Experimentelle Tests der Heimschen Theorien: Periheldrehung

[JANm]

There are three attitudes to criticize relativity theory:
1 Impulsive, intuitive for a start, the creative stadium of idea's.
2 Hardworking getting the right formula's; working the out.
3 Frustrated, misunderstood, angry a litlle like 1 but not creative, possibly misunderstanding also, but sometimes quick and strong.
All these three hats I use, make notes and reread them later on.
I gave some assumptions on Mercury perihelion precession and sometimes don't even know anymore if they were originally 1,2 or 3.
Now I am searching in my notes for the full integration of the sixth order approximation of the astronomical almanac... Not found yet...
I come to one note that retardation of earth-rotation could be the reason for this effect. Is that attitude 1, 2 or 3 I might ask?
And now I am interested in whether this full integrating is 1,2 or 3.
I keep on searching and when I find this I will let you know...
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[JANm]

What I miss in RT is physics. Explain things; tell what (you think) is the reason why something happens the way it does. Searched a few days for my papers about perihelium movement of Mercurius. The part I found yesterday is agin already lost, but that doesn't matter for it wasn't what I searched for in the first place, because the assumption that I made is type 3 frustration. The assumption about the formula of the astronomical almanal perhaps also but in both cases they don't explain a thing. I found one which explains something.

Mercury has one siderical halfyear of 34 days compared to the other half of 55 days, all because of its large eccentricity 0,2 and half semidiameter 0,387 AE. During 44 days mercury falls to the Sun with mean velocity of 8 km/sec, with a maximum of 10 km/sec. The greatest distance to the sun is 234 lightseconds and the shortest is 154 lightseconds that means that: if you assume that gravitywaves have lightvelocity the 80 seconds time differance accumulates the gravity with 0,002 % and during climbing out of solar gravity field the field is stretched and diminished by 0.002%. I do not have found the right formulae yet for the perihelium movement but these data explain that Mercury is indeed an interesting object of study for relativistic effects...

Greetings
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[Barney]

[JANm]

[Barney]

Hi Jan,

maybe I´ve made a stupid joke, but the cover of the MTW is usually almost completely black and I suppose that Erik has the deepest knowledge of the MTW compared to the other participants of this thread.

[JANm]

Hi Barney,
The color of the MTW was dark blue in my memberance, but a more important issue about the physical parameters: the weight. It is certainly not a book to bring along at a sunday morning walk in your inside pocket. Glad to know there is a MTW-specialist on the alpha forum...

What does MTW state about perihelium movement of Mercury?

Some years ago I studied a book of Gauss about statistical weight of planets. With this a gravity centre of the solar system can be found. I don't know if you are familiar with the term invariant plane, which comes from seeing the solar system as a rotating disk, of that thing it is the centre.
Greetings
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[Barney]

[JANm]

Hi Barney,
the ecliptic coordinates work with the plane in which the Earth moves around the Sun. This plane is a little tilted to the invariant plane. There are two "points" of intersection: one of them is the rising "knot" (I don't know if this English term is right) and 180 degrees further the other. The most interesting part of this is that the angle between these two planes is somehow added to the angle of the earth axis to the ecliptic.
Greetings
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[Barney]

[JANm]

Hi Barney
The title of the book of Gauss is:
Bestimmung der Anziehung, die ein Planet auf einen Punkt beliebig gegebener Lage ausuebte wenn seine Masse auf die ganze Bahn im verhaeltnis zur Zeit, in ihre einzelnen Teile durchlaufen werden, gleichmaessig verteilt waere.

The advantage of the invariant plane is that calculation of perihelion movement not only is a Fourier constant (=a empirical diagnostic value), but can be calculated dynamically so a calculated prognostic value, with of course the fourier constant as mean value.

I quote myself (from an unpublished article):
The gravity centre calculated from the Gauss issue (fully designated in the title of his book) lies 70.000 km from the centre of the Sun, so the Kepler assumption that the Sun stands in the focus of the ellips is for Mercurius perhaps too rude...
greetings Jan
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[Barney]

[pauli]

die gute Salma Hayek, ein Jammer, wohl das erste MBH-Opfer

[JANm]

[Barney]

Hi Jan,

I think we have quietly introduced a new topic. Therefore I wrote to the admins with the hope for separation into a new thread with a title like: "Experimental tests of Heim theories: Perihelion shift of Mercury".

BTW, found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane

[JANm]

Hi Barney
OK so far so good. The best coordinatesystem for our solar system. From The sight you mentioned one can learn of changing inclination of the earth's ecliptic to the invariable plane from 1900 until 2000. And there is stated if objects were pointsources this would truly be an inertial frame. Relativation of course that the tidle frictions don't alter the inertial frame in any measurable way. Okee

By the way thanks for the extra thread. We have to keep in mind that if mechanical gravitation-change due to rotating masses are measurable in the solar sytem this thread should be reallocated to the original Heim Thread...

OKee Mercury not in a plane ellips to the ecliptic but to the invariable plane. First thing to know is the inclination of the mercury orbit to the invariable plane...

Don't forget that what is called barycentre in this invariable plane called Laplacian plane is the centre of the Gaussian ellipses so a good name for Barycentre could be the Gaussian centre. I am going in retreat to evaluate whether the barycentre in this sight is realy exactly the same as the Gaussian centre ...
greetings Janm
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.