Newton is right and Einstein is wrong. Since he called me a liar and said that his model predicts Mercury's orbit
"I hid Bruce because he just
plain lies and I get tired of seeing it. (Any of you people who don't check him out are getting
some off the wall information. For example the suggestion that my work does not yield
precession of Mercury's orbit is a simple out and out uninformed lie! Only one of many.)"
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/27181.shtml
and
Dick's original prediction for Harv:
"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
So what is it? Does Dick's model predict Newton's result [no natural precession] as he claimed to Harv or does it actually predict Mercurys orbit [Einstein's result where all elliptical orbits naturally precess {including Mercury}] as he claims to you folks when he called me a liar? It can't be both and the difference between the predicted Newton and predicted Einstein results are posted below once again.
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]. |