                                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:15 -0700
                                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-24 15:11 +0000
                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:42 -0500
                                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:27 -0500
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:57 -0700
                              query noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:34 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#563045

On 16.03.2016 00:20, HGW wrote:
> On 16/03/2016 9:20 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 15.03.2016 01:23, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> Figures please....175 years of them....where are they?
>>
>> How ignorant are you?
>>
>> At Greenwich they observed the meridian passages for
>> just about every visible astronomical object, including
>> planets, every night for centuries, and in later times
>> the observations of the of all the planets are innumerable.
>>
>> You must be incredible stupid if you fail to understand
>> that in 2016 the orbits of all the planets are extremely
>> well known, and that includes their apsidal precession.
>>
>> The records are accessible for anybody who is interested.
>>
>> You are of course referring to the 175 years of
>> observations of Mercury used by Clemence.
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
>
> What a blatant load of biased dingleberry crap. The only thing I learned
> from that paper is that it is virtually impossible to measure Mercury's
> precession with any certainty.

In that case:

>> If you think Clemence faked the data, you are free to
>> analyse the data yourself and show that his conclusions
>> are wrong. The data are equally accessible for you
>> as they were for Clemence.

Can we expect the paper that demolishes Clemence's conclusions soon?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562722 — a. precession

what is apsidal

> that in 2016 the orbits of all the planets are extremely
> well known, and that includes their apsidal precession.
> 
> The records are accessible for anybody who is interested.
> 
> You are of course referring to the 175 years of
> observations of Mercury used by Clemence.
> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
> 
> If you think Clemence faked the data, you are free to
> analyse the data yourself and show that his conclusions
> are wrong. The data are equally accessible for you
> as they were for Clemence, but I will not dig them up for you.
> 
> >> You are indeed something, Ralph. :-D
> >> You keep insisting over and over that what is predicted
> >> and found to be in accordance with real measurements
> >> is unpredictable. :-D
> >
> > What was predicted was something that didn't actually happen but because
> > nobody was in a position to argue, was sufficient to give Einstein's
> > collaborators the publicity they were after.
> 
> https://paulba.no/div/Ralph_listening.pdf
> 
> >> Do you never open your eyes and see what real measurements
> >> in the real world have to tell you? :-D
> >
> > Where are the figure, Paul B
> 
> http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/astro.data.html
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562931 — a.p

I guess that it is the far end of the ellipse, from Sun

> what is apsidal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562308

On 3/13/2016 5:59 PM, HGW wrote:
>
> Wriggling wont help you. Einstein's equation gives one single answer.
> He thought Mercury's precession was constant. If I hadn't told YOU it
> was chaotic nobody here would have known

But it's not chaotic. The statistical variation of the precession of the 
perihelion of Mercury is a MEASURED number, measured over a sample of 
over 700 orbits. The variation from the mean has a statistical value of 
about half a percent.

Your claim that it must be a whole lot more chaotic than that is just 
not supported by the measured numbers.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562388 — herr doktor-professor e.

obviously, the effects of the other planets
on Mercury would be far less, than on any other planet ...
maybe less than upon Pluto

> But it's not chaotic. The statistical variation of the precession of the 
> perihelion of Mercury is a MEASURED number, measured over a sample of 
> over 700 orbits. The variation from the mean has a statistical value of 
> about half a percent.
> 
> Your claim that it must be a whole lot more chaotic than that is just 
> not supported by the measured numbers.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563053

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:15:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/13/2016 5:59 PM, HGW wrote:

> 
> But it's not chaotic. The statistical variation of the precession of the
> perihelion of Mercury is a MEASURED number, measured over a sample of
> over 700 orbits. The variation from the mean has a statistical value of
> about half a percent.

Where are the measurements over 700 orbits? Nobody seems to know where 
they are.
 
> Your claim that it must be a whole lot more chaotic than that is just
> not supported by the measured numbers.

In your opinion, what are the main factors that contribute planetary 
precession.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563065

On 3/17/2016 6:38 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:15:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 5:59 PM, HGW wrote:
>
>>
>> But it's not chaotic. The statistical variation of the precession of the
>> perihelion of Mercury is a MEASURED number, measured over a sample of
>> over 700 orbits. The variation from the mean has a statistical value of
>> about half a percent.
>
> Where are the measurements over 700 orbits? Nobody seems to know where
> they are.

I think they've been pointed out to you.
What do you need? A copy-paste into a post?

>
>> Your claim that it must be a whole lot more chaotic than that is just
>> not supported by the measured numbers.
>
> In your opinion, what are the main factors that contribute planetary
> precession.
>

All I care about right now, Henry, are the experimental data and your 
complete willingness to ignore them.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563237

On 18/03/2016 12:58 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/17/2016 6:38 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:15:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2016 5:59 PM, HGW wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But it's not chaotic. The statistical variation of the precession of the
>>> perihelion of Mercury is a MEASURED number, measured over a sample of
>>> over 700 orbits. The variation from the mean has a statistical value of
>>> about half a percent.
>>
>> Where are the measurements over 700 orbits? Nobody seems to know where
>> they are.
>
> I think they've been pointed out to you.
> What do you need? A copy-paste into a post?
>
>>
>>> Your claim that it must be a whole lot more chaotic than that is just
>>> not supported by the measured numbers.
>>
>> In your opinion, what are the main factors that contribute planetary
>> precession.
>>
>
> All I care about right now, Henry, are the experimental data and your
> complete willingness to ignore them.

So where is all that experimental data? There is no evidence that it 
exists. Maybe is was shredded because it refuted Einstein.

Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should precess at 
all. That should be easy for an expert like you. When are you going to 
do that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563257

On 3/17/16 6:16 PM, HGW wrote:
> So where is all that experimental data? There is no evidence that it
> exists. Maybe is was shredded because it refuted Einstein.

Ralph, see:
   Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
 > 
http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563331

On 3/17/2016 6:16 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 18/03/2016 12:58 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 3/17/2016 6:38 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:15:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2016 5:59 PM, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it's not chaotic. The statistical variation of the precession of
>>>> the
>>>> perihelion of Mercury is a MEASURED number, measured over a sample of
>>>> over 700 orbits. The variation from the mean has a statistical value of
>>>> about half a percent.
>>>
>>> Where are the measurements over 700 orbits? Nobody seems to know where
>>> they are.
>>
>> I think they've been pointed out to you.
>> What do you need? A copy-paste into a post?
>>
>>>
>>>> Your claim that it must be a whole lot more chaotic than that is just
>>>> not supported by the measured numbers.
>>>
>>> In your opinion, what are the main factors that contribute planetary
>>> precession.
>>>
>>
>> All I care about right now, Henry, are the experimental data and your
>> complete willingness to ignore them.
>
> So where is all that experimental data? There is no evidence that it
> exists. Maybe is was shredded because it refuted Einstein.

I think they've been pointed out to you. What do you need? A copy-paste 
into a post?

>
> Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should precess at
> all. That should be easy for an expert like you. When are you going to
> do that?
>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563470

On 18/03/16 23:39, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/17/2016 6:16 PM, HGW wrote:

>>
>> So where is all that experimental data? There is no evidence that it
>> exists. Maybe is was shredded because it refuted Einstein.
>
> I think they've been pointed out to you. What do you need? A copy-paste
> into a post?

Where are the figures, Bodkin? Do they only exist in the dingleberry mind?

>> Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should precess at
>> all. That should be easy for an expert like you. When are you going to
>> do that?

...no answer from the expert...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563489

On 3/18/2016 2:15 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 18/03/16 23:39, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 3/17/2016 6:16 PM, HGW wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So where is all that experimental data? There is no evidence that it
>>> exists. Maybe is was shredded because it refuted Einstein.
>>
>> I think they've been pointed out to you. What do you need? A copy-paste
>> into a post?
>
> Where are the figures, Bodkin? Do they only exist in the dingleberry mind?

As I said, the reference has been posted to you. What do you need? A 
copy-paste of the contents into a post?

>
>>> Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should precess at
>>> all. That should be easy for an expert like you. When are you going to
>>> do that?
>
> ...no answer from the expert...

You are profoundly lazy.
1. Quadrupole moment of the sun
2. Sun-planet tidal forces
3. Perturbations from other planets
4. General relativity


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563649

On 19/03/16 07:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>
>> Where are the figures, Bodkin? Do they only exist in the
>> dingleberry mind?
>
> As I said, the reference has been posted to you. What do you need? A
>  copy-paste of the contents into a post?

The figures don't exists except in gthe dingleberry mind.

>>>> Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should
>>>> precess at all. That should be easy for an expert like you.
>>>> When are you going to do that?
>>
>> ...no answer from the expert...
>
> You are profoundly lazy. 1. Quadrupole moment of the sun 2.
> Sun-planet tidal forces 3. Perturbations from other planets 4.
> General relativity

I think the article you copied missed a couple, including a most
important one....and a maths theory does not produce physical effects. 
Chaotic precession occurred long before Einstein raised his ugly theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563713

On 3/19/2016 11:38 AM, HGW wrote:
> On 19/03/16 07:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Where are the figures, Bodkin? Do they only exist in the
>>> dingleberry mind?
>>
>> As I said, the reference has been posted to you. What do you need? A
>>  copy-paste of the contents into a post?
>
> The figures don't exists except in gthe dingleberry mind.

The reference has been given to you. On what basis do you say it doesn't 
exist? Do you need to have it copy-pasted here for you?

>
>>>>> Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should
>>>>> precess at all. That should be easy for an expert like you.
>>>>> When are you going to do that?
>>>
>>> ...no answer from the expert...
>>
>> You are profoundly lazy. 1. Quadrupole moment of the sun 2.
>> Sun-planet tidal forces 3. Perturbations from other planets 4.
>> General relativity
>
> I think the article you copied missed a couple, including a most
> important one.

Which one did you have in mind?

>...and a maths theory does not produce physical effects.

The items above are physical causes.

> Chaotic precession occurred long before Einstein raised his ugly theory.

Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a 
percent variation from orbit to orbit.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563754

On 20/03/16 07:39, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Which one did you have in mind?
>
>> ...and a maths theory does not produce physical effects.
>
> The items above are physical causes.
>
>> Chaotic precession occurred long before Einstein raised his ugly theory.
>
> Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a
> percent variation from orbit to orbit.

Do you mean an average of half a percent over 175 years? You cannot 
produce the actual figures for each orbit can you? I would like to see 
them..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563882

HGW <hw@...> writes:

>On 20/03/16 07:39, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a
>> percent variation from orbit to orbit.

>Do you mean an average of half a percent over 175 years? You cannot 
>produce the actual figures for each orbit can you? I would like to see 
>them..

Ralph, you have already been given a source.  You also have an offer to
get and scan in the source, a rather rare book.  If you were really
serious about your claim "I would like to see them.." you would fork over
the $250 US and actually get to see them.  Paypal is perfectly safe if you
trust the owner of an email address.  (I can hear your response now: "I 
don't trust Einsteinian dingleberries!")

Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd rather
bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too chaotic!
Einstein is wrong!!"  And you wouldn't know what to do with the data even
if you did have it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563910

On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@...> writes:

>
> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd
> rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too
> chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!"  And you wouldn't know what to do with
> the data even if you did have it.

Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. The
hoax about its precession is just one example in a long list of
fraudulent claims intended to promote the name Einstein as the world 
symbol of genius. All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is 
completely wrong anyway....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563925

On 3/20/16 2:43 PM, HGW wrote:
> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian.


   Wrong again, Ralph. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the
   correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563962

On 21/03/16 07:31, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/20/16 2:43 PM, HGW wrote:
>> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian.
>
>
>    Wrong again, Henry. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the
>    correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

GR predicted what Einstein thought was a constant value for precession.

Its mean value over the next 175 years could be quite different from 
that of the last 175.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563968

On 3/20/16 4:17 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 21/03/16 07:31, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 3/20/16 2:43 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian.
>>
>>
>>    Wrong again, Henry. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the
>>    correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
>
> GR predicted what Einstein thought was a constant value for precession.
>
> Its mean value over the next 175 years could be quite different from
> that of the last 175.
>

   You should have learn in school that, as seen from Earth the
   precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc
   per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations,
   taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well
   as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the
   fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts
   a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a
   discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

   This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism.
   Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain
   amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent
   with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found
   when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully
   scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any
   adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by
   an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of
   Relativity be correct.

   Ref: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

   Perihelion Precession of Mercury, full Calculation
> http://worlov.narod.ru/merkury-perihelion.pdf

   Mercury’s Perihelion
> http://www.math.toronto.edu/%7ecolliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf

   Homework assignment for Ralph: Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion
> http://homework.sdmesa.edu/cmona/197/mp197files/197.09.mercury%20perihelion.pdf





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web