Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Doctordick Uses His Model To...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Bruce on June 2, 2003 21:40:43 UTC

predict that Einstein was wrong and Newton was right.

"I just gave you one. Their definitions are circular. Someday they will discover that! Also, just as an aside, my result for general relativistic solutions of celestial orbits is slightly different from Einstein's. The problem is, the difference is not detectable within the accuracy of current measurements. Check out part III of chapter 4. Now, I will cavil that no one has checked my math so I could very well have an error in that section. With regard to that comment, I will also point out that Newton's original solutions deviated from the experimental observations of celestial orbits at the time and that he originally attributed the difference to a possible error. Turned out he was wrong; his answers were correct, not the experimental values. So, I could be right, I could be wrong! Only time will tell."

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/27067.shtml

Dick you are wrong and time has told. Newton predicts that the rate of radial oscillation [W^2_rad] equals the rate of angular velocity [W^2_phi]

W^2_rad = W^2_phi = M_meters / r^3_orbit

This means that there will be no natural precession. The only precession will be due to external forces [perturbations of the orbit by external influences]. During Newton's time a precession was measured in the orbit of Mercury which could not be accounted for by external influences. Since that time a natural precession has been measured for Venus, Earth, and Mars, and many orbits for objects in the strong field [such as neutron star binary systems and stars around black holes]. The value of this natural precession is accurately predicted by general relativity where

mass = M = M_meters

W^2_rad = M(r_orbit - 6M)/r^3_orbit(r_orbit - 3M)

W^2_phi = M/r^2_orbit(r_orbit - 3M)

For decreasing r_orbit the natural precession increases. Thats why it was first noted at r_orbit Mercury and why it can be very large in the strong field.

Geodectic Precession of PSR B1913+16
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0301/0301146.pdf

This is a verified prediction for general relativity and nothing in the future will change this. For Dick time has already told wrt his 1st prediction. Why Dick picked this prediction [choosing Newton over Einstein] is beyond me. Maybe its because he never has been able to get over the fact that there is no universal reference frame for time and space intervals. Maybe this is why he attacks Einstein in the preface of his so-called 'work'. Keep in mind that the purpose of theoretical models is for doing physics that works.

For those that are interested in this subject you can check out the figure [orbit 1,2,3] at this interesting site on PSR 1913+16.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

Over time the orbits trace out what looks like a daisy [the petals of a flower].



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins