Re: All answers to C S Lewis

"al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dqcaqc$c7g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dqalor$6rt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:dq99tk$dvi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > <carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:dq9105$ku9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > Mercury's orbit explained without relativity
> > > > > A most satisfying element of support for Einstein's General Theory
> of
> > > > > Relativity (GR) has been its accounting for the residual
precession
> of
> > > > > Mercury's orbit. In recent years, however, a rival explanation has
> > been
> > > > > found in the non-symmetric gravitational field of the sun. Surface
> > > > > oscillations of the sun betray hidden internal rotation, which
> > produces
> > > > > asymmetry in the sun's gravitational field. By applying the
> distorted
> > > field
> > > > > in predicting the orbit of Mercury and the minor planet Icarus,
> > > astronomers
> > > > > are more successful than when they use the GR. The authors of this
> > paper
> > > > > claim that GR averages some 2 standard deviations off the mark,
> while
> > > > > results -using the nonsymmetrical gravitational field of the sun
are
> > > right
> > > > > on the money!
> > > >
> > > > > (Campbell, L., et al; "The Sun's Quadrupole Moment and Perihelion
> > > Precession
> > > > > of Mercury," Nature, 305:508, 1983.)
> > > >
> > > > You may have noticed that this paper is 23 years old. Since then,
> > > > observations of "surface oscillations of the sun" and the resulting
> > > > "internal rotations" have improved drastically, in part because of
> > > > satellites dedicated to observing the Sun. See, for example,
> > > >
> > > > Kuhn et al., "The Sun's Shape and Brightness," Nature 392 (1998)
155
> > > > Pijpers, "Helioseismic determination of the solar gravitational
> > > > quadrupole moment," MNRAS 297 (1998) L76
> > > >
> > > > In addition, ground-based observations have greatly improved. See,
> for
> > > > example
> > > >
> > > > Lydon and Sofia, "A Measurement of the Shape of the Solar Disk,"
> > > > Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 177
> > > >
> > > > And fits to planetary orbits have *also* vastly improved, in part
> > because
> > > > of the accumulation of much more data. See, for example,
> > > >
> > > > Pitjeva, Astronomy Letters 31 (2005) 340
> > > >
> > > > The upshot is that the asymmetry of the Sun's field is much smaller
> than
> > > > the number used by the paper you cited, and there is no conflict
with
> > > > general relativity.
> > > >
> > > > (It's also worth noting that the particular alternative used in the
> > > > Nature paper you cited is internally inconsistent: see Damour et
al.,
> > > > Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 1541.)
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > The Perihelion Advance of Mercury is perhaps the most discussed of
> all
> > > in
> > > > > the solar system, in part due to its high eccentricity and
> visibility.
> > > > > Whilst the other inner planets, Mars, Earth, and Venus, are more
> > > > > predictable, Mercury has defied a satisfactory equational
> description
> > > for
> > > > > several centuries. A wide spread fallacy is that only Einstein's
> > Theory
> > > Of
> > > > > General Relativity can accurately predict the PA of Mercury. In
> fact,
> > > German
> > > > > school teacher, Paul Gerber, first devised the equation Einstein
> used
> > in
> > > > > 1898 - 18 years before General Relativity was published.
> > > >
> > > > What Gerber did was to simply assume an arbitrary extra velocity
> > > dependence
> > > > of the Newtonian gravitational potential -- that is, not just that
the
> > > > potential depended on the source's position, but that it depended in
a
> > > > rather peculiar manner on the velocity of the source. There seems
to
> > have
> > > > been no particular physical justification for this dependence -- von
> > Laue
> > > > concluded that Gerber probably worked backward from the answer, and
> > Pauli
> > > > characterized it as "completely unsuccessful from the theoretical
> point
> > of
> > > > view." In any case, it was not surprising that *someone* came up
with
> a
> > > > formula that worked. With the discovery that the electromagnetic
> > > potential
> > > > had a velocity dependence, it was natural to guess that the same
might
> > be
> > > > true for gravity, and a dozen or so different functional forms were
> > tried
> > > > by various physicists (none with any particular physical
> justification).
> > > > Gerber was lucky enough to come up with the combination that, in
> > > retrospect,
> > > > we can recognize as the weak field approximation of general
> relativity.
> > > >
> > > > It is also worth mentioning that Gerber's expression for the
> > gravitational
> > > > potential predicts a substantially wrong (and observationally very
> > clearly
> > > > excluded) deflection of light in a gravitational field.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > To say that this (the bending of light from stars by the sun) is
an
> > > optical
> > > > > effect as if you are giving me information is just a play on
> > semantics.
> > > > > Anything to do with light is an optical effect. What I was
saying -
> as
> > > you
> > > > > well know _ was that this particular optical effect was not due to
> any
> > > > > relativistic effects.
> > > >
> > > > The deflection of light by the Sun (and now Jupiter) has been
> measured,
> > > > using VLBI, to a precision of better than a tenth of a percent. Are
> you
> > > > really claiming that just by coincidence, some nonrelativistic
effects
> > > > consistently reproduce the predictions of general relativity to this
> > > > precision?
> > > >
> > > > Try looking at
> > > >
> > > > Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768 (74 radio sources,
> > > > over 300,000 VLBI observations; fitting not just deflection
> > > > at the limb of the Sun, but the amount and functional form
> > > > of deflection as a function of distance from the limb; standard
> > > > error of .2%)
> > > >
> > > > Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439 (VLBI
> > > > measurements of two extragalactic radio sources at three
> > > > frequencies; a total of over 20,000 measurements; standard
> > > > error of less than .2%)
> > > >
> > > > Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101 (results from
> > > > 2500 24-hour VLBI sessions over 20 years, with 87 VLBI sites
> > > > and 541 radio sources; standard error of .04%)
> > > >
> > > > Note in particular that the Robertson et al. paper was a whole sky
> > survey.
> > > > Of the 342,000 observations used, only 800 were within six degrees
of
> > the
> > > > Sun. The same is true of Shapiro et al. In fact, Shapiro et al.
> > checked
> > > > explicitly that if one excluded sources on a line of sight close to
> the
> > > > Sun, the results didn't change. This rules out any "Solar
atmosphere"
> > > > or refraction explanation rather conclusively.
> > > >
> > > > Steve Carlip
> > > Do any of your above references refer specifically to the perihelion
of
> > > Mercury? You have failed to make this clear.
> > > al
> >
> > Pitjeva, Astronomy Letters 31 (2005) 340 specifically deals with the
use
> of
> > radar measurements to give very accurate values for the perihelion of
> > Mercury. It also shows that this precession is in agreement with both
GR
> > and the measurements of solar oblateness determined by other experiments
> > using independent methods.
> >
> > Unlike yourself, Steve has gone to the trouble to give a detailed list
of
> > the most recent papers on the subject of the General Relativistic
advance
> of
> > the perihelion of Mercury, the oblateness of the Sun, and the
displacement
> > of star positions due to GR bending of light in the Sun's gravity field.
> >
> > In contrast, we are still waiting for you to give any references to the
> > "hanging star" business you ranted on about.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
> >
> > (Remove "pants" from eyes)
> Are you blind? I have given you the reference and it has been acknowledged
> by others in this thread.
> I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS AT LEAST FOUR TIMES.
> Is this a deliberate and pathetic attempt to divert attention from your
> inability to answer questions about astronomy when you claim to be a
> professional astronomer.
> STARS HANGING ON THE LIMB OF THE MOON DURING OCCULTATION.
> S T A R S H A N G I NG O N T H E L I M B
> What is it about stars hanging on the limb of the moon that you don't
> understand?
> They are supposed to disappear behind the moon at a given time and they
> don't.
> Why don't they?
> al
> >
>
>

Al, you are getting hysterical (insults, that ALL CAPS STUFF!!!!) and I
don't really want to play in this sandbox any more if you are going to have
tantrums and throw things. I wrote the posting quoted above more than an
hour before you finally posted the reference. Do check the timestamps on my
posts and yours before foaming at the mouth, OK?

When I get a chance I'll check the Corliss reference. If you had mentioned
it earlier, per my requests for information on "hanging stars", I could have
picked the book up from the library on Friday and answered your questions.
Now it will have to wait until my next opportunity.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Backward planets may have flipped into place
    ... changes in the reference frame used for the coordinates of celestial ... astronomers, the EXPLANATORY SUPPLEMENT TO THE ASTRONOMICAL EPHEMERIS, ... SUPPLEMENT TO THE ASTRONOMICAL ALMANAC, ... Physical Ephemerides of the Sun, Moon, Planets, and Satellites ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Precession
    ... >> I hoped that astronomers would handle that kind of problems. ... Precession seems to be 'within my reach' though my book ... Intuitively this must have a measurable effect on global circulation ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Observing & Predicting Planetary Orbits (Easy Step-By-Step Instructions)
    ... The reference to astrological coordinates is clearly a reference to ... Apparently most astronomers can't even count from ... not by sidereal planetary orbits at any rate. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Variation in tides
    ... variation. ... If there is indeed such an influence, would any one know what it is - ... earth's precession? ... A good reference:: ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)