Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession?

[HannonRJ]

The problem with SR is in Einstein's algebra and logic.

Have you read and critically analyzed the first three secytions of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES?

 

So can you correctly predict the perhelion of Mercury?

HannonRJ: Yes. Using nothing but newtoniam mechanics.

[HannonRJ]

The problem with SR is in Einstein's algebra and logic.

Have you read and critically analyzed the first three secytions of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES?

 

So can you correctly predict the perhelion of Mercury?

HannonRJ: Yes. Using nothing but newtoniam mechanics.

[ydoaPs]

HannonRJ: Yes. Using nothing but newtoniam mechanics.

 

Mind showing us?

[insane_alien]

i would be interested in seeing that as well as it is trivial to make a computer model using newtonian mechanics for the entire solar system and even to add in the effects of nearby stars.

 

they don't produce anywhee near the amount of precession we see. GR does. and it does so spectacularly well.

[HannonRJ]

Mind showing us?

 

My article on the subject is a WORD document involving many equations and calculations that won't copy properly to this forum (Greek letters and exponents).

Anyone interested can have a copy by emailing me at HannonRJ@comcast.net.

[insane_alien]

so why don't you upload the file to the forums. i'll take it and upload it if you want.

[HannonRJ]

Have any of you actually read and understodd the first three sections of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES? Or do you just believe what's written about "relativity" in recent books or articles?

 

Here is Einstein's First Postulate: "...to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mecanics hold good . *i.e. to the first approximation."

Here is Einstein's Second Postulate: "...that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

 

(Note that he does not say "the velocity of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference" or anything of the sort.)

 

Einstein believed that these two Postulates were "only apparently irreconcilable". While he didn't actually say so, the purpose of all that follows is to eliminate that apparent irreconcilability.

 

Is there actually a conflict?

 

so why don't you upload the file to the forums. i'll take it and upload it if you want.

 

I did so, and found that all of the exponents, subscripts, and Greek letters disappeared. This would lead to too many misunderstandings.

 

It seems to me that a forum devoted to science would have the ability to properly display equations. A serious discussion of "relativity" will require a lot of algebra.

[insane_alien]

well, for the second postulate, look up maxwells equations. they say that light will always propagate at c for any inertial frame.

 

And the origional papers by einstein are outdated. we have moved on from them to the point where they are wrong in some places. why should we use outdated papers when more recent and accurate research papers are available.

 

as for the forums not displaying the exponents, well, they do. look up LaTeX which is the system we use.

 

i have sent an email requesting the file. i will be checking for viruses before uploading so don't try anything.

[iNow]

I did so, and found that all of the exponents, subscripts, and Greek letters disappeared. This would lead to too many misunderstandings.

 

It seems to me that a forum devoted to science would have the ability to properly display equations.

IA was not talking about copy/paste. When you reply to a post, you have the option of attaching a file in full.

 

If you attach a file, then ALL codes which are part of that file get attached. Your "exponents, subscripts, and Greek letters" would NOT disappear. If you are doing something wrong, someone here can help you.

 

Also, you can use LaTeX. There are several options for properly displaying equations.

 

Where exactly are you struggling? You are three posts in, don't understand the functionality of the site, and your tone is not one of someone who truly seeks answers to questions and intelligent discussion. This is just an observation, presented in hopes that it will improve your style.

[insane_alien]

now you can't blame him for not knowing how the forums work, i bet you were like that too at one time in your life. i've asked him to email me the file and i'll post it when i get it.

 

i don't know how you use the latex thing so i'll just post it as a file.

[HannonRJ]

Kids, Kids!!!

 

Instead of lecturing us, try to listen to us. Share your ideas with the expectation of input, not with the attempt to "educate" us.

 

My physics education is quite limited to High School major, and to my curiousity and love of the subject. You will NOT see me argue with those who actually have degrees in it. They've studied it long, hard, and know much more than me.

 

I might ask, doubt, and raise questions, but lecture them? Not really.

 

You don't yet have your own proffessurship. Don't lecture. Listen.

 

It just got me frustrated; instead of people showing you why you are wrong in some points and right in others, people mock you.

They don't mock you because your are wrong, they mock you because you presume to lecture them. It's really too bad. You can have such insightful input that will lead you to better conclusions.

 

Debates and Question-asking and DOUBT is what science relies on.

 

Don't keep your noses so high up, you ignore scientific advancements. Geesh, you're only 16, you got your entire life to lecture people.

 

~moo

 

In order to discuss "relativity" one must understand its physical premises and the mathematics and logic by which it is represented. I have been intensively studying the subject for over 15 years, and find I must "teach" most people who attempt to discuss it with me. In order to understand Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, one must carefully study and critically analyze the first three sections of ON THE ELECTODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES. The math is a bit odd, but cerainly not entirely beyond anyone well versed in basic algebra.

[ajb]

I will echo insane_alien's comments; read a modern review.

 

I have myself looked at some of Einstein's original papers and some of his popular science articles. They were very hard to follow and frankly, I did not learn much.

 

Now we understand how geometry and group theory are fundamental in physics it makes sense to me to use these as a starting point rather than articles 100 years old now. Let the hard work on many others before you help you.

 

The mathematics of relativity is geometry. This may not have been how it was initially formulated, but trust me it is all geometry.

[insane_alien]

okay, i now have the file.

 

A little note, i have removed HannonRJ's address from the file as this is the kind of information that is bad to post on the internet.

 

POM3Bcm.doc

 

here it is, nothing malicious detected. will read it over later and post a review.

[swansont]

I've split this off from the other thread, as it seems to be a new topic. edit: and put in speculations

[HannonRJ]

well, for the second postulate, look up maxwells equations. they say that light will always propagate at c for any inertial frame.

 

And the origional papers by einstein are outdated. we have moved on from them to the point where they are wrong in some places. why should we use outdated papers when more recent and accurate research papers are available.

 

as for the forums not displaying the exponents, well, they do. look up LaTeX which is the system we use.

 

i have sent an email requesting the file. i will be checking for viruses before uploading so don't try anything.

 

Einstein is credited with "discovering" SR. That is not true. If he was wrong, (he was), many years of SR were also wrong. Current "SR" is predicated on Minkowsky's SPACE AND TIME (1908) just three years younger than Einstein's "outdated" theory. Have you read and critically analyzed that article?

 

I have no idea of how to insert a virus into anything I write, and have no idea why I would want to do any such thing. I tried posting my article to this forum, and found that all of the Greek letters, exponents, and subscripts were not correctly displayed.

 

Maxwell's c = 1/(eomo)^1/2 was predicated on a stationary model, and a specific EM model of the "non-conducting medium" in which his "electromagnetic disturbance" is propagated. There are no "inertial frames" involved. Maxwell never said that eo and mo are "universal constants". There is good theoretical to believe that they aren't.

[insane_alien]

Einstein is credited with "discovering" SR. That is not true. If he was wrong, (he was), many years of SR were also wrong. Current "SR" is predicated on Minkowsky's SPACE AND TIME (1908) just three years younger than Einstein's "outdated" theory. Have you read and critically analyzed that article?

 

no, i haven't physics is only a passing interest for me but i know a fair bit.

 

I have no idea of how to insert a virus into anything I write, and have no idea why I would want to do any such thing. I tried posting my article to this forum, and found that all of the Greek letters, exponents, and subscripts were not correctly displayed.

 

no offense meant but it would not be the first time some has tried to infect the forums and users with a virus. i scan all my mail anyway.

 

EDIT:

I have prepared a preliminary review(i have not thoughroly went over the calculations but there are still issues i have before then

 

All quotes are from HannonRJ's essay thing.

 

The uncertainty of the empirical result amounts to a few seconds only.”

 

Einstein’s last sentence implies that the empirical data does not exactly agree with his prediction. It is unfortunate that he doesn’t tell us what “a few seconds” means.

 

He likely mean a few arcseconds per century. Also, what i means is, that it fits within the errors or empirical observation. meaning, from looking at it we can see that the precession is so many arcseconds a century +/- some small observational error. This is common practise as all measurements will have some slight error incorporated into them. the more data you collect the more accurate you can be. As time has passed we have been able to measure the precession of mercury several orders of magnitude more precisely, Relativity still fits.

 

It is possible that Mercury also is a captured body.

 

possible but HIGHLY unlikely.

 

As it orbits the sun, Mercury loses kinetic energy because it must supply the energy necessary to move the sun’s mass around an ellipse of the same proportions as its own orbit, but much smaller.

 

Wow, this is just plain wrong. Mercury will not lose energy because of this. otherwise nothing would stay in orbit for very long. the sun moves because of the conservation of angular momentum. there is no energy transfered.

 

The net transfer of kinetic energy to the sun will cease when Mercury’s orbit becomes circular (when all other perturbations are excluded).

 

hold on a sec, last sentence you said that it expends energy keeping the sun moving round in an elipse, a circle IS an ellipse, and the sun would be moving in one. Why is ther e supposedly no energy transfer here yet there is earlier?

 

As it loses kinetic energy to the sun, Mercury’s speed along its orbit slows, and it moves further from the sun

 

you seem to have an unexplained energy input around here. please explain this in detail.

 

During the half-revolution when Mercury moves toward aphelion it loses kinetic energy Km>s=MsVs2/2=2.08225x1026 N-m to the sun. Thus the net KE of Mercury at aphelion is KEmp-Km>s=3.1910504x1032 N-m

 

i think this is where your problem lies, you are applying equations for a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit.

[HannonRJ]

On Minkoski's SPACE AND TIME:

In 1908, in an address to the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians, Hermann Minkowski presented his view (subsequently published as “Space and Time” [1]) that “Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve and independent reality.” The he went on to say, “First of all I should like to show how it might be possible, setting out from the accepted mechanics of the present day, along a purely mathematical line of thought, to arrive at changed ideas of space and time. The equations of Newton’s mechanics exhibit a two-fold invariance. Their form remains unaltered, firstly, if we subject the underlying system of spatial co-ordinates to any arbitrary change of position; secondly, if we change its state of motion, namely, by imparting to it any uniform translatory motion; furthermore the zero point of time is given no part to play. We are accustomed to look upon the axioms of geometry as finished with, when we feel ripe for the axioms of mechanics, and for that reason the two invariances are probably rarely mentioned in the same breath. Each of them by itself signifies, for the differential equations of mechanics, a certain group of transformations. The first group is looked upon as a fundamental characteristic of space. The second group is preferably treated with disdain, so that we with untroubled minds overcome the difficulty of never being able to decide, from physical phenomena, where space, which is supposed to be stationary, may not be after all in a state of uniform translation. Thus the two groups, side by side, lead their lives entirely apart. Their utterly heterogeneous character may have discouraged any attempt to compound them. But it is precisely when they are compounded that the complete group, as a whole, gives us to think.” [1]

 

Comment:

1. What follows in “Space and Time” results from a “purely mathematical line of thought”, but is now widely accepted as representing physical reality.

 

Minkowski continued, “We will try to visualize the state of things by the graphic method. Let x,y,z be rectangular co-ordinates for space and let t denote time. The objects of our perception invariably include places and times in combination. Nobody has ever noticed a place except at a time, or a time except at a place. But I still respect the dogma that both time and space have independent significance. A point in space at a point in time, that is, a system of values x,y,z,t I will call a world-point. The multiplicity of all thinkable x,y,z,t systems of values we will christen the world. With this most valiant piece of chalk I might project upon the blackboard four world axes. Since merely one chalky axis, as it is, consists of molecules all a-thrill, and moreover is taking part in the earth’s travels in the universe, it already affords us ample scope for abstraction; the somewhat greater abstraction associated with the number four is for the mathematician no infliction. Not to leave a yawning void anywhere, we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible. To avoid saying ‘matter’ or ‘electricity’ I will use for this something the word ‘substance’. We fix our attention on the substantial point which is at the world-point x,y,z,t, and imagine that we are able to recognize this substantial point at any other time. Let the variations dx, dy, dz of the space co-ordinates of this substantial point correspond to a time element dt Then we obtain, as an image, so to speak, of the everlasting career of the substantial point, a curve in the world, a world-line, the points of which can be referred unequivocally to the parameter t from -∞ to +∞. The whole universe is seen to resolve into a number of similar world-lines, and I would fain anticipate myself by saying that in my opinion physical laws might find their most perfect expression as reciprocal relations between these world-lines.

Comment:

2. Minkowski’s “world axes” are abstractions, per se: imagined scales of reference “projected” not just upon his blackboard, but upon empty space. His fourth ”axis”, presumably orthogonal to the three of space, exists only as an abstraction.

 

Minkowski continued, “The concepts of space and time cause the x,y,z manifold t=0 and its two sides t>0 and t<0 to fall asunder. If, for simplicity, we retain the same zero point of space and time, the first-mentioned group signifies in mechanics that we may subject the axes of x,y,z at t=0 to any rotation we choose about the origin, corresponding to the homogeneous linear transformations of the expression

 

x^2 + y^2 + z^2. (1)

 

But the second group means that we may—also without changing the expression of the laws of mechanics—replace x,y,z,t by x-at, y-bt, z-gt, t with any constant values of a, b, g. Hence we may give the time axis whatever direction we choose toward the upper half of the world, t>0. Now what has the requirement of orthogonality in space to do with this perfect freedom of the time axis in an upward direction.

 

To establish the connexion, let us take a positive parameter c, and consider the graphical representation of

c^2t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 = 1 (2)

 

It consists of two surfaces separated by t=0, on the analogy of a hyperboloid of two sheets. We consider the sheet in the region t>0, and now take those homogeneous linear transformations of x,y,z,t into four new variables x’,y’,z’,t’ for which the expression for this sheet in the new variables is of the same form. It is evident that the rotations of space about the origin pertain to these transformations. Thus we gain full comprehension of the rest of the transformations simply by taking into consideration one among them, such that y and z remain unchanged. We draw (Fig. 1) the section of this sheet by the plane of the axes of x—the upper branch of the hyperbola c^2t^2-x^2=1, with its asymptotes.

 

Comments:

 

3. The preceding discussion leads us to assume that x,y,z,t, are the system of values (co-ordinates) of a specific world-point plotted relative to the world-axes. If so, x,y,z, (and their squares) are spatial distances measured relative to (x=y=z=t=0) in the x, y, z, directions, respectively. In order for (2) to describe a physical situation, ct must also be a spatial distance, requiring c to be a velocity or speed. In multiplying t by c, Minkowski changed an interval of time into a spatial distance. Hereafter, t appears only as ct. In effect, Minkowski’s “t-axis” is the “ct-axis”, except only in Minkowski’s diagrams. Does this mean time can no longer be distinguished from space? No, it means only that “motion” requires both time and space. Minkowski subsequently tells us that c is “the velocity of propagation of light in empty space”. c is not an ordinary velocity; it is isotropic. So the ct-axis is not limited to any one direction, but extends in all spatial directions from its origin at all times.

 

4. Why are ct, x, y, and z, respectively, squared? Minkowski didn’t say. We can but assume that he is setting the stage for what follows.

 

5. Why are x^2, y^2, and z^2 all subtracted from c^2t^2? Why does c^2t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 equal 1? Minkowski didn’t say.

 

6. What is in motion at speed c? Since t is the time “co-ordinate” of the world-point located at spatial co-ordinates x, y, z, we must assume that it is that specific world-point that is in motion at speed c.

7. What is the direction of ct? c is “the velocity of propagation of light in empty space”. c is not an ordinary velocity; it is isotropic, that is, it is of equal magnitude in all spatial directions from the point and instant of light’s emission, at all times. This means that at any time t>0, there are rays of length ct extending in the x, y, and z directions (among all others). Thus c^2t^2 really means [(x/t)t]^2 + [(y/t)t]^2+ [(z/t)t]^2 = +x^2 + y^2 + z^2, where x,y,z are the co-ordinates of the world-point at time t. If so, (2) actually says:

 

+x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 = 1, or 0 = 1,

 

which is obviously meaningless. Since all that follows in “Space and Time” depends on (2), it appears that Minkowski’s “Space and Time” cannot represent reality.

 

Reference:

 

[1] Hermann Minkowski: “Space and Time”, (21 September 1908). English translation in “The Principle of Relativity”, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY, 1952.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

REGARDING HANNONRJ's article in the Precession of Mercury's orbit:

 

HANNONRJ It is possible that Mercury also is a captured body.

 

INSANE: possible but HIGHLY unlikely.

 

HANNONRJ REPLIES: In your opinion. What is your premise for that opinion? Some Astronomers believe Pluto is a captured body. Others believe that many of the various moons in the solar system are captured bodies. So why not Mercury?

 

HANNONRJ: As it orbits the sun, Mercury loses kinetic energy because it must supply the energy necessary to move the sun’s mass around an ellipse of the same proportions as its own orbit, but much smaller.

 

INSANE:Wow, this is just plain wrong. Mercury will not lose energy because of this. otherwise nothing would stay in orbit for very long. the sun moves because of the conservation of angular momentum. there is no energy transfered.

 

HANNONRJ REPLIES: Wrong. The Angular momentum of the Sun-Mercury system is preserved. Apparently you don't comprehend that in order for the major axis of Mercury's orbit to appear to be precessing. Mercury must be continually losing velocity along its orbit. Each orbit requires a longer time for completion. Loss of velocity means a loss of kinetic energy, which is possible only if that loss is a transfer to the sun, where it is dissipated as heat.

 

 

HANNONRJ: The net transfer of kinetic energy to the sun will cease when Mercury’s orbit becomes circular (when all other perturbations are excluded).

 

INSANE: hold on a sec, last sentence you said that it expends energy keeping the sun moving round in an elipse, a circle IS an ellipse, and the sun would be moving in one. Why is ther e supposedly no energy transfer here yet there is earlier?

 

HANNONRJ REPLIES: A circle is not an ellipse. If a truly circular orbit exists, the asymmetry required for energy transfer does not exist. Even Eart's orbit is not perfectly cicular.

 

HANNONRJ: As it loses kinetic energy to the sun, Mercury’s speed along its orbit slows, and it moves further from the sun

 

INSANE: you seem to have an unexplained energy input around here. please explain this in detail.

 

HANNONRJ REPLIES: No unexplained energy. Read my article more carefully

 

HANNONRJ: During the half-revolution when Mercury moves toward aphelion it loses kinetic energy Km>s=MsVs2/2=2.08225x1026 N-m to the sun. Thus the net KE of Mercury at aphelion is KEmp-Km>s=3.1910504x1032 N-m

 

INSANE: I think this is where your problem lies, you are applying equations for a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit.

 

HANNONRJ REPLIES: Not so. See my calculations of KE at aphelion and perihelion.

 

To ajb: The only geometry in Einstein's 1905 SR is that of his coincident xi and x axes sliding along one another at constant speed v, while a "ray of light" moves forth and back along a distance of arbitrary value common to those axes.

 

Please tell me about "today's" SR geometry. It seems to me that I keep on seeing the same century-old equations, now called "The Lorentz Transformation".

 

That in itself is odd. A few years ago I tried to find an article by H.A. Lorentz in which he derived the transformation that now bears his name. I enlisted the help of the US Library of Congress, but even they could find no such article. By chance, I found what was purported to be Lorentz's own derivation, although the author (Sir Edmund Whittaker) did not cite a source. I did a step-by-step analysis of that derivation which was published in Galilean Electrodynamics a few years ago.

 

When did serious alternatives to current physics become "pseudoscience"? Real science is the search for the truth about nature, and always encompasses consideration of rational alternatives.

 

To insane_alien; I thought you were going to post my entire article. Instead you have posted only your criticisms of isolated sentences.

[insane_alien]

To insane_alien; I thought you were going to post my entire article. Instead you have posted only your criticisms of isolated sentences.

 

Look at post #13.

[HannonRJ]

How do I attach a .doc file?

 

Thanks! I am still unfamiliar with this forum.

For your information, this article has been reviewed by qualified physicists. They found nothing wrong. I recently offered it to SCIENCE magazine for publication. They found nothing wrong, but declined its publication because they considered it would not be of interest to any but specialists, rather than to their general readership.

 

Surely you are aware that Einstein's equation (cited early in my article) was published years before Einstein by a German high-school teacher. I can't recall his name.

[lakmilis]

bleep bleep.

 

It lies often in the approach... I find it a shame that it be moved to speculation.. this is exactly* what a "science forum" with random people from around the world must be aiming to achieve at best; to discuss new data and so analysis and interpretations and also debate older things.

 

This should of been allowed to stick in classical physics / newtonian physics and left it at that but ah well. It is a public forum after all , it is not* fulfilling or claiming to fulfill any official set of requirements.

Edited May 27, 2008 by lakmilis