All the data is based on Kepler/Newton, without a trace of relativity...
This site represents the value of TRUE SCIENCE...
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:04:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:respectively, and are constrained to unity as predicted by the general theory of relativity (GTR)."
All the data is based on Kepler/Newton, without a trace of relativity...
From the technical report on that site:
"This section presents the dynamical models of the planetary and lunar ephemerides... The point-mass interaction between planetary bodies is governed by the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formulation (Will and Nordtvedt, 1972; Moyer 2003)
[Equation 27, the general relativity post-Newtonian formula]
where the summations are over all bodies, and beta and gamma are the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters representing the measure of nonlinearity in the superposition law for gravity and the amount of space curvature produced by a unit rest mass,
This site represents the value of TRUE SCIENCE...
Indeed.
From the technical report on that site:respectively, and are constrained to unity as predicted by the general theory of relativity (GTR)."
"This section presents the dynamical models of the planetary and lunar ephemerides... The point-mass interaction between planetary bodies is governed by the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formulation (Will and Nordtvedt, 1972; Moyer 2003)
[Equation 27, the general relativity post-Newtonian formula]
where the summations are over all bodies, and beta and gamma are the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters representing the measure of nonlinearity in the superposition law for gravity and the amount of space curvature produced by a unit rest mass,
This is the basis of osculating orbital parameters for elliptical motion: A Keplerian-Newtonian model, as used by JPL Horizons database:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Major-parameters-of-an-elliptical-orbit_fig4_229022121
Periodically, JPL Horizons recompute basic parameters, based on thousands of observations made on Earth (optical, radioastronomy), and
by different observatories in orbit and specific satellites. It applies to most of the major bodies in the database. Example of curve fitting:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Observations-and-model-orbits-are-shown-for-two-representative-systems-from-those_fig1_372416658
Using equations perfected for 200 years, since Euler's rotations of reference planes, data is modified in almost real time.
This is an example of data on semi-major axis "a" and eccentricity "e" for Mercury, in an interval of 4 hours:
Julian Date.............................Date................................a (Km)..................... e
2460195,25000000 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 18: 57909248,74878 0,20563272552 2460195,20833333 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 17: 57909248,42255 0,20563273224 2460195,29166666 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 19: 57909249,07077 0,20563271879 2460195,16666666 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 16: 57909248,09210 0,20563273896
The enormous amount of decimal digits is due to the results of elliptical curve fitting by using thousands of observations of different sources.
And this information, which is online, is generated by algorithms perfected for more than 20/25 years.
And yet, this information is "LOW RESOLUTION". If you want "HIGH RESOLUTION" you have to download binary files and use specific software, which is free.
Kepler-Newton RULES. GR is a fucking joke.
One proof that JPL Horizons online database provides PURE Kepler-Newton data;
PERIHELION ADVANCE DURING THREE ORBITAL PERIODS IS PRACTICALLY ZERO ARCSECONDS.
DATA:
1) Mercury's orbital period: 87.96923544 days (average for 2,953 samples between 2023-Jul-10 00:00 and 2023-Nov-10 00:00)
2) Mercury's perihelion advance per orbit: 0.0000734570 arcsec/orbit.
3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.
As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL. The
residual of 2), which is 1,400+ times lower than what was used in GR by 1915, demonstrates that orbits (Mercury's one in this case) are
PURE NEWTONIAN, as the advance of perihelion of Mercury/orbit is EXACTLY 360°, which shows a NULL PRECESSION.
Both Paul Andersen and I have demonstrated that Mercury's perihelion shift is variable over time. The perihelion forwards and backwards depending on the precise alignment of the other planets, only ON AVERAGE advancing.
If I remember correctly, Paul's results are somewhat better than mine, since he used precise orbital elements, whereas I was more approximate in my approach.
One way or another, your objections are just plain stupid.
One proof that JPL Horizons online database provides PURE Kepler-Newton data;
PERIHELION ADVANCE DURING THREE ORBITAL PERIODS IS PRACTICALLY ZERO ARCSECONDS.
DATA:
1) Mercury's orbital period: 87.96923544 days (average for 2,953 samples between 2023-Jul-10 00:00 and 2023-Nov-10 00:00)
2) Mercury's perihelion advance per orbit: 0.0000734570 arcsec/orbit.
3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.
As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL.
I have simulated the Solar System.
The result for the perihelion advance of Mercury (the first 100 years):
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/AdvanceOfMercury.pdf
You can see the advance for the first 24 orbits here:
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/FirstAdvance.pdf
Note that the advance per orbit varies between +14.5" and -5.9,
and among these 24 orbits the smallest advance is 0.6".
So it isn't very remarkable that the advance may be very small
for some orbits.
The reason for the variation is that the pull from the other
planets will vary a lot depending on the distance to them,
particularly Venus and Jupiter.
You can't fail to understand this if you think, or can you?
3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html
But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.
So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be 532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.
I don't have to tell you which of them is in
accordance with observations.
As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL.Good grief, Richard.
Are you really so naive that you think that there
is no advance of Mercury's perihelion? :-D
Your ignorance never cease to amaze.
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:41:27 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I have simulated the Solar System.
The result for the perihelion advance of Mercury (the first 100 years):
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/AdvanceOfMercury.pdf
You can see the advance for the first 24 orbits here:
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/FirstAdvance.pdf
Note that the advance per orbit varies between +14.5" and -5.9,
and among these 24 orbits the smallest advance is 0.6".
So it isn't very remarkable that the advance may be very small
for some orbits.
The reason for the variation is that the pull from the other
planets will vary a lot depending on the distance to them,
particularly Venus and Jupiter.
You can't fail to understand this if you think, or can you?It's rather remarkable what Richard can think.
3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html
But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.
So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be 532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.
I don't have to tell you which of them is in
accordance with observations.
As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL.Good grief, Richard.
Are you really so naive that you think that there
is no advance of Mercury's perihelion? :-D
Your ignorance never cease to amaze.
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jarRichard appears to have been at one time a competent
electrical engineer. What is is about retired electrical engineers
that leads them to the loss of all the critical faculties that they
must once upon a time have possessed?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 31:13:31 |
Calls: | 6,976 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,408 |
Messages: | 5,449,807 |
Posted today: | 2 |