Re: Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr century,.

On 10/28/2024 03:55 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:11:48 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous justification."
This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian.
>
That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science.

>
>
>
One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was
close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.
>
This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar
system's influences.
>
The equation for Mercury's precession is, APPROXIMATELY:
>
5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy
>
This fundamental aspect of observational astronomy was, first, noticed
by Le Verrier (1842 - 1857), who WONDERED about the precession of
Mercury IF IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SUN'S CENTER OF REFERENCE.
>
Le Verrier invested more than 15 years in developing methods to
calculate the influence of each of the KNOWN PLANETS on Mercury's
perihelion shift.
>
As the base equations were non-linear, and involved elliptic integrals,
he decomposed them using series up to the 7th. power. He worked in
solitude, secluded in a house in the countryside. His efforts were
recognized by the French National Academy, which honored him soon after
his death.
>
He was THE FIRST to try this approach (Sun center as a reference), which
was followed BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1857.
>
>
The 5,025"/cy precession of Earth correspond to a cycle of 25,791 years
for a full revolution of 360 degrees (see attached figure).
>
Of the 575"/cy, Le Verrier could justify (theoretically) only 526.7"/cy,
being the remaining 48.3"/cy a mystery for him, and causing a storm of
theories to justify it (planet Vulcan, stellar dust, etc.).
>
I want TO REMARK that, until recently, ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND
MEASUREMENTS involved Earth's precession.
>
>
Unfortunately, the 5,025"/cy have been taken as AN ABSOLUTE TRUE, but
the fact is that observational astronomy has measured Mercury's
precession AS SEEN FROM EARTH, being ESTIMATED in 5,600"/cy.
>
>
The above HAS TO BE AN EYE OPENER for anybody, because the infamous
575"/cy value IS A PRODUCT OF A CALCULATION by astronomers, NOT A REAL
MEASUREMENT. With the technology available until recently, it was
impossible from astronomers being at Earth to measure such tiny
difference of 5.75"/year (or 575"/cy).
>
The PLOT THICKENS when you think that Newcomb (1898) or Clemence (1947)
kept working with A DIFFERENCE, assuming that they knew 100% the exact
value of Earth's precession.
>
Anyone analyzing this subject has to be aware of two facts:
>
1) The problem of Mercury's precession attracted very little attention
of astronomers since 1900. This issue GAINED RELEVANCE after WWII, when
the movement to promote the figure of Einstein gained momentum, until it
was UNBEARABLE in the 60s and 70s.
>
2) The table with the composition of the 575"/cy is what is widely
known, HIDING THE FACT that even such result comes from a DIFFERENCE
with the real observations of 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/cy.
>
>
CONCLUSION: A new factor has to be included in the uncertainties, which
is EARTH'S PRECESSION. The sum of all the effects is what was really
able to be measured UNTIL A FEW DECADES AGO.
>
Now, think and doubt about the missing 43"/cy. HOW REAL IS THIS VALUE?
>
What proved Einstein from 1913 to 1915? Read THE LOST 54 PAGES
MANUSCRIPT, that Besso kept until his death. You'll find some answers by
analyzing the 1913 Einstein-Besso approach to the problem.
>

>
Polaris, you mean, "The Hearth"?
>
This is about that, the axial position, Sol's, and Earth's,
to Polaris, vis-a-vis, Sol's, and Earth's, to a different
north star, is meaningful in celestial dynamics, moreso than
the merely its epochal immobility, also with regards to
interstellar flux, immobile, vis-a-vis traveling, the planets.
>
>
Also it's to be kept in mind that man's motions about the
Earth, though miniscule, are not inconsequential.
>
>
There's not ignored Jupiter as with regards to for example
the "Cradle", usually enough with regards to the Babylonian,
about the astronoeisis.
>
>
Lots of people including some quantum spin foam analysts
find that a Fatio/LeSage theory of gravitation is the best
explanation of the mechanism.
>
The idea that Sol is basically an outlet of the North Star
in a sort of lattice of stars, is an astronomical theory
what precedes antiquity.
>
There's a book by R. Newton called "Ancient Planetary Observations
and the Validity of Ephemeris Time".
>
Polaris the Pole-Star or Pollaris or "Pul" or "Bil", the
Allen's "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" has "... there
is no certainty as to which was intended, for it should be
remembered that during many milleniums the polar point has
gradually been approach our pole-star, which 2000 years ago
was far removed from it, ... Miss Clerke writes as to this:
The entire millenium before the Christian era may count as
an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha Draconis had
ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah had not yet
assumed it."
>
>
>
Picked up a copy of "The Evolution of Physics: The
Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics", maybe that will help.
>
Recently or a year or two ago now there was a great
survey of results the experiments and settings and
their configurations and energies, establishing
"validating" relativity, as with regards to the
wider surrounds, a Mach-ian or total theory,
as with regards to varieties of aether theory,
complementing completions in relativity theory,
which of course must be mathematical and needn't
admit partial, incomplete linearisations.
>
I.e. "aether theory" usually reintroduces itself,
then as with regards to Fatio/LeSage style theories
of the gravitic, as rather, the gravific.
>
>