Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr century,.

[rhertz]

Every one of the theoretical and experimental tests about the
predictions of general relativity have been widely questioned in the
last 100 years.

1. THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF THE "EXTRA" ADVANCE OF MERCURY'S
PERIHELION.

Since Le Verrier´s calculation (1854) of the "missing" 43"/century in
the advance of Mercury's perihelion until these days, a common MISTAKE
persists. Actually, the original discrepancy was of 37" (Le Verrier),
corrected in 1898 to 43" by the US astronomer Newcomb.

In ALL THESE CASES, and even today, the total calculation is based on
the influence of every planet on the precession of Mercury BY USING
GAUSS´S MODEL OF TORUS OF GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE by each planet on
Mercury.

KEEP THIS IN MIND: To calculate the gravitational influence of every
planet (and other celestial bodies) over Mercury for the lapse of 100
years IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN TODAY, with help of supercomputers. This would
require hundred of millions of calculations to be performed, slicing the
100 years in FRACTIONS of the orbital period of the fastest planet
(Mercury) and APPLIED TO THE SEGMENTED ORBIT OF THE REST OF THE PLANETS.

At every step, a calculation of the perturbations of one planet over
each other HAS TO BE COMPUTED. Then, step by step, such result HAS TO BE
APPLIED as the input of the next step in parametric calculations. No
analytical expression can be written to contemplate this N-Body problem,
and the only way is to compute each influence step by step in a
supercomputer, which lead to almost infinite calculations for the 100
years period.

The use of Gauss' gravity torus IS A VERY GROSS CALCULATION: It consists
in replacing the hundred of millions of calculations per planet
(ignoring influence of the other planets) by a gravitational torus,
which is based in the replacement of orbits by A SINGLE TORUS, which
contemplate the gravitational influence as a replacement of punctual
orbital positions by a single torus along the orbit. It's about
replacing the Newton law of gravity (applied at each position of a
planet) by a SOLID TORUS with the equivalence of mass of the planet
SPREAD ALL OVER the orbit of it.

In this way, and since Le Verrier, the influence of each planet is
reduced to ONE SINGLE EQUATION (GAUSS'S TORUS OF GRAVITY).

The alleged total influence of such GROSS APPROXIMATION gives 43" less
than the estimations of observational astronomy of 575"/cy (data that Le
Verrier gathered from few observations registered in 200 years prior to
him).

Now THE CATCH: The calculation of the THEORETICAL 542" is exactly that:
A CALCULATION BASED ON GAUSS GRAVITATIONAL TORUS for each planet's
orbit.

Then, Einstein's 1915 "theoretical proof" IS BASED ON NEWTON'S
APPROXIMATION by using Gauss Torus. Hence, the famous 43" ARE FALSE and
have not proven experimentally in any way as of today. Plus, you can't
use and later discard Newton, to work in the THEORETICAL DIFFERENCE of
43" and make mathematics TO FIT that UNPROVEN DATA.

2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF DEFLECTION OF STARLIGHT (Eddington, etc)

The 1919 expedition by the British was HIGHLY BIASED due to Eddington
and the team of calculists, who discarded VITAL DATA that proved that
the verification WAS FALSE, and had political influences just after WWI.

This long article, supported by the Royal Astronomical Society explain a
100 years of controversy in detail. There are hundred of other papers,
but I selected this as the most relevant.

The 1919 eclipse results that verified general relativity and their
later detractors: a story re-told
Gerard Gilmore and Gudrun Tausch-Pebody
Published:21 October 2021https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040



3. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFTING.

In 50 years after the publication of GR, only one experiment has been
presented as THE ULTIMATE PROOF of gravitational red-shifting.

And this is the Pound-Rebka 1961 experiment, which had the objective of
proving IF LIGHT HAD MASS, according to Einstein's 1911 paper.


In the next decade, such HOAX (a failed experiment, statistically
forged), Pound went around RE-WRITING his own history, claiming that his
experiments proved Einstein's third prediction of GR (using a laughable
distance of 22 meters).

The ridicule publications that followed the experiment HIDE THE FACT
that the data was disgustingly MANIPULATED by heavy use of statistics
and dismissal of critical data about the theory behind (Mossbauer) and
lame explanations about HOW such a proof of a shift of about 10E-15 WAS
RESCUED from contaminated collected data WITH PRECISION OF 10E-12, in a
highly contaminated receiver, with NOISE and uncertainties about the
amount of radiation captured that was originated IN A UNKNOWN AMOUNT of
Fe57 atoms without recoil, 22 meters apart.

The GROSS arrangement of the INDIRECT MEASURING ARRAY pales in
comparison with the HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF RESULTS.


*****************************************

It's SAD to know how much relativists worked, in the last century, to
HIDE THE TRUE RESULTS and to hail Einstein as the god of physics.


There was a lot of interests and money behind relativism, and still is,
even when it's discredited at accelerated paces (in particular since
year 2000).

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz:
1. Mercury perihelion: The GR explanation presumes gravity can be
treated as electromagnetism, giving it the speed c and the torque
involved in EM. However, the Unified Field Theory failed, proving this
inference unwarranted.

2. Deflected Starlight: GR never predicted a doubling because no
mathematical or physics derivation was provided and the two was merely
inserted without justification.

3. Gravitational redshift: Pound-Snider reported once Newtonian and not
twice Newtonian.

4. Relativity was united with the astronomy departments in 1963 for PR
purposes.

[rhertz]

This was the last attempt to validate Einstein HOAX on Mercury in 2017.

Please OBSERVE that the authors refer to Clemence (1947), who FOLLOWED
EXACTLY Newcomb (1898), except some MINOR corrections. Newcomb FOLLOWED
to Le Verrier (1854), but raised the difference to 43". Einstein used
THIS DATA, with the advice of his astronomer Freundlich (1915), the one
that FRAUDULENTLY claimed that he had measured red-shifting of light of
the Sun in 1912 (later, he took it back).

Freundlich was INSTRUMENTAL in the connections of Einstein with Newcomb
(1913), and later with Eddington through Lorentz (1916). In that way, in
time of WWI, Eddington got a copy of the publications of GR by March
1916.

A whole network of fraudster cooperated since 1916 to make Einstein
worldwide famous, starting with the German Jewish journalist that
promised to Einstein such achievement, and it worked very well in Europe
and US, with full support of the zionist press.


The attached table was made by these persons. Their paper is online.

Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER
Spacecraft
Ryan S. Park1, William M. Folkner1, Alexander S. Konopliv1, James G.
Williams1, David E. Smith2, and Maria T. Zuber2
1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California 91109, USA; ***@jpl.nasa.gov
2 Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
Received 2016 December 20; revised 2017 January 17; accepted 2017
January 21; published 2017 February 21



Pay attention to the title of Table 3:


The Breakdown of ESTIMATED Contributions and Uncertainties from the
Planets, Asteroids, GE effect, LT effect, and Solar Quadrupole Moment to
the Precession Rate of MercuryÊŒs Perihelion Computed in the coordinate
Frame Defined in Section 4 (i.e., along MercuryÊŒs Mean Orbit Plane)

ESTIMATED AS ON: Reusing data from Le Verrier, being 163 YEARS OLD.

***********************************************
This is a link to my post in 2023, with the formulae using Gauss:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/JWWwsBi98OI/m/Dtt7T8fZAwAJ

Perihelion advance of planets
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node44.html

The solar system consists of eight major planets (Mercury to Neptune)
moving around the Sun in slightly elliptical orbits that are
approximately coplanar with one another. According to Chapter 4, if we
neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions,
the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits
at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space.

However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out
that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess in a prograde manner
(i.e., rotate in the same direction as the orbital motion) around the
Sun. We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion precession of a
given planet by treating the other planets as uniform concentric rings,
centered on the Sun, of mass equal to the planetary mass, and radius
equal to the mean orbital radius.

This method of calculation, which is due to Gauss, is equivalent to
averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits
of the other planets. It is reasonable to do this because the timescale
associated with the perihelion precession is very much longer than the
orbital period of any planet in the solar system.

Thus, by treating the other planets as rings, we can calculate the mean
gravitational perturbation due to these planets, and, thereby, determine
the desired precession rate. (Actually, Gauss also incorporated the
eccentricities, and non-uniform angular velocities, of the planetary
orbits into his original calculation.)

We can conveniently index the planets in the solar system by designating
Mercury as planet 1, and Neptune as planet 8.
Let the máµ€ and the aáµ€, for u=1...8 , be the planetary masses and mean
orbital radii, respectively. Furthermore, let M be the mass of the Sun.
It follows, from Section 3.7, that the gravitational potential generated
in the vicinity of the i th planet by the Sun and the other planets is

Ίᵀ(r) = -GM/r - ∑ᵏ⁌⁰ pᵏ [∑ᵛ<ᵘ Gmáµ¥/aáµ¥ (aáµ¥/r)²ᵏ⁺¹ + ∑ᵛ>ᵘ Gmáµ¥/aáµ¥ (r/aáµ¥)²ᵏ]

pᵏ = [P²ᵏ(0]². Pʳ(x) is a Legendre polynomial (Abramowitz and Stegun
1965b).

The perihelion of the u_th planet advances by

Ύωᵀ ≈ 2π ∑ᵏ⁌¹ k (2k+1) pᵏ [∑ᵛ<ᵘ máµ¥/M (aáµ¥/aáµ€)²ᵏ + ∑ᵛ>ᵘ máµ¥/M (aáµ€/aáµ¥)²ᵏ]

radians per revolution around the Sun. Of course, the time required for
a single revolution is the orbital period, Táµ€ . From this (read the
paper), it's derived the rate of the perihelion precession, in
arcseconds/year, with the formula

Ύωᵀ ≈ [12960000/Táµ€(yr)] ∑ᵏ⁌¹ k (2k+1) pᵏ [∑ᵛ<ᵘ máµ¥/M (aáµ¥/aáµ€)²ᵏ + ∑ᵛ>ᵘ
mᵥ/M (aᵀ/aᵥ)²ᵏ⁺¹]

RESULTS OF THE APPROXIMATE FORMULA Ύωᵀ

Table: Observed and theoretical planetary perihelion precession rates
(at J2000). Source: Standish and Williams (1992).

PLANET .......... OBSERVED .......... THEORETICAL
Mercury .......... 5.75"/year .......... 5.54"/year ...................
[5.32"/year, with more accurate formula]
Venus ............. 2.05"/year .......... 12.07"/year
Earth ............. 11.45"/year .......... 12.79"/year
Mars ............. 16.28"/year .......... 17.75"/year
Jupiter ............ 6.55"/year .......... 7.51"/year
Saturn .......... 19.50"/year .......... $ 18.59"/year
Uranus ........... 3.34"/year .......... 2.75"/year
Neptune ......... 0.36"/year .......... 0.67"/year

Perihelion precession of Mercury
As described in Appendix B, if the calculation described in the previous
section is carried out MORE ACCURATELY, taking into account the slight
eccentricities of the planetary orbits, as well as their small mutual
inclinations, then the perihelion precession rate of the planet Mercury
is found to be 5.32 arcseconds per year. However, the observed
precession rate is 5.75 arcseconds per year.

The difference of 43"/century is calculated by giving gravity the speed
c (Gerber, Einstein).

The above table gives results with INFINITE speed of gravity. And this
has been so since Le Verrier (1857).

As I wrote before: Apples + Oranges = TOTAL THEORETICAL Mercury's
perihelion advance.

Others use FORCES, NOT FIELDS. But, under Newton the speed of gravity is
INFINITE, for Venus over Mercury OR Uranus over Mercury.

Read this, even when you're Russophobic. You'll see how different values
are generated using PURE Newton and a computer:

Gravitation, Field, and Rotation of Mercury Perihelion
Joseph J. Smulsky
Institute of the Earth Cryosphere of the Russian Academy of Sciences

http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/08Smulsky2c.pdf

**************************************************************

IN THE TABLE 3, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS INFINITE (Newton's action at a
distance).



So, Mercury HOAX = Newton-Gauss GROSS estimations + Einstein's GR.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Yes, I read Smulsky a few years ago. He's good. He shows that
relativity is not necessary for Mercury's perihelion advance.

Why wouldn't the 43" be attributed to the imperfections of Gauss?

Regarding apples and oranges, using speed c for all planets throws more
off than it fixes Mercury.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Yes, I read Smulsky a few years ago. He's good. He shows that
relativity is not necessary for Mercury's perihelion advance.
Why wouldn't the 43" be attributed to the imperfections of Gauss?
Regarding apples and oranges, using speed c for all planets throws more
off than it fixes Mercury.

My post with equations about chickens and eggs to be hatched = real
number of chickens (measured) went to another thread. My error.


I attach the formula for the impact on Mercury precession caused by EACH
PLANET, which gives the estimation of 532"/cy due to the rest of the
planets on Mercury. It has to be used for each remaining planet, is
based on Gauss Torus (replacing planet orbital influences) and has A LOT
of limitations due to simplifications on the formulae of precession.


I've lost the link to this document, so I extracted the attached figure
from an old Word file.

But it helps to show the truth OF THE FARCE behind the 532"/cy used for
more than 120 years. Newtonian in the core, with gravity having infinite
speed, but corrupted since Gauss due to excessive suppositions.


The calculated 532"/cy ARE FALSE since Newcomb modified CALCULATIONS.

And theoretical, oversimplified calculations worth less than a rat's
ass.


I used these formulae years ago, and follow closely Newcomb values, but
are worthless. A real formulation of a problem of the influence of
N-Bodies applying FULL NEWTON is IMPOSSIBLE, even when using parametric
calculations on supercomputers. Hundred of millions of calculations,
being that each step contain RECURSIVE DATA due to the influence of one
planet over each other.

Einstein's theoretical "proof" of the 43"/cy IS NOT TRUE. IT'S FALSE AND
IT'S ONE OF THE GREATEST HOAX IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

SHAME ON RELATIVISTS, POLITICS AND HIDDEN AGENDAS.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
Every one of the theoretical and experimental tests about the
predictions of general relativity have been widely questioned in the
last 100 years.
1. THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF THE "EXTRA" ADVANCE OF MERCURY'S
PERIHELION.
Since Le Verrier´s calculation (1854) of the "missing" 43"/century in
the advance of Mercury's perihelion until these days, a common MISTAKE
persists. Actually, the original discrepancy was of 37" (Le Verrier),
corrected in 1898 to 43" by the US astronomer Newcomb.

https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf

Post by rhertz
In ALL THESE CASES, and even today, the total calculation is based on
the influence of every planet on the precession of Mercury BY USING
GAUSS´S MODEL OF TORUS OF GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE by each planet on
Mercury.
KEEP THIS IN MIND: To calculate the gravitational influence of every
planet (and other celestial bodies) over Mercury for the lapse of 100
years IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN TODAY, with help of supercomputers. This would
require hundred of millions of calculations to be performed, slicing the
100 years in FRACTIONS of the orbital period of the fastest planet
(Mercury) and APPLIED TO THE SEGMENTED ORBIT OF THE REST OF THE PLANETS.

You don't need a supercomputer to make hundreds of millions of
calculations.
I have simulated the solar system for 10 thousand years,
and simulated the perihelion advance for all the planets.
It's done in 15 hours on my computer.
Hundreds of millions calculations is a GROSS underestimation!

https://paulba.no/Application.html
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/MercuryAdvance.pdf

Post by rhertz
At every step, a calculation of the perturbations of one planet over
each other HAS TO BE COMPUTED. Then, step by step, such result HAS TO BE
APPLIED as the input of the next step in parametric calculations. No
analytical expression can be written to contemplate this N-Body problem,
and the only way is to compute each influence step by step in a
supercomputer, which lead to almost infinite calculations for the 100
years period.

Quite.
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
See equations (11) to (20)

This calculation is done every 5. second true time.
That's 61.5 billion times to simulate 10 thousand years.

And this is not the calculation that costs most calculations.
To determine the point of perihelion, the distance planet-sun
has to be compared to the previous distance to find the minimum.
This has to be done for _all_ the planets.

My computer can make 150 billion flops/second.
So in 15 hours it can make 8100 terra flops.

You have to update you knowledge of what a modern computer,
which is NOT a supercomputer, can do!

Post by rhertz
The use of Gauss' gravity torus IS A VERY GROSS CALCULATION: It consists
in replacing the hundred of millions of calculations per planet
(ignoring influence of the other planets) by a gravitational torus,
which is based in the replacement of orbits by A SINGLE TORUS, which
contemplate the gravitational influence as a replacement of punctual
orbital positions by a single torus along the orbit. It's about
replacing the Newton law of gravity (applied at each position of a
planet) by a SOLID TORUS with the equivalence of mass of the planet
SPREAD ALL OVER the orbit of it.

But it works quite well.

Post by rhertz
2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF DEFLECTION OF STARLIGHT (Eddington, etc)
The 1919 expedition by the British was HIGHLY BIASED due to Eddington
and the team of calculists, who discarded VITAL DATA that proved that
the verification WAS FALSE, and had political influences just after WWI.
This long article, supported by the Royal Astronomical Society explain a
100 years of controversy in detail. There are hundred of other papers,
but I selected this as the most relevant.
The 1919 eclipse results that verified general relativity and their
later detractors: a story re-told
Gerard Gilmore and Gudrun Tausch-Pebody
Published:21 October 2021https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040

The eclipse measurements are notoriously imprecise,
and are of historic interest only.

The gravitationally deflection of EM-radiation is now
so thoroughly well known that there is no point in discussing it.
It's settled.
The gravitational deflection of EM-radiation is as predicted by GR.

https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

Experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

Now is when you make a fool of yourself, claiming:

" About your list of historical proofs of relativity,
I can make a deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond
any reasonable doubt, that relativists are members of a MAFFIA,
and profit from it. This is because the different results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
cooking and peer complicity. "


A simulation:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html

-----------------------

BTW, do you remember this? :-D

| Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
|>>
|>> GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
|>> by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
|>>
|>> θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
|>>
|>> Where:
|>> AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
|>> φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
|>> c = speed of light in vacuum
|>> G = Gravitational constant
|>> M = solar mass
|>>
|>
|> Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
|> what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
|>
|> Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
|>
|> 1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
|> reference frame with that of the Earth.
|>
|> 2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
|> thatthe observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the
|> position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
|> the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
|> time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon. Earth
|> rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
|> anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
|>
|> 3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL
|> equatorial coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because
|> the Earth rotates daily.
|>
|> 4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the
|> ELEVATION of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light
|> of the Sun (and stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF
|> PERTURBATIONS. One ofthe most important is the REFRACTION of the
|> light passing through atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so,
|> elevation angle at noon
|> CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
|> elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
|> locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
|> elevation in summer time.
|>
|> 5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in
|> the moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from
|> being at90 degrees respect to the Sun.
|>
|> ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
|>

Still laughing! :-D

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf

Post by rhertz
In ALL THESE CASES, and even today, the total calculation is based on
the influence of every planet on the precession of Mercury BY USING
GAUSS´S MODEL OF TORUS OF GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE by each planet on
Mercury.
KEEP THIS IN MIND: To calculate the gravitational influence of every
planet (and other celestial bodies) over Mercury for the lapse of 100
years IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN TODAY, with help of supercomputers. This would
require hundred of millions of calculations to be performed, slicing the
100 years in FRACTIONS of the orbital period of the fastest planet
(Mercury) and APPLIED TO THE SEGMENTED ORBIT OF THE REST OF THE PLANETS.

You don't need a supercomputer to make hundreds of millions of
calculations.
I have simulated the solar system for 10 thousand years,
and simulated the perihelion advance for all the planets.
It's done in 15 hours on my computer.
Hundreds of millions calculations is a GROSS underestimation!
https://paulba.no/Application.html
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/MercuryAdvance.pdf

Post by rhertz
At every step, a calculation of the perturbations of one planet over
each other HAS TO BE COMPUTED. Then, step by step, such result HAS TO BE
APPLIED as the input of the next step in parametric calculations. No
analytical expression can be written to contemplate this N-Body problem,
and the only way is to compute each influence step by step in a
supercomputer, which lead to almost infinite calculations for the 100
years period.

Quite.
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
See equations (11) to (20)
This calculation is done every 5. second true time.
That's 61.5 billion times to simulate 10 thousand years.
And this is not the calculation that costs most calculations.
To determine the point of perihelion, the distance planet-sun
has to be compared to the previous distance to find the minimum.
This has to be done for _all_ the planets.
My computer can make 150 billion flops/second.
So in 15 hours it can make 8100 terra flops.
You have to update you knowledge of what a modern computer,
which is NOT a supercomputer, can do!

Pathetic, Paul. Really pathetic.
But what to expect from a narcissist idiot like you?

You are IGNORANT, imbecile, deceiver, vain and arrogant IDIOT!

1) Your stupid, childish paper "Simulation of the solar system according
to GR", which you posted last year, is based on ISOLATED parameters for
Keplerian orbits and State Vectors (xyz position and velocity of
planets), which is available FOR FREE at the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
It only contemplates orbital parameters of each planet, DISMISSING the
influence of the other planets on the target planet. Any HS kid could
have done such a paper, and probably better, looking LESS IDIOTIC.

Here, go to gather more reliable data, imbecile. They resolve orbits of
planets, moon, comets and asteroids with less than 1 second resolution,
and over hundred of years. You can download Megabytes of data there:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/

2) You are completely IGNORANT of the tiny effects of the remaining
planets over Mercury's precession, which REQUIRES the impossible
solution of the 8-Body problem (even more with pseudo-planets). This
problem, I repeat, has no analytical solution and ONLY BY NUMERICAL
CALCULATIONS (which are recursive, due to the influence of one planet
over others) it could be APPROXIMATED.

To do such parametric calculations, the orbit of planets has to be
decomposed IN TEMPORAL SEGMENTS based on the Period of Mercury, over 100
years or more. Being the period of Mercury 87.97 days, units of temporal
calculations should be about 1 hour, during which Mercury moved 170,000
Km on his perimeter.

This represents 876,172 complex calculations upon Mercury over 100
years. Each calculation has to include first order (decoupled) and
second order calculations from the other 8 planets, including Pluto.
Each complex calculation involves 266,391,926 calculations, giving the
huge number of 233,405,146,750,829 parametric calculations over 100
years.

3) But such large number IS NOT ENOUGH. It only contemplates the
position and velocity (xyz state vectors) for Mercury's orbit over 100
years. NOW, it's necessary to contemplate the EFFECTS OVER PRECESSION.

Additional calculations, based on LRL (Laplace–Runge–Lenz) vector, have
to be applied to each instance, driving the number of total calculations
to ABSURDLY HUGE numbers.

Now, try to do the above with your fucking PC.

And more yet: LRL vector utilization is based on a CONTINUOUS FLOW OF
TIME, as it's based on the N-Body problem. This raise the number higher.

Learn something here, brute animal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector

https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/637.pdf

https://www.cds.caltech.edu/~marsden/wiki/uploads/projects/geomech/Alemicds205final.pdf



3) Regarding your own supercomputer of 150 GFlops/sec, I recommend
posting it in the site 500.org, because it's a beast.

It doubles the advertised power of Intel Core i7. But of course that you
know that this is THE INVERSE OF THE TIME FOR ADDING TWO NUMBERS, don't
you?

When multiplications and divisions are measured, the number of GFlops
drop 100 times. PLUS: to compute a formula, each operation with
variables has to be included so, for something so simple as Newton's law
of gravitation, the number of GFlops drop to MFlops, having you to
include the single line of code.

But you probably got a PC with Intel Core i9, in the range of TFlops.
Good luck with your electricity bill, as it get very, very hot. Later,
the uP cracks down.


I was going to attach some figures about the use of LRL in the
precession of Mercury, but you don't worth the effort.

You are a delusional, irrecoverable relativist who have no limits to
defend yourself by using DECEPTIVE INFORMATION. You even MANUFACTURE IT,
pretentious charlatan!

You never explained WHY do you sustain a website with your name, full of
published papers (I hope you have the CR authorizations), PLUS some
stupid papers of your own, which are A PLAGIARISM from other sources,
Einstein.


Is that you are a fucking vain, narcissist elder? Do you need that so
much?

Keep laughing, imbecile + ignorant + relativist (I don't know which name
is worse).

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
The use of Gauss' gravity torus IS A VERY GROSS CALCULATION: It consists
in replacing the hundred of millions of calculations per planet
(ignoring influence of the other planets) by a gravitational torus,
which is based in the replacement of orbits by A SINGLE TORUS, which
contemplate the gravitational influence as a replacement of punctual
orbital positions by a single torus along the orbit. It's about
replacing the Newton law of gravity (applied at each position of a
planet) by a SOLID TORUS with the equivalence of mass of the planet
SPREAD ALL OVER the orbit of it.

But it works quite well.

[rhertz]

I forgot. This is a gift:


Comparative study of Mercury´s perihelion advance
S. P. Pogossian1
Received: 27 December 2021

https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07301

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: At least Paul doesn't always have his nose up like most
relativists and tries somewhat to grapple with the criticisms. All he
has to do is presume that relativity makes any predictions to conclude
the experiments prove them.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
In ALL THESE CASES, and even today, the total calculation is based on
the influence of every planet on the precession of Mercury BY USING
GAUSS´S MODEL OF TORUS OF GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE by each planet on
Mercury.
KEEP THIS IN MIND: To calculate the gravitational influence of every
planet (and other celestial bodies) over Mercury for the lapse of 100
years IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN TODAY, with help of supercomputers. This would
require hundred of millions of calculations to be performed, slicing the
100 years in FRACTIONS of the orbital period of the fastest planet
(Mercury) and APPLIED TO THE SEGMENTED ORBIT OF THE REST OF THE PLANETS.

You don't need a supercomputer to make hundreds of millions of
calculations.
I have simulated the solar system for 10 thousand years,
and simulated the perihelion advance for all the planets.
It's done in 15 hours on my computer.
Hundreds of millions calculations is a GROSS underestimation!
https://paulba.no/Application.html
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/MercuryAdvance.pdf

Post by rhertz
At every step, a calculation of the perturbations of one planet over
each other HAS TO BE COMPUTED. Then, step by step, such result HAS TO BE
APPLIED as the input of the next step in parametric calculations. No
analytical expression can be written to contemplate this N-Body problem,
and the only way is to compute each influence step by step in a
supercomputer, which lead to almost infinite calculations for the 100
years period.

Quite.
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
See equations (11) to (20)
This calculation is done every 5. second true time.
That's 61.5 billion times to simulate 10 thousand years.
And this is not the calculation that costs most calculations.
To determine the point of perihelion, the distance planet-sun
has to be compared to the previous distance to find the minimum.
This has to be done for _all_ the planets.
My computer can make 150 billion flops/second.
So in 15 hours it can make 8100 terra flops.
You have to update you knowledge of what a modern computer,
which is NOT a supercomputer, can do!

Pathetic, Paul. Really pathetic.
But what to expect from a narcissist idiot like you?
You are IGNORANT, imbecile, deceiver, vain and arrogant IDIOT!

Your well formulated arguments are as lethal as always.
Well done, Richard. :-D

Post by rhertz
1) Your stupid, childish paper "Simulation of the solar system according
to GR", which you posted last year, is based on ISOLATED parameters for
Keplerian orbits and State Vectors (xyz position and velocity of
planets), which is available FOR FREE at the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
It only contemplates orbital parameters of each planet, DISMISSING the
influence of the other planets on the target planet. Any HS kid could
have done such a paper, and probably better, looking LESS IDIOTIC.

What are you talking about? :-D

A _simulation_ starts with finding the initial positions and velocities
of all the planets and Sun in the centre of gravity frame of reference
at a specific time, in this case EPOCH J2000.

Then the acceleration of each of the nine bodies
caused by the pull of the other 8 bodies, is calculated,
and the new velocity and position of each body is found.

As explained here:
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
See equations (11) to (20)

You can even see the code:
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/Code.pdf

Post by rhertz
Here, go to gather more reliable data, imbecile. They resolve orbits of
planets, moon, comets and asteroids with less than 1 second resolution,
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/

The data to find the initial positions and velocities:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Simon.pdf

"Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System"
A very reliable source of data.

Post by rhertz
2) You are completely IGNORANT of the tiny effects of the remaining
planets over Mercury's precession, which REQUIRES the impossible
solution of the 8-Body problem (even more with pseudo-planets). This
problem, I repeat, has no analytical solution and ONLY BY NUMERICAL
CALCULATIONS (which are recursive, due to the influence of one planet
over others) it could be APPROXIMATED.

You are so funny when you make a fool of yourself by demonstrating
that you haven't understood anything of what I have told you. :-D
It is not an analytical solution.

I have _simulated_ the precession of Mercury for 10 thousand years.
Here it is _again_:
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/MercuryAdvance.pdf

It's a nine body problem, and no problem to _simulate_.
Why do you believe it is impossible? :-D

The perihelion advance of Mercury is ~574"/century.
~73 "/century is caused by Sun, the rest ~501"/century
is caused by the pull from the other 7 planets.

Why do you find 501"/century to be a tiny effect?

Post by rhertz
To do such parametric calculations, the orbit of planets has to be
decomposed IN TEMPORAL SEGMENTS based on the Period of Mercury, over 100
years or more. Being the period of Mercury 87.97 days, units of temporal
calculations should be about 1 hour, during which Mercury moved 170,000
Km on his perimeter.
This represents 876,172 complex calculations upon Mercury over 100
years. Each calculation has to include first order (decoupled) and
second order calculations from the other 8 planets, including Pluto.
Each complex calculation involves 266,391,926 calculations, giving the
huge number of 233,405,146,750,829 parametric calculations over 100
years.
3) But such large number IS NOT ENOUGH. It only contemplates the
position and velocity (xyz state vectors) for Mercury's orbit over 100
years. NOW, it's necessary to contemplate the EFFECTS OVER PRECESSION.
Additional calculations, based on LRL (Laplace–Runge–Lenz) vector, have
to be applied to each instance, driving the number of total calculations
to ABSURDLY HUGE numbers.
Now, try to do the above with your fucking PC.

I _have_ done the simulation on my PC.

You have yet again made a fool of yourself by
claiming that it can't be done.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A _simulation_ starts with finding the initial positions and velocities
of all the planets and Sun in the centre of gravity frame of reference
at a specific time, in this case EPOCH J2000.
Then the acceleration of each of the nine bodies

Paul, poor idiot, according to the
teachings of your idiot guru there is
no acceleration there.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Now, try to do the above with your fucking PC.

I _have_ done the simulation on my PC.

And it had very little in common with the
idiocies of your idiot guru. It was assuming
3 euclidean coordinates, single time,
gravitational acceleration.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
3) Regarding your own supercomputer of 150 GFlops/sec, I recommend
posting it in the site 500.org, because it's a beast.
It doubles the advertised power of Intel Core i7. But of course that you
know that this is THE INVERSE OF THE TIME FOR ADDING TWO NUMBERS, don't
you?

My Intel Core i9-13900K can:
add 209 billion integer numbers per second
make 153 billion floating point operations (flops) per second

A "flop" is addition, subtraction, multiplication or division of
two floating point numbers.

Post by rhertz
When multiplications and divisions are measured, the number of GFlops
drop 100 times.

So you don't know what a floating point operation is.

If you had known something about floating point operations,
you would have known that an addition under certain conditions may
take longer time than a multiplication.

Post by rhertz
PLUS: to compute a formula, each operation with
variables has to be included so, for something so simple as Newton's law
of gravitation, the number of GFlops drop to MFlops, having you to
include the single line of code.
But you probably got a PC with Intel Core i9, in the range of TFlops.
Good luck with your electricity bill, as it get very, very hot. Later,
the uP cracks down.

I am now running the simulation.
The CPU is running at 5.5 GHz and the CPU temperature is 42⁰C.
I can't hear any noise from the fans.

The computer could run at this temperature for the rest of
my life without "cracking down".

Now I am running 8 instances of the simulation.
The CPU is running at 5.5 GHz and the CPU temperature is 64⁰C.
I can hear some noise from the fans, but not much.

Now I have stopped all the simulations.
The CPU is running at 1.1 GHz and the CPU temperature is 30⁰C.
Complete silence.

--------------

My power supply is 800 W, and its fan is hardly ever running.

I think I can afford the electricity bill.

Post by rhertz
I was going to attach some figures about the use of LRL in the
precession of Mercury, but you don't worth the effort.

Why should you? It's irrelevant.

Post by rhertz
You are a delusional, irrecoverable relativist who have no limits to
defend yourself by using DECEPTIVE INFORMATION. You even MANUFACTURE IT,
pretentious charlatan!

I am proud to be among the "relativist" you have to claim
are imbecile, ignorant, frauds.

Because if I am no fraud, you are wrong. Right! :-D

Post by rhertz
Keep laughing, imbecile + ignorant + relativist (I don't know which name
is worse).

I have a morbid sense of humour, and I find your fury hilarious. :-D
Please keep it up!

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

I've attached my previous results, but as I've stated, Paul's are
more accurate. The point is, you can perform N-body orbital
simulations even using a laptop computer that is several generations
old.

Disclaimer: My attached image wasn't of the simulation that included
a Gauss ring for the asteroids. I would have stated so in the
description if I had done so. Also, I think that this simulation used
RK4 rather than 6th order Yoshida, since I'm reasonably sure I would
have stated that I used Yoshida had I done so.

[rhertz]

I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.

I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY. You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's
not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities,
but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a
source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively.

On the other hand, simplifications used since Le Verrier and as of today
are based on Gauss gravitational torus (Le Verrier, Newcomb, Clemence,
etc.), which give almost the same numbers (with some "enhancements"):
575"/cy observed versus 532"/cy derived from theoretical calculations.
And all of them (due to Gauss simplifications) give an unexplained
difference of about 43"/cy, which (allegedly) Einstein verified
theoretically.

**************

All the time that I wrote about the HOAX on Mercury mystery, I was based
on the impossibility (analytical and numerical) to SOLVE THE N-BODY
PROBLEM, in order to include EVEN the slightest influence of one planet,
moon, etc., over ANY OTHER PLANET.

And that is BECAUSE applying Newton to the 9 planets has to account the
influence of every planet over every each other, which become a problem
of ALMOST INFINITE RECURSION. Starting with the two heavier planets, for
instance, requires computing the MUTUAL EFFECT on both planets from
their barycenter, to LATER apply the gravitational effect of the Sun on
each one, WHICH FORCES A NEW CALCULATION on the influence of one planet
over the other, AND SO ON. Where is the limit of such problem of
recursion?

Just take as an example the work of Lagrange on the 3-Body problem (Sun,
Earth, Moon). With all the efforts done by Lagrange, its solutions are
not final, because the Lagrangian points ARE NOT STEADY and have
complicated motions. It's accepted that, in the average, these motions
can be included in orbital calculations for spatial observatories, but
still there is not a conclusive solution. Not to mention IF another
perturbation, like Jupiter, is included.

So, my posture is that the adoption of the 562"/cy for Mercury's
perihelion advance IS AN APPROXIMATION, which gives the famous 43"/cy.

BUT, if the N-Body problem is included (instead of Gauss Torus), the
result of the general influence WILL NOT BE of 532"/cy (or 5.32"/year),
but MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT, bringing down the famous 43"/cy (WHICH HAVE
BEEN WRITTEN IN STONE, FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH OF PHYSICISTS).

Anyone questioning it is immediately labeled as a crank, crackpot, etc.

But there are voices of reason that question such result, which is one
of the PILLARS of the validity of the general relativity.

Here are some comments and papers that I searched for this post:

----------------------------
The N-body problem is considered unsolved, as of today. There are
solutions to special cases of the problem, such as when there are only
two bodies.
----------------------------
The many multiple (n-body) interactions have historically made any exact
solution intractable.
----------------------------
Why is an N-body system so unpredictable?
It remains an article of faith that such a statistical validity holds
for the Newtonian N-body problem (Heggie 1991). Chaos, however, leads to
unpredictability due to temporal discretization, round-off, and
uncertainty in the initial realization (Miller 1964).
-----------------------------
Why is the N-body problem unsolvable?
The bad news is that there are certain aspects of the n-body problem
which make it unlikely we could ever put a solution on a t-shirt:
collisions that are singularities, resonances when frequencies of
multiple bodies lead to instabilities, and the lack of enough constants
of motion to lead to simple answers.
------------------------------
The n-body problem, which involves predicting the individual motions of
a group of celestial bodies interacting with each other gravitationally,
is a complex issue in physics and mathematics. While the two-body
problem can be solved analytically, the n-body problem (for three or
more bodies) is generally not solvable in a straightforward analytical
way due to its chaotic nature.

Current Understanding and Approaches:

Numerical Methods: For practical purposes, scientists and
astronomers typically use numerical simulations to approximate solutions
to the n-body problem. These methods can provide highly accurate
predictions over limited time frames.
Special Cases: Certain special cases of the n-body problem can be
solved analytically. For example, the restricted three-body problem,
where one body has negligible mass, has known solutions.
Chaos Theory: The n-body problem is sensitive to initial conditions,
meaning small changes can lead to vastly different outcomes. This
chaotic behavior complicates long-term predictions.
Advancements in Computing: As computational power increases, more
complex simulations can be run, allowing for better approximations of
the n-body problem in various contexts (e.g., astrophysics, molecular
dynamics).
-----------------------------------
The N-body problem

https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4780668&fileOId=4780676

Abstract
The N-body problem has been studied for many centuries and is still of
interest in contemporary science. A lot of effort has gone into solving
this problem but it’s unlikely that a general solution will be found
with the mathematical tools we have today. We review some of the
progress that has been made over the centuries in solving it. We take a
look at the first integrals, existence of solutions and where
singularities can occur. We solve the two body problem and take
a look at the special case of central configurations. We find all the
possible three-body central configurations, which are known as Euler’s
and Lagrange’s solutions. When analytic solutions are missing it is
natural to use numerical methods.
-----------------------------------

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY. You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's
not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities,
but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a
source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively.
On the other hand, simplifications used since Le Verrier and as of today
are based on Gauss gravitational torus (Le Verrier, Newcomb, Clemence,
575"/cy observed versus 532"/cy derived from theoretical calculations.
And all of them (due to Gauss simplifications) give an unexplained
difference of about 43"/cy, which (allegedly) Einstein verified
theoretically.
**************
All the time that I wrote about the HOAX on Mercury mystery, I was based
on the impossibility (analytical and numerical) to SOLVE THE N-BODY
PROBLEM, in order to include EVEN the slightest influence of one planet,
moon, etc., over ANY OTHER PLANET.
And that is BECAUSE applying Newton to the 9 planets has to account the
influence of every planet over every each other, which become a problem
of ALMOST INFINITE RECURSION. Starting with the two heavier planets, for
instance, requires computing the MUTUAL EFFECT on both planets from
their barycenter, to LATER apply the gravitational effect of the Sun on
each one, WHICH FORCES A NEW CALCULATION on the influence of one planet
over the other, AND SO ON. Where is the limit of such problem of
recursion?
Just take as an example the work of Lagrange on the 3-Body problem (Sun,
Earth, Moon). With all the efforts done by Lagrange, its solutions are
not final, because the Lagrangian points ARE NOT STEADY and have
complicated motions. It's accepted that, in the average, these motions
can be included in orbital calculations for spatial observatories, but
still there is not a conclusive solution. Not to mention IF another
perturbation, like Jupiter, is included.
So, my posture is that the adoption of the 562"/cy for Mercury's
perihelion advance IS AN APPROXIMATION, which gives the famous 43"/cy.
BUT, if the N-Body problem is included (instead of Gauss Torus), the
result of the general influence WILL NOT BE of 532"/cy (or 5.32"/year),
but MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT, bringing down the famous 43"/cy (WHICH HAVE
BEEN WRITTEN IN STONE, FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH OF PHYSICISTS).
Anyone questioning it is immediately labeled as a crank, crackpot, etc.
But there are voices of reason that question such result, which is one
of the PILLARS of the validity of the general relativity.

[deleted quotes]

Your main point seems to be that the Gauss Ring approximation is
inaccurate, calling into question the 43"/century discrepancy that was
resolved by GR

The "naive" Gauss ring approximation, which uses circular, coplanar
rings with uniform distribution of mass around the ring, is indeed
rather inaccurate.

My simulation using coplanar rings with equal masses uniformly
distributed around the circumference gave results very close to the
analytic computation of 554 arcsec/century given in
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node44.html

However, my simulation using non-coplanar, elliptic rings with a
weighted distribution of masses gave results in close agreement with
the 532 arcsec/century figure given in
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node45.html

See my attached figure.

I would contend that Le Verrier Newcomb etc., confronted with a
discrepancy between theoretical and observed precessions, knew
better than to employ a naive Gauss ring computation.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I would contend that Le Verrier Newcomb etc., confronted with a
discrepancy between theoretical and observed precessions, knew
better than to employ a naive Gauss ring computation.

Note: In my "naive" Gauss ring simulation using circular, uniformly
weighted rings, the line representing accumulated precession over
time is completely straight. However, in a computation using
eccentric, weighted rings, the line is slightly curved. Over the
course of thousands of years, as Mercury's line of apsides works
its way around, the rate of precession estimated using a Gauss ring
approximation with eccentric, weighted rings will vary.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous justification."
This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian.

That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous justification."
This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian.
That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science.

One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was
close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.

This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar
system's influences.

The equation for Mercury's precession is, APPROXIMATELY:

5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy

This fundamental aspect of observational astronomy was, first, noticed
by Le Verrier (1842 - 1857), who WONDERED about the precession of
Mercury IF IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SUN'S CENTER OF REFERENCE.

Le Verrier invested more than 15 years in developing methods to
calculate the influence of each of the KNOWN PLANETS on Mercury's
perihelion shift.

As the base equations were non-linear, and involved elliptic integrals,
he decomposed them using series up to the 7th. power. He worked in
solitude, secluded in a house in the countryside. His efforts were
recognized by the French National Academy, which honored him soon after
his death.

He was THE FIRST to try this approach (Sun center as a reference), which
was followed BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1857.


The 5,025"/cy precession of Earth correspond to a cycle of 25,791 years
for a full revolution of 360 degrees (see attached figure).

Of the 575"/cy, Le Verrier could justify (theoretically) only 526.7"/cy,
being the remaining 48.3"/cy a mystery for him, and causing a storm of
theories to justify it (planet Vulcan, stellar dust, etc.).

I want TO REMARK that, until recently, ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND
MEASUREMENTS involved Earth's precession.


Unfortunately, the 5,025"/cy have been taken as AN ABSOLUTE TRUE, but
the fact is that observational astronomy has measured Mercury's
precession AS SEEN FROM EARTH, being ESTIMATED in 5,600"/cy.


The above HAS TO BE AN EYE OPENER for anybody, because the infamous
575"/cy value IS A PRODUCT OF A CALCULATION by astronomers, NOT A REAL
MEASUREMENT. With the technology available until recently, it was
impossible from astronomers being at Earth to measure such tiny
difference of 5.75"/year (or 575"/cy).

The PLOT THICKENS when you think that Newcomb (1898) or Clemence (1947)
kept working with A DIFFERENCE, assuming that they knew 100% the exact
value of Earth's precession.

Anyone analyzing this subject has to be aware of two facts:

1) The problem of Mercury's precession attracted very little attention
of astronomers since 1900. This issue GAINED RELEVANCE after WWII, when
the movement to promote the figure of Einstein gained momentum, until it
was UNBEARABLE in the 60s and 70s.

2) The table with the composition of the 575"/cy is what is widely
known, HIDING THE FACT that even such result comes from a DIFFERENCE
with the real observations of 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/cy.


CONCLUSION: A new factor has to be included in the uncertainties, which
is EARTH'S PRECESSION. The sum of all the effects is what was really
able to be measured UNTIL A FEW DECADES AGO.

Now, think and doubt about the missing 43"/cy. HOW REAL IS THIS VALUE?

What proved Einstein from 1913 to 1915? Read THE LOST 54 PAGES
MANUSCRIPT, that Besso kept until his death. You'll find some answers by
analyzing the 1913 Einstein-Besso approach to the problem.

[Python]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.

Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Python

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.
Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)

Not just 'not interpreted'.
A properly configured newsserver will reject them,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Python

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.
Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)

Not just 'not interpreted'.
A properly configured newsserver will reject them,
Jan

Oh, not necessarily, there's nothing with regards to standards
that says much anything about message-bodies at all.


Shows up fine here.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Python

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.
Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)

Not just 'not interpreted'.
A properly configured newsserver will reject them,
Jan

Oh, not necessarily, there's nothing with regards to standards
that says much anything about message-bodies at all.
Shows up fine here.

Nevertheless, although many newsreaders will display attachments,
many others will not. For greatest visibility, I will go back to
my old practice of uploading supplementary materials to Google
Drive rather than use attachments, despite their convenience.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Python

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.
Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)

Not just 'not interpreted'.
A properly configured newsserver will reject them,
Jan

Oh, not necessarily, there's nothing with regards to standards
that says much anything about message-bodies at all.
Shows up fine here.

Of couse, you are on giganews, which is a binary newsserver.
(and paying)
This is a text-only newsgroup.
Many servers carry nothing but text-only newsgroups.
They will reject anything that looks like binary content.

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous justification."
This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian.
That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science.

One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was
close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.
This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar
system's influences.
5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy
This fundamental aspect of observational astronomy was, first, noticed
by Le Verrier (1842 - 1857), who WONDERED about the precession of
Mercury IF IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SUN'S CENTER OF REFERENCE.
Le Verrier invested more than 15 years in developing methods to
calculate the influence of each of the KNOWN PLANETS on Mercury's
perihelion shift.
As the base equations were non-linear, and involved elliptic integrals,
he decomposed them using series up to the 7th. power. He worked in
solitude, secluded in a house in the countryside. His efforts were
recognized by the French National Academy, which honored him soon after
his death.
He was THE FIRST to try this approach (Sun center as a reference), which
was followed BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1857.
The 5,025"/cy precession of Earth correspond to a cycle of 25,791 years
for a full revolution of 360 degrees (see attached figure).
Of the 575"/cy, Le Verrier could justify (theoretically) only 526.7"/cy,
being the remaining 48.3"/cy a mystery for him, and causing a storm of
theories to justify it (planet Vulcan, stellar dust, etc.).
I want TO REMARK that, until recently, ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND
MEASUREMENTS involved Earth's precession.
Unfortunately, the 5,025"/cy have been taken as AN ABSOLUTE TRUE, but
the fact is that observational astronomy has measured Mercury's
precession AS SEEN FROM EARTH, being ESTIMATED in 5,600"/cy.
The above HAS TO BE AN EYE OPENER for anybody, because the infamous
575"/cy value IS A PRODUCT OF A CALCULATION by astronomers, NOT A REAL
MEASUREMENT. With the technology available until recently, it was
impossible from astronomers being at Earth to measure such tiny
difference of 5.75"/year (or 575"/cy).
The PLOT THICKENS when you think that Newcomb (1898) or Clemence (1947)
kept working with A DIFFERENCE, assuming that they knew 100% the exact
value of Earth's precession.
1) The problem of Mercury's precession attracted very little attention
of astronomers since 1900. This issue GAINED RELEVANCE after WWII, when
the movement to promote the figure of Einstein gained momentum, until it
was UNBEARABLE in the 60s and 70s.
2) The table with the composition of the 575"/cy is what is widely
known, HIDING THE FACT that even such result comes from a DIFFERENCE
with the real observations of 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/cy.
CONCLUSION: A new factor has to be included in the uncertainties, which
is EARTH'S PRECESSION. The sum of all the effects is what was really
able to be measured UNTIL A FEW DECADES AGO.
Now, think and doubt about the missing 43"/cy. HOW REAL IS THIS VALUE?
What proved Einstein from 1913 to 1915? Read THE LOST 54 PAGES
MANUSCRIPT, that Besso kept until his death. You'll find some answers by
analyzing the 1913 Einstein-Besso approach to the problem.

Polaris, you mean, "The Hearth"?

This is about that, the axial position, Sol's, and Earth's,
to Polaris, vis-a-vis, Sol's, and Earth's, to a different
north star, is meaningful in celestial dynamics, moreso than
the merely its epochal immobility, also with regards to
interstellar flux, immobile, vis-a-vis traveling, the planets.


Also it's to be kept in mind that man's motions about the
Earth, though miniscule, are not inconsequential.


There's not ignored Jupiter as with regards to for example
the "Cradle", usually enough with regards to the Babylonian,
about the astronoeisis.


Lots of people including some quantum spin foam analysts
find that a Fatio/LeSage theory of gravitation is the best
explanation of the mechanism.

The idea that Sol is basically an outlet of the North Star
in a sort of lattice of stars, is an astronomical theory
what precedes antiquity.

There's a book by R. Newton called "Ancient Planetary Observations
and the Validity of Ephemeris Time".

Polaris the Pole-Star or Pollaris or "Pul" or "Bil", the
Allen's "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" has "... there
is no certainty as to which was intended, for it should be
remembered that during many milleniums the polar point has
gradually been approach our pole-star, which 2000 years ago
was far removed from it, ... Miss Clerke writes as to this:
The entire millenium before the Christian era may count as
an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha Draconis had
ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah had not yet
assumed it."



Picked up a copy of "The Evolution of Physics: The
Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics", maybe that will help.

Recently or a year or two ago now there was a great
survey of results the experiments and settings and
their configurations and energies, establishing
"validating" relativity, as with regards to the
wider surrounds, a Mach-ian or total theory,
as with regards to varieties of aether theory,
complementing completions in relativity theory,
which of course must be mathematical and needn't
admit partial, incomplete linearisations.

I.e. "aether theory" usually reintroduces itself,
then as with regards to Fatio/LeSage style theories
of the gravitic, as rather, the gravific.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous justification."
This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian.
That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science.

One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was
close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.
This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar
system's influences.
5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy
This fundamental aspect of observational astronomy was, first, noticed
by Le Verrier (1842 - 1857), who WONDERED about the precession of
Mercury IF IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SUN'S CENTER OF REFERENCE.
Le Verrier invested more than 15 years in developing methods to
calculate the influence of each of the KNOWN PLANETS on Mercury's
perihelion shift.
As the base equations were non-linear, and involved elliptic integrals,
he decomposed them using series up to the 7th. power. He worked in
solitude, secluded in a house in the countryside. His efforts were
recognized by the French National Academy, which honored him soon after
his death.
He was THE FIRST to try this approach (Sun center as a reference), which
was followed BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1857.
The 5,025"/cy precession of Earth correspond to a cycle of 25,791 years
for a full revolution of 360 degrees (see attached figure).
Of the 575"/cy, Le Verrier could justify (theoretically) only 526.7"/cy,
being the remaining 48.3"/cy a mystery for him, and causing a storm of
theories to justify it (planet Vulcan, stellar dust, etc.).
I want TO REMARK that, until recently, ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND
MEASUREMENTS involved Earth's precession.
Unfortunately, the 5,025"/cy have been taken as AN ABSOLUTE TRUE, but
the fact is that observational astronomy has measured Mercury's
precession AS SEEN FROM EARTH, being ESTIMATED in 5,600"/cy.
The above HAS TO BE AN EYE OPENER for anybody, because the infamous
575"/cy value IS A PRODUCT OF A CALCULATION by astronomers, NOT A REAL
MEASUREMENT. With the technology available until recently, it was
impossible from astronomers being at Earth to measure such tiny
difference of 5.75"/year (or 575"/cy).
The PLOT THICKENS when you think that Newcomb (1898) or Clemence (1947)
kept working with A DIFFERENCE, assuming that they knew 100% the exact
value of Earth's precession.
1) The problem of Mercury's precession attracted very little attention
of astronomers since 1900. This issue GAINED RELEVANCE after WWII, when
the movement to promote the figure of Einstein gained momentum, until it
was UNBEARABLE in the 60s and 70s.
2) The table with the composition of the 575"/cy is what is widely
known, HIDING THE FACT that even such result comes from a DIFFERENCE
with the real observations of 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/cy.
CONCLUSION: A new factor has to be included in the uncertainties, which
is EARTH'S PRECESSION. The sum of all the effects is what was really
able to be measured UNTIL A FEW DECADES AGO.
Now, think and doubt about the missing 43"/cy. HOW REAL IS THIS VALUE?
What proved Einstein from 1913 to 1915? Read THE LOST 54 PAGES
MANUSCRIPT, that Besso kept until his death. You'll find some answers by
analyzing the 1913 Einstein-Besso approach to the problem.

Polaris, you mean, "The Hearth"?
This is about that, the axial position, Sol's, and Earth's,
to Polaris, vis-a-vis, Sol's, and Earth's, to a different
north star, is meaningful in celestial dynamics, moreso than
the merely its epochal immobility, also with regards to
interstellar flux, immobile, vis-a-vis traveling, the planets.
Also it's to be kept in mind that man's motions about the
Earth, though miniscule, are not inconsequential.
There's not ignored Jupiter as with regards to for example
the "Cradle", usually enough with regards to the Babylonian,
about the astronoeisis.
Lots of people including some quantum spin foam analysts
find that a Fatio/LeSage theory of gravitation is the best
explanation of the mechanism.
The idea that Sol is basically an outlet of the North Star
in a sort of lattice of stars, is an astronomical theory
what precedes antiquity.
There's a book by R. Newton called "Ancient Planetary Observations
and the Validity of Ephemeris Time".
Polaris the Pole-Star or Pollaris or "Pul" or "Bil", the
Allen's "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" has "... there
is no certainty as to which was intended, for it should be
remembered that during many milleniums the polar point has
gradually been approach our pole-star, which 2000 years ago
The entire millenium before the Christian era may count as
an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha Draconis had
ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah had not yet
assumed it."
Picked up a copy of "The Evolution of Physics: The
Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics", maybe that will help.
Recently or a year or two ago now there was a great
survey of results the experiments and settings and
their configurations and energies, establishing
"validating" relativity, as with regards to the
wider surrounds, a Mach-ian or total theory,
as with regards to varieties of aether theory,
complementing completions in relativity theory,
which of course must be mathematical and needn't
admit partial, incomplete linearisations.
I.e. "aether theory" usually reintroduces itself,
then as with regards to Fatio/LeSage style theories
of the gravitic, as rather, the gravific.

You might as well ask "for what planets is Sol their pole-star?".

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: It says Gauss's torus method has "no rigorous
justification."
This means 43" could easily be purely Newtonian.
That article shows that Einstein was not in a position to cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" of Newtonian science.

One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was
close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.
This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar
system's influences.
5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy
This fundamental aspect of observational astronomy was, first, noticed
by Le Verrier (1842 - 1857), who WONDERED about the precession of
Mercury IF IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SUN'S CENTER OF REFERENCE.
Le Verrier invested more than 15 years in developing methods to
calculate the influence of each of the KNOWN PLANETS on Mercury's
perihelion shift.
As the base equations were non-linear, and involved elliptic integrals,
he decomposed them using series up to the 7th. power. He worked in
solitude, secluded in a house in the countryside. His efforts were
recognized by the French National Academy, which honored him soon after
his death.
He was THE FIRST to try this approach (Sun center as a reference), which
was followed BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1857.
The 5,025"/cy precession of Earth correspond to a cycle of 25,791 years
for a full revolution of 360 degrees (see attached figure).
Of the 575"/cy, Le Verrier could justify (theoretically) only 526.7"/cy,
being the remaining 48.3"/cy a mystery for him, and causing a storm of
theories to justify it (planet Vulcan, stellar dust, etc.).
I want TO REMARK that, until recently, ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND
MEASUREMENTS involved Earth's precession.
Unfortunately, the 5,025"/cy have been taken as AN ABSOLUTE TRUE, but
the fact is that observational astronomy has measured Mercury's
precession AS SEEN FROM EARTH, being ESTIMATED in 5,600"/cy.
The above HAS TO BE AN EYE OPENER for anybody, because the infamous
575"/cy value IS A PRODUCT OF A CALCULATION by astronomers, NOT A REAL
MEASUREMENT. With the technology available until recently, it was
impossible from astronomers being at Earth to measure such tiny
difference of 5.75"/year (or 575"/cy).
The PLOT THICKENS when you think that Newcomb (1898) or Clemence (1947)
kept working with A DIFFERENCE, assuming that they knew 100% the exact
value of Earth's precession.
1) The problem of Mercury's precession attracted very little attention
of astronomers since 1900. This issue GAINED RELEVANCE after WWII, when
the movement to promote the figure of Einstein gained momentum, until it
was UNBEARABLE in the 60s and 70s.
2) The table with the composition of the 575"/cy is what is widely
known, HIDING THE FACT that even such result comes from a DIFFERENCE
with the real observations of 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/cy.
CONCLUSION: A new factor has to be included in the uncertainties, which
is EARTH'S PRECESSION. The sum of all the effects is what was really
able to be measured UNTIL A FEW DECADES AGO.
Now, think and doubt about the missing 43"/cy. HOW REAL IS THIS VALUE?
What proved Einstein from 1913 to 1915? Read THE LOST 54 PAGES
MANUSCRIPT, that Besso kept until his death. You'll find some answers by
analyzing the 1913 Einstein-Besso approach to the problem.

Polaris, you mean, "The Hearth"?
This is about that, the axial position, Sol's, and Earth's,
to Polaris, vis-a-vis, Sol's, and Earth's, to a different
north star, is meaningful in celestial dynamics, moreso than
the merely its epochal immobility, also with regards to
interstellar flux, immobile, vis-a-vis traveling, the planets.
Also it's to be kept in mind that man's motions about the
Earth, though miniscule, are not inconsequential.
There's not ignored Jupiter as with regards to for example
the "Cradle", usually enough with regards to the Babylonian,
about the astronoeisis.
Lots of people including some quantum spin foam analysts
find that a Fatio/LeSage theory of gravitation is the best
explanation of the mechanism.
The idea that Sol is basically an outlet of the North Star
in a sort of lattice of stars, is an astronomical theory
what precedes antiquity.
There's a book by R. Newton called "Ancient Planetary Observations
and the Validity of Ephemeris Time".
Polaris the Pole-Star or Pollaris or "Pul" or "Bil", the
Allen's "Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning" has "... there
is no certainty as to which was intended, for it should be
remembered that during many milleniums the polar point has
gradually been approach our pole-star, which 2000 years ago
The entire millenium before the Christian era may count as
an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha Draconis had
ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah had not yet
assumed it."
Picked up a copy of "The Evolution of Physics: The
Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics", maybe that will help.
Recently or a year or two ago now there was a great
survey of results the experiments and settings and
their configurations and energies, establishing
"validating" relativity, as with regards to the
wider surrounds, a Mach-ian or total theory,
as with regards to varieties of aether theory,
complementing completions in relativity theory,
which of course must be mathematical and needn't
admit partial, incomplete linearisations.
I.e. "aether theory" usually reintroduces itself,
then as with regards to Fatio/LeSage style theories
of the gravitic, as rather, the gravific.

You might as well ask "for what planets is Sol their pole-star?".

A nice article on the solar system's pole-stars:

https://oikofuge.com/pole-stars-of-other-planets/

An article about WR 104:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Here is a good article you may like on the refraction
explanation of the delay.
"Shapiro Time Delay derivates from Refraction" = by Serret

"7. CONCLUSION
The Shapiro delay decreases logarithmically
as a function of the distance to the Sun. But
the only measurements accessible to the
public are those made according to the
observation days, which does not make it
possible to verify with precision the Shapiro
delay as a function of a distance to the Sun.
And if the relativistic explanation by
deformation of the space-time is generally
accepted, it can be criticized for for its
various equations and it is criticized by some
for its possible variation according to the
wavelength.
We can then advance another explanation:
the solar corona being necessarily surrounded
by gas, this slight presence of gas would be
enough to generate a phenomenon of
refraction. The decay curve would be
logarithmic as well. Far from the Sun, an
exponential decay of the concentration (as for
the Earth's atmosphere) would explain that
most of the measurements are less than 40 μs.
The best way to make sure of this possible
refraction phenomenon is to measure the
Shapiro delay as a function of the distance to
the Sun and especially as a function of
frequency, i.e. with radar waves and with
radio waves."

Also: "The Shapiro Delay: A Frequency Dependent Transit-Time Effect"
Edward H. Dowdye, Jr

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by rhertz
One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was
close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.

Don't be ridiculous.
That the precession of the perihelion of Mercury relative to
the moving equinox is in the order of 5,600"/cy will chock no one.

Post by rhertz
This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar
system's influences.

This is nonsense.
The precession of the equinoxes was discovered by Hipparcos 130 BC.
It is in principle quite simple to measure, by observing the motion
of the Vernal point between two consecutive vernal equinoxes.
The vernal point will move ~50"/year.

Post by rhertz
5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy

https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf (1947)

According to Clemence what he calls "General precession"
at EPOCH J1850 was 5025.645"/cy.

The observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury was
5599.74±0.41"/cy relative to the moving equinox.

So according to Clemens, the total precession of the perihelion
of Mercury was: 5599.74"/cy - 5025.645"/cy = 574.095"/cy

The current value for the precession of the equinoxes is:
5,028.796195"/cy

With this value, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
will be 570.94"/cy

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Then, the total time for Mercury's apsidal precession is 225,783 years
compared with Earth's 112,000.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

Of course IT DID NOT!

The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its brightness and colors.


PURE COMMON SENSE: IF NO UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE EXISTED BY THE
TIME OF HIPPARCOS, ON WHAT BASIS AFFIRMATIONS LIKE THAT "HIPPARCOS WAS
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA TO MEASURE STARLIGHT DEFLECTION WITH PRECISION IN
THE ORDER OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS"?

The OBVIOUS ANSWER is that IT COULDN'T BE DONE IN THE 90s, because prior
to HIPPARCOS, the "absolute position" of each of the 100,000 stars WAS
UNKNOWN with accuracy with such absurd accuracy (1/200 of 1 arcsecond).
So, this is worse than the problem of the chicken and the egg.

Worse yet: Years after the download and post-processing of about 100 GB
collected by HIPPARCOS, a catalogue was published WITH MANUAL
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS of star's positions and proper lateral motion.

AND THIS IS CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING! THIS IS FRAUD, A MASSIVE ONE!

READ THIS:


AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity. MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to
the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the
PPN formalism.

THIS MEANS THAT RESULTS WERE FORGED BY RELATIVISTS, USING THEORETICAL
MODELS OF RELATIVITY (PPN).

It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE that HIPPARCOS COULD MEASURE ANY EFFECT
DUE TO RELATIVITY. Raw data, once downloaded, was post-processed HEAVILY
by using the BEST SUITABLE statistical algorithms, which took years to
compute. And the MAJOR ASPECT is that the REFERENCE FRAME that was used,
by 1990, is A THEORETICAL





HOW WAS CREATED A GALACTIC FRAME OF REFERENCE, TO DEFINE POSITIONS OF
STARS?

NO VALID FRAME OF REFERENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE 90s, THEN ESA INVENTED
ONE: The Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF), taking care about
it to be closely related to the International Celestial Reference Frame
(ICRF), based on more than 200 extragalactic sources.

With the HIPPARCOS successor, GAIA, a new reference frame was created by
ESA: Gaia-CRF. So, now there are TWO reference frames, competing one
with each other.

In August 1997, the International Astronomical Union resolved in
Resolution B2 of its XXIIIrd General Assembly "that the Hipparcos
Catalogue shall be the primary realization of the ICRS at optical
wavelengths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations


The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues were constructed such that the
resulting Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF) coincides, to
within observational uncertainties, with the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF), and representing the best estimates at the time
of the catalogue completion (in 1996).





QUOTE FROM ESA:
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPPARCOS is an acronym for "HIgh Precision PArallax COllecting
Satellite".

It was the very first space mission for measuring the RELATIVE
positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars for
astrometry.

The intended goal was to measure the FIVE ASTROMETRIC PARAMETERS of some
120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec,
over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and
two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the
Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.
......................
The directions and motions of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue are
precise to about one milli-arcsecond, or a quarter of a millionth of a
degree.
-------------------------------------------------------

THE COMMENT ABOUT THAT HIPPARCOS HELPED TO PROVE GR AS A PART OF ITS
MISSION IS FALSE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MISSION AT ESA
AND NASA SITE, DECADES AFTER HIPPARCOS PROJECT FINISHED.

THE DEEP AND DARK HAND OF RELATIVISTS IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE, REWRITING
HISTORY TO DRIVE EINSTEIN'S FIGURE AND RELATIVITY UP TO THE SKY.

BUT IT'S ALL A LIE, AN HOAX!

NOW, IF YOU HAVE A JOB ON THESE SUBJECTS, TRY TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE
ASSERTIONS AND TELL ME HOW DID IT WORK FOR YOU.


YOU WOULD BE CANCELLED ASAP!


FUCK RELATIVISTS AND THEIR SINISTER AGENDA.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: That is very interesting and informative, and I am inclined
to agree, especially since my own conjecture requires that light not be
affected by gravity. As usual, it looks like confirmation bias, as bad
as Freud's. The relativists here really do not make an effective defense
of relativity. The more I study it, the more erroneous it becomes.
Instead, they defend it as ideologues defend ideologies. I'm watching a
good video you may like: "This Single Rule Underpins All of Physics"

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by rhertz
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity. MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending

:))) General relativistic light bending,
you say...

Poincare has been trying to explain: it's much
more convenient to assume Euclid geometry
and light bending than non-Euclidean fartings
and straight light.

Poincare was right. And while The Shit's
doggies for some mad ideological reason
officially insist on the former, they
really rely on Euclid. Their "relativistic
(sic!) light bending" demonstrates it clearly.

Even them are not stupid enough to follow
the madness of their idiot guru. They babble
about alleged great triumphs of The General
Shit, but what really stands behind these
triumphs is - always the same, good, old
Euclid, officially banned by it.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its  brightness and colors.

Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
Change in the distances between the stars can be caused by:
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.

Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
to find:
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.

About the last:
Imagine a star in the ecliptic plane.
When the angle star-Sun is 180⁰ the deflection is zero.
When the angle star-Sun is 90⁰ the deflection is 4 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 45⁰ the deflection is 12 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 30⁰ the deflection is 15 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 15⁰ the deflection is 31 mas

This means that the change of stellar position due to
gravitational deflection is observable, even at angles
star-sun ≥ 90⁰

Post by rhertz
PURE COMMON SENSE: IF NO UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE EXISTED BY THE
TIME OF HIPPARCOS, ON WHAT BASIS AFFIRMATIONS LIKE THAT "HIPPARCOS WAS
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA TO MEASURE STARLIGHT DEFLECTION WITH PRECISION IN
THE ORDER OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS"?

Of course there was celestial frames of reference before HIPPARCOS.
The most used in star catalogues was (is) a solar centred equatorial
system. The position is given in declination (the angle from the
equatorial plane) and Right ascension (the angle from the Vernal
equinox).

Post by rhertz
The OBVIOUS ANSWER is that IT COULDN'T BE DONE IN THE 90s, because prior
to HIPPARCOS, the "absolute position" of each of the 100,000 stars WAS
UNKNOWN with accuracy with such absurd accuracy (1/200 of 1 arcsecond).
So, this is worse than the problem of the chicken and the egg.

So HIPPARCOS couldn't determine the positions of the stars to within
few mas because the positions of the stars were not known to that
precision? :-D

Impressive logic! :-D

Post by rhertz
Worse yet: Years after the download and post-processing of about 100 GB
collected by HIPPARCOS, a catalogue was published WITH MANUAL
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS of star's positions and proper lateral motion.
AND THIS IS CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING! THIS IS FRAUD, A MASSIVE ONE!
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity.

Of course the positions had to be corrected for stellar aberration,
and the relevant speed is HIPPARCOS' speed relative to the Sun.
The difference between "Newtonian" and "relativistic" stellar aberration
is negligible. The former is arctan(v/c) while the latter is arcsin(v/c)
where v is the observer's speed relative to the Sun. The speed of the
Earth is ~1e-4⋅c, and the speed of the satellite is of the same order.
arctan(1e-4) = 20.62648055595", arcsin(1e-4) = 20.6264806590871",
the difference is ~1e-7 arcsec or 0.0001 mas.

Post by rhertz
MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to
the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the
PPN formalism.

Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.

It was _measured_, not assumed.

Post by rhertz
THIS MEANS THAT RESULTS WERE FORGED BY RELATIVISTS, USING THEORETICAL
MODELS OF RELATIVITY (PPN).
It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE that HIPPARCOS COULD MEASURE ANY EFFECT
DUE TO RELATIVITY. Raw data, once downloaded, was post-processed HEAVILY
by using the BEST SUITABLE statistical algorithms, which took years to
compute. And the MAJOR ASPECT is that the REFERENCE FRAME that was used,
by 1990, is A THEORETICAL
HOW WAS CREATED A GALACTIC FRAME OF REFERENCE, TO DEFINE POSITIONS OF
STARS?
NO VALID FRAME OF REFERENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE 90s, THEN ESA INVENTED
ONE: The Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF), taking care about
it to be closely related to the International Celestial Reference Frame
(ICRF), based on more than 200 extragalactic sources.

Of course there were frames of reference available before 1990,
as explained above.
But a solar centred frame of reference is not inertial, because
the sun is accelerated by the pull from the planets.
That's why "The International Celestial Reference System" (ICRS)
has the barycentre of the solar system as centre.
And the reference direction is given by the direction to several
very distant radio sources (quasars, etc.) This directions are
measured with the VLBA array of radio telescopes, to a precision ~1 mas.

So ICRS is an inertial, non rotating frame of reference.

Post by rhertz
With the HIPPARCOS successor, GAIA, a new reference frame was created by
ESA: Gaia-CRF. So, now there are TWO reference frames, competing one
with each other.

There are several.
The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS)
Hipparcos Celestial Reference Frame (HCRF)
Second Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF2)
Third Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF3)

But they are not competing. The difference is
mostly how the directions to the distant reference objects
are measured.

Post by rhertz
In August 1997, the International Astronomical Union resolved in
Resolution B2 of its XXIIIrd General Assembly "that the Hipparcos
Catalogue shall be the primary realization of the ICRS at optical
wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues were constructed such that the
resulting Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF) coincides, to
within observational uncertainties, with the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF), and representing the best estimates at the time
of the catalogue completion (in 1996).
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPPARCOS is an acronym for "HIgh Precision PArallax COllecting
Satellite".
It was the very first space mission for measuring the RELATIVE
positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars for
astrometry.
The intended goal was to measure the FIVE ASTROMETRIC PARAMETERS of some
120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec,
over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and
two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the
Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.
......................
The directions and motions of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue are
precise to about one milli-arcsecond, or a quarter of a millionth of a
degree.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE COMMENT ABOUT THAT HIPPARCOS HELPED TO PROVE GR AS A PART OF ITS
MISSION IS FALSE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MISSION AT ESA
AND NASA SITE, DECADES AFTER HIPPARCOS PROJECT FINISHED.

Of course "proving GR" was not part of Hipparcos mission!
In 1989 all the astronomers (and physicists) took GR for granted,
no costly project will ever be done to test GR. It's settled!

But since the HIPPARCOS had produced a lot of data, a byproduct
is that GR's prediction for gravitational deflection can be tested.

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf

Post by rhertz
THE DEEP AND DARK HAND OF RELATIVISTS IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE, REWRITING
HISTORY TO DRIVE EINSTEIN'S FIGURE AND RELATIVITY UP TO THE SKY.
BUT IT'S ALL A LIE, AN HOAX!
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A JOB ON THESE SUBJECTS, TRY TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE
ASSERTIONS AND TELL ME HOW DID IT WORK FOR YOU.
YOU WOULD BE CANCELLED ASAP!
FUCK RELATIVISTS AND THEIR SINISTER AGENDA.

Well shouted, Richard. :-D

I am sure the astronomers will be very embarrassed when
you have disclosed their fraud.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its  brightness and colors.

Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.

3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. An annual change in position.
.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.
Imagine a star in the ecliptic plane.
When the angle star-Sun is 180⁰ the deflection is zero.
When the angle star-Sun is 90⁰ the deflection is 4 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 45⁰ the deflection is 12 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 30⁰ the deflection is 15 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 15⁰ the deflection is 31 mas
This means that the change of stellar position due to
gravitational deflection is observable, even at angles
star-sun ≥ 90⁰

Post by rhertz
PURE COMMON SENSE: IF NO UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE EXISTED BY THE
TIME OF HIPPARCOS, ON WHAT BASIS AFFIRMATIONS LIKE THAT "HIPPARCOS WAS
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA TO MEASURE STARLIGHT DEFLECTION WITH PRECISION IN
THE ORDER OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS"?

Of course there was celestial frames of reference before HIPPARCOS.
The most used in star catalogues was (is) a solar centred equatorial
system. The position is given in declination (the angle from the
equatorial plane) and Right ascension (the angle from the Vernal
equinox).

Post by rhertz
The OBVIOUS ANSWER is that IT COULDN'T BE DONE IN THE 90s, because prior
to HIPPARCOS, the "absolute position" of each of the 100,000 stars WAS
UNKNOWN with accuracy with such absurd accuracy (1/200 of 1 arcsecond).
So, this is worse than the problem of the chicken and the egg.

So HIPPARCOS couldn't determine the positions of the stars to within
few mas because the positions of the stars were not known to that
precision? :-D
Impressive logic! :-D

Post by rhertz
Worse yet: Years after the download and post-processing of about 100 GB
collected by HIPPARCOS, a catalogue was published WITH MANUAL
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS of star's positions and proper lateral motion.
AND THIS IS CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING! THIS IS FRAUD, A MASSIVE ONE!
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity.

Of course the positions had to be corrected for stellar aberration,
and the relevant speed is HIPPARCOS' speed relative to the Sun.
The difference between "Newtonian" and "relativistic" stellar aberration
is negligible. The former is arctan(v/c) while the latter is arcsin(v/c)
where v is the observer's speed relative to the Sun. The speed of the
Earth is ~1e-4⋅c, and the speed of the satellite is of the same order.
arctan(1e-4) = 20.62648055595", arcsin(1e-4) = 20.6264806590871",
the difference is ~1e-7 arcsec or 0.0001 mas.

Post by rhertz
MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to
the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the
PPN formalism.

Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.

When the position of a star was known at different times of the year,
the difference could be caused by gravitational deflection or parallax.
I combination with the position of the Sun, the two can be separated.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
It was _measured_, not assumed.

Post by rhertz
THIS MEANS THAT RESULTS WERE FORGED BY RELATIVISTS, USING THEORETICAL
MODELS OF RELATIVITY (PPN).
It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE that HIPPARCOS COULD MEASURE ANY EFFECT
DUE TO RELATIVITY. Raw data, once downloaded, was post-processed HEAVILY
by using the BEST SUITABLE statistical algorithms, which took years to
compute. And the MAJOR ASPECT is that the REFERENCE FRAME that was used,
by 1990, is A THEORETICAL
HOW WAS CREATED A GALACTIC FRAME OF REFERENCE, TO DEFINE POSITIONS OF
STARS?
NO VALID FRAME OF REFERENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE 90s, THEN ESA INVENTED
ONE: The Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF), taking care about
it to be closely related to the International Celestial Reference Frame
(ICRF), based on more than 200 extragalactic sources.

Of course there were frames of reference available before 1990,
as explained above.
But a solar centred frame of reference is not inertial, because
the sun is accelerated by the pull from the planets.
That's why "The International Celestial Reference System" (ICRS)
has the barycentre of the solar system as centre.
And the reference direction is given by the direction to several
very distant radio sources (quasars, etc.) This directions are
measured with the VLBA array of radio telescopes, to a precision ~1 mas.
So ICRS is an inertial, non rotating frame of reference.

Post by rhertz
With the HIPPARCOS successor, GAIA, a new reference frame was created by
ESA: Gaia-CRF. So, now there are TWO reference frames, competing one
with each other.

There are several.
The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS)
Hipparcos Celestial Reference Frame (HCRF)
Second Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF2)
Third Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF3)
But they are not competing. The difference is
mostly how the directions to the distant reference objects
are measured.

Post by rhertz
In August 1997, the International Astronomical Union resolved in
Resolution B2 of its XXIIIrd General Assembly "that the Hipparcos
Catalogue shall be the primary realization of the ICRS at optical
wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues were constructed such that the
resulting Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF) coincides, to
within observational uncertainties, with the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF), and representing the best estimates at the time
of the catalogue completion (in 1996).
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPPARCOS is an acronym for "HIgh Precision PArallax COllecting
Satellite".
It was the very first space mission for measuring the RELATIVE
positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars for
astrometry.
The intended goal was to measure the FIVE ASTROMETRIC PARAMETERS of some
120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec,
over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and
two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the
Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.
......................
The directions and motions of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue are
precise to about one milli-arcsecond, or a quarter of a millionth of a
degree.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE COMMENT ABOUT THAT HIPPARCOS HELPED TO PROVE GR AS A PART OF ITS
MISSION IS FALSE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MISSION AT ESA
AND NASA SITE, DECADES AFTER HIPPARCOS PROJECT FINISHED.

Of course "proving GR" was not part of Hipparcos mission!
In 1989 all the astronomers (and physicists) took GR for granted,
no costly project will ever be done to test GR. It's settled!
But since the HIPPARCOS had produced a lot of data, a byproduct
is that GR's prediction for gravitational deflection can be tested.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf

Post by rhertz
THE DEEP AND DARK HAND OF RELATIVISTS IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE, REWRITING
HISTORY TO DRIVE EINSTEIN'S FIGURE AND RELATIVITY UP TO THE SKY.
BUT IT'S ALL A LIE, AN HOAX!
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A JOB ON THESE SUBJECTS, TRY TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE
ASSERTIONS AND TELL ME HOW DID IT WORK FOR YOU.
YOU WOULD BE CANCELLED ASAP!
FUCK RELATIVISTS AND THEIR SINISTER AGENDA.

Well shouted, Richard. :-D
I am sure the astronomers will be very embarrassed when
you have disclosed their fraud.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its  brightness and colors.

Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.
Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.

..and their displacements due to stellar aberration. The precision of
Hipparcos's measurements were such that stars even a fraction of a
degree different in declination would follow measurably different
Bradley ellipses (or rather, overlapping Bradley ellipses from the
spacecraft's orbit around the Sun and its orbit around the Earth.)

The global displacements due to stellar aberration and gravitational
deflection, and the individual displacements due to parallax and
proper motion all needed to be taken in account.

Hipparcos' mission was most decidedly NOT to "prove relativity right".
Rather, adjustments of stars' measured positions due to general
relativistic effects were among the corrections necessary to minimize
the residuals. Otherwise it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to combine the
data measured over a period of years into a consistent map.

======================================================================

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
It was _measured_, not assumed.

I would put it somewhat differently. Gravitational deflection was
_corrected for_, otherwise the data simply wouldn't make sense.

Sort of like, particle accelerators don't measure special
relativistic effects. Rather, special relativistic effects must be
taken into account, otherwise analysis of particle trajectories
don't make sense.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

...and their displacements due to stellar aberration. The precision of
Hipparcos's measurements were such that stars even a fraction of a
degree different in declination would follow measurably different
Bradley ellipses (or rather, overlapping Bradley ellipses from the
spacecraft's orbit around the Sun and its orbit around the Earth.)

The field of view of the Hipparcos telescope is about 0.9 degrees.

At the poles, the Bradley ellipse of a star from the orbit of Earth
around the Sun is a circle of radius 20" while at the equator, it is
a straight back and forth line. So you can handwave guesstimate that
there might be approximately 0.1" difference in semi-minor axis of
the Bradley ellipse of stars at the center versus the edge of the
Hipparcos telescope's field of view resulting from the Earth's orbit
around the Sun, depending on the direction that it is pointing.

Hipparcos never reached its originally intended geostationary orbit,
so the Bradley "ellipse" from its orbit around the Earth is sort of
wierdly shaped, with sections corresponding to a semi-major axis of
0.6" (at apogee) to 2.5" (at perigee). Differential aberration from
this source would be superimposed on the differential center-to-edge
aberration from Earth's orbit around the Sun.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its  brightness and colors.

Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)

This is poorly formulated.
Note that I said "The correction is small."
What I meant is that since the stars are close to each other
the correction is small relative to 20", and the distance between
them can be measured with better precision than if the stars were futher
apart.

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.
Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.

..and their displacements due to stellar aberration. The precision of
Hipparcos's measurements were such that stars even a fraction of a
degree different in declination would follow measurably different
Bradley ellipses (or rather, overlapping Bradley ellipses from the
spacecraft's orbit around the Sun and its orbit around the Earth.)
The global displacements due to stellar aberration and gravitational
deflection, and the individual displacements due to parallax and
proper motion all needed to be taken in account.
Hipparcos' mission was most decidedly NOT to "prove relativity right".
Rather, adjustments of stars' measured positions due to general
relativistic effects were among the corrections necessary to minimize
the residuals. Otherwise it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to combine the
data measured over a period of years into a consistent map.
======================================================================

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
It was _measured_, not assumed.

I would put it somewhat differently. Gravitational deflection was
_corrected for_, otherwise the data simply wouldn't make sense.

OK.
The fact that the data only make sense when gravitational deflection
was corrected for does mean that it, in principle, would be possible
to deduce the gravitational deflection from the measured data.

But of course, the gravitational deflection is known, so it
is simpler to correct for it.

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Sort of like, particle accelerators don't measure special
relativistic effects. Rather, special relativistic effects must be
taken into account, otherwise analysis of particle trajectories
don't make sense.

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Hipparcos' mission was most decidedly NOT to "prove relativity right".
Rather, adjustments of stars' measured positions due to general
relativistic effects were among the corrections necessary to minimize
the residuals. Otherwise it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to combine the
data measured over a period of years into a consistent map.
======================================================================

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
It was _measured_, not assumed.

I would put it somewhat differently. Gravitational deflection was
_corrected for_, otherwise the data simply wouldn't make sense.

OK.
The fact that the data only make sense when gravitational deflection
was corrected for does mean that it, in principle, would be possible
to deduce the gravitational deflection from the measured data.
But of course, the gravitational deflection is known, so it
is simpler to correct for it.

<snip>

It's a shame to read the justifications that both of you wrote about the
FRAUDULENT CORRECTIONS made on the HIPPARCOS raw database, TO FORCEFULLY
INCLUDE corrections due to the FALSE DEFLECTION invented in GR, and "SR
corrections" that were made to STEAL THE NON-RELATIVISTIC EFFECT of
aberration, discovered by Bradley centuries ago (even measured the speed
of light with 0.5% error, by 1727).

The parallax effect, mostly 20 times smaller than aberration, was
discovered by Bessel almost 100 years after Bradley. Such effect was
masked by the one caused by aberration.

That NEW CORRECTIONS due to starlight deflection by the Sun, allegedly
covering HALF of the "almost static plane" that is considered a valid
representation of the sky beyond the Solar System, HAD TO BE INTRODUCED
MANUALLY in order TO INSERT GR BY FORCE, tell anyone with two working
neurons THAT IS A FRAUDULENT WAY to reinforce the adoption of GR in
astrometry.

The above paragraph shows that RELATIVISM IS A VIRUS, A PLAGUE THAT HAS
INFECTED SCIENCE, and that relies ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY TO PROVE IT
EXPERIMENTALLY. Only sustained by THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, born in the
sick mind of Einstein+Eddington+other accomplishes a century ago.

The same Modus Operandi has been used with Pound-Rebka, Hafele-Keating,
Shapiro's proposal and many others since the 60s, just to force the
replacement of Newton-Kepler figure by the one of Einstein.


What makes all these "experiments" outrageous is that NONE OF THE
AUTHORS IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FRAUDULENT RESULTS, because of:


1) The impossibility, for independent sources, to VERIFY such results.

2) The INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT of these experiments and their results in
the daily life of humans and the advance of civilization. GR and SR
remain CONFINED in niches of absurd cults that are: cosmology, astronomy
and particle physics.

GR and SR will remain, for centuries, as STERILE, PARASITIC THEORIES
that contribute IN NOTHING to the advancement of science, but that EAT
valuable resources and bright minds that could find way better
destinations.

It has to be noted that the driving forces behind the support of
relativism have been relying on (since the 60s) in COMPUTER SCIENCES,
MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GATHERED DATA and STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF RESULTS,
being that a common occurrence is that:

1) Raw original data IS NEVER AVAILABLE outside a small circle of
people.

2) Algorithms of any kind that were used REMAIN AS UNKNOWN as the
formulae that supported Einstein's 1915 claim that deflection of light
doubled the 1911 Newtonian calculations, plagiarized from von Soldner.

Einstein NEVER DISCLOSED HOW DID HE CALCULATE SUCH VALUE (y = 1).

But fanatic relativists ABOUND. Take, for instance the figure of Jan
(man or woman?), who assert that orbit of planets are known UP TO
NANOSECOND RESOLUTION AND DISTANCES UP TO 1 centimeter.

And all of that is because Jan BELIEVE that data from NASA JPL HORIZONS
database is based ON REAL MEASUREMENTS. You hardly can get a person more
IMBECILE than Jan, who is mentally unable to explore such website TO
FIND THAT the programs behind HORIZONS are originated due to the work of
a single person, who liked to use 14 DIGITS. (John.D.Giorgini).

Computations were done by the Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons
On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA


OBSERVE HOW DATA WITH UP TO 14 DIGITS IS THEORETICALLY GENERATED FROM
PARAMETERS THAT HAVE MUCH LOWER PRECISION. THE EXPANSION IN THE NUMBER
OF DIGITS IS ORIGINATED, MAINLY, BY THE CONVERSION IN ASTRONOMICAL
UNITS, AS DEFINED BY THE International Astronomical Union (IAU).

QUERY ON https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/:

Ephemeris Type: Osculating Orbital Elements
Target Body: Mars
Coordinate Center: Sun (body center)
Time Specification: Start=2024-10-31 TDB , Stop=2024-11-30, Step=1
(days)
Table Settings: defaults

RESULTS (Observe the date of the last revision)

*********************************************************

Revised: June 21, 2016 Mars
499 / 4

PHYSICAL DATA (updated 2019-Oct-29):
Vol. mean radius (km) = 3389.92+-0.04 Density (g/cm^3) =
3.933(5+-4)
Mass x10^23 (kg) = 6.4171 Flattening, f =
1/169.779
Volume (x10^10 km^3) = 16.318 Equatorial radius (km)=
3396.19
Sidereal rot. period = 24.622962 hr Sid. rot. rate, rad/s =
0.0000708822
Mean solar day (sol) = 88775.24415 s Polar gravity m/s^2 = 3.758
Core radius (km) = ~1700 Equ. gravity m/s^2 = 3.71
Geometric Albedo = 0.150

GM (km^3/s^2) = 42828.375214 Mass ratio (Sun/Mars) =
3098703.59
GM 1-sigma (km^3/s^2) = +- 0.00028 Mass of atmosphere, kg= ~ 2.5
x 10^16
Mean temperature (K) = 210 Atmos. pressure (bar) =
0.0056
Obliquity to orbit = 25.19 deg Max. angular diam. = 17.9"
Mean sidereal orb per = 1.88081578 y Visual mag. V(1,0) = -1.52
Mean sidereal orb per = 686.98 d Orbital speed, km/s = 24.13
Hill's sphere rad. Rp = 319.8 Escape speed, km/s =
5.027
Perihelion Aphelion Mean
Solar Constant (W/m^2) 717 493 589
Maximum Planetary IR (W/m^2) 470 315 390
Minimum Planetary IR (W/m^2) 30 30 30

**********************************************

EPHEMERIS (EVERY 1 DAY):

2460614.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Oct-31 00:00:00.0000 TDB
EC= 9.338519612718710E-02 QR= 2.066682087213624E+08 IN=
1.847663775996107E+00
OM= 4.948919028212440E+01 W = 2.867247660006598E+02 Tp=
2460439.026265358552
N = 6.064600760306989E-06 MA= 9.194499168660577E+01 TA=
1.025371584115114E+02
A = 2.279559167118513E+08 AD= 2.492436247023403E+08 PR=
5.936087373734671E+07

2460615.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-01 00:00:00.0000 TDB
EC= 9.338597067445900E-02 QR= 2.066680274698931E+08 IN=
1.847662094273816E+00
OM= 4.948916076113913E+01 W = 2.867247994972711E+02 Tp=
2460439.026448893826
N = 6.064600966695355E-06 MA= 9.246888017005475E+01 TA=
1.030463381484449E+02
A = 2.279559115400409E+08 AD= 2.492437956101888E+08 PR=
5.936087171719834E+07
2460616.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-02 00:00:00.0000 TDB
.....
.....


************************************************

Every day a SUCKER is born. But nine SOB are born also.

Fuck the virus of relativism, worse than communism.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.

An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.

Relativism won't last much longer.

[Python]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.

"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.

Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine crackpot. No
doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander", and you deserve it Maciej.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Python: What is crackpot is the "geometry" of relativity with curved
space and parallel lines meeting. It doesn't take a genius to reject
such foolish nonsense.

[Python]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Python: What is crackpot is the "geometry" of relativity with curved
space and parallel lines meeting. It doesn't take a genius to reject
such foolish nonsense.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Python: What is crackpot is the "geometry" of relativity with curved
space and parallel lines meeting. It doesn't take a genius to reject
such foolish nonsense.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

Whatever - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.

"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.

Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine crackpot.
No doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander",

No, this is just an ordinary insult.


and you deserve it

Post by Python
Maciej.

Oh, your moronic church has persuaded you:
you' re the voice of Humanity and Progress,
anyonoe who opposes is an enemy of Humanity
and Progress and deserves everything worst.
Standard crap any mad ideology is selling
to its worshippers when they're dumb enough
to buy it.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.

"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.

Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine crackpot.
No doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander",

No, this is just an ordinary insult.
and you deserve it

Post by Python
Maciej.

you' re the voice of Humanity and Progress,

Nope. But I'm quite sure you aren't.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.

"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character
making fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own
posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.

Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine
crackpot. No doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander",

No, this is just an ordinary insult.
  and you deserve it

Post by Python
Maciej.

you' re the voice of Humanity and Progress,

Nope.

Nope, you aren't, but that's what The Shit
has told you. That's how it attracts its
victims and open them for its brainwashing.

Post by Python
But I'm quite sure you aren't.

I've never pretended to be the voice of any
Nature, Humanity, Progress or any other
Higher Power. I'm leaving it for idiots
like you and your gurus.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Python: Then you can gratify everyone by explaining how gravity itself
can escape massive stars when its speed is only c.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: To use the speed of light for gravity in the Mercury
perihelion calculations is invalidated by the fact that gravity has to
be vastly faster than light to escape black holes. That's all any
intelligent person needs to know. An 85 IQ suffices to see through
relativity pseudoscience.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
It has to be noted that the driving forces behind the support of
relativism have been relying on (since the 60s) in COMPUTER SCIENCES,
MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GATHERED DATA and STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF RESULTS,
1) Raw original data IS NEVER AVAILABLE outside a small circle of
people.

Original Hipparcos transit data is available through the ESA Archives,
and in fact has been resorted to in cases where it was believed that
the original data was corrupted. For instance, multiple objects in the
Hipparcos catalog have been identified as artifacts of scattered light
resulting from the scanned 0.9 degree strip of sky, recorded over some
particular 10 hour interval, having passed adjacent to a bright star.

After registration, you will be free to access the raw data for
yourself. Please bear in mind though, that the raw data comprises
several thousand strips each containing one-dimensional positions of
stars recorded in an 0.9 degree wide strip scanned over 10 hours
along a "great circle". Each strip typically provides 2,000 or so
1-D star positions. These 1-D star positions must be corrected for
stellar aberration, which varies during the orbit. When you perform
*YOUR* analysis, of course, I expect that you will refuse to allow
for relativistic effects. Good luck.

The data from thousands of great circle strips must be correlated to
each other before it is possible to obtain a 2-D map. This initial
map must be iterated multiple times because, among other things,
stellar aberration can vary significantly over the width of a strip,
and stellar positions will change due to proper motion between one
strip recording and another, etc. etc. Also, because you will be
deliberately refusing to allow for relativistic effects, I expect
that your residuals will be rather high.

It's much easier to work with the reduced data. But then, you believe
that the reduced data has been falsified for the sole purpose of
maintaining relativistic mythology.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
It's a shame to read the justifications that both of you wrote about the
FRAUDULENT CORRECTIONS made on the HIPPARCOS raw database, TO FORCEFULLY
INCLUDE corrections due to the FALSE DEFLECTION invented in GR, and "SR
corrections" that were made to STEAL THE NON-RELATIVISTIC EFFECT of
aberration, discovered by Bradley centuries ago (even measured the speed
of light with 0.5% error, by 1727).
The parallax effect, mostly 20 times smaller than aberration, was
discovered by Bessel almost 100 years after Bradley. Such effect was
masked by the one caused by aberration.
That NEW CORRECTIONS due to starlight deflection by the Sun, allegedly
covering HALF of the "almost static plane" that is considered a valid
representation of the sky beyond the Solar System, HAD TO BE INTRODUCED
MANUALLY in order TO INSERT GR BY FORCE, tell anyone with two working
neurons THAT IS A FRAUDULENT WAY to reinforce the adoption of GR in
astrometry.
The above paragraph shows that RELATIVISM IS A VIRUS, A PLAGUE THAT HAS
INFECTED SCIENCE, and that relies ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY TO PROVE IT
EXPERIMENTALLY. Only sustained by THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, born in the
sick mind of Einstein+Eddington+other accomplishes a century ago.
The same Modus Operandi has been used with Pound-Rebka, Hafele-Keating,
Shapiro's proposal and many others since the 60s, just to force the
replacement of Newton-Kepler figure by the one of Einstein.
What makes all these "experiments" outrageous is that NONE OF THE
1) The impossibility, for independent sources, to VERIFY such results.
2) The INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT of these experiments and their results in
the daily life of humans and the advance of civilization. GR and SR
remain CONFINED in niches of absurd cults that are: cosmology, astronomy
 and particle physics.
GR and SR will remain, for centuries, as STERILE, PARASITIC THEORIES
that contribute IN NOTHING to the advancement of science, but that EAT
valuable resources and bright minds that could find way better
destinations.
It has to be noted that the driving forces behind the support of
relativism have been relying on (since the 60s) in COMPUTER SCIENCES,
MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GATHERED DATA and STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF RESULTS,
1) Raw original data IS NEVER AVAILABLE outside a small circle of
people.
2) Algorithms of any kind that were used REMAIN AS UNKNOWN as the
formulae that supported Einstein's 1915 claim that deflection of light
doubled the 1911 Newtonian calculations, plagiarized from von Soldner.
Einstein NEVER DISCLOSED HOW DID HE CALCULATE SUCH VALUE (y = 1).
But fanatic relativists ABOUND. Take, for instance the figure of Jan
(man or woman?), who assert that orbit of planets are known UP TO
NANOSECOND RESOLUTION AND DISTANCES UP TO 1 centimeter.
And all of that is because Jan BELIEVE that data from NASA JPL HORIZONS
database is based ON REAL MEASUREMENTS. You hardly can get a person more
IMBECILE than Jan, who is mentally unable to explore such website TO
FIND THAT the programs behind HORIZONS are originated due to the work of
a single person, who liked to use 14 DIGITS. (John.D.Giorgini).
Computations were done by the Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons
On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA  91109   USA
OBSERVE HOW DATA WITH UP TO 14 DIGITS IS THEORETICALLY GENERATED FROM
PARAMETERS THAT HAVE MUCH LOWER PRECISION. THE EXPANSION IN THE NUMBER
OF DIGITS IS ORIGINATED, MAINLY, BY THE CONVERSION IN ASTRONOMICAL
UNITS, AS DEFINED BY THE International Astronomical Union (IAU).
Ephemeris Type: Osculating Orbital Elements
Target Body: Mars
Coordinate Center: Sun (body center)
Time Specification: Start=2024-10-31 TDB , Stop=2024-11-30, Step=1
(days)
Table Settings: defaults
RESULTS (Observe the date of the last revision)
*********************************************************
Revised: June 21, 2016                 Mars 499 / 4
 Vol. mean radius (km) = 3389.92+-0.04   Density (g/cm^3)      =
3.933(5+-4)
 Mass x10^23 (kg)      =    6.4171       Flattening, f         = 1/169.779
 Volume (x10^10 km^3)  =   16.318        Equatorial radius (km)= 3396.19
 Sidereal rot. period  =   24.622962 hr  Sid. rot. rate, rad/s =
0.0000708822
 Mean solar day (sol)  =   88775.24415 s Polar gravity m/s^2   =  3.758
 Core radius (km)      = ~1700           Equ. gravity  m/s^2   =  3.71
 Geometric Albedo      =    0.150
 GM (km^3/s^2)         = 42828.375214    Mass ratio (Sun/Mars) =
3098703.59
 GM 1-sigma (km^3/s^2) = +- 0.00028      Mass of atmosphere, kg= ~ 2.5
x 10^16
 Mean temperature (K)  =  210            Atmos. pressure (bar) = 0.0056
 Obliquity to orbit    =   25.19 deg     Max. angular diam.    =  17.9"
 Mean sidereal orb per =    1.88081578 y Visual mag. V(1,0)    =  -1.52
 Mean sidereal orb per =  686.98 d       Orbital speed,  km/s  =  24.13
 Hill's sphere rad. Rp =  319.8          Escape speed, km/s    = 5.027
                                Perihelion  Aphelion    Mean
 Solar Constant (W/m^2)         717         493         589
 Maximum Planetary IR (W/m^2)   470         315         390
 Minimum Planetary IR (W/m^2)    30          30          30
**********************************************
2460614.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Oct-31 00:00:00.0000 TDB
EC= 9.338519612718710E-02 QR= 2.066682087213624E+08 IN=
1.847663775996107E+00
OM= 4.948919028212440E+01 W = 2.867247660006598E+02 Tp=
2460439.026265358552
N = 6.064600760306989E-06 MA= 9.194499168660577E+01 TA=
1.025371584115114E+02
A = 2.279559167118513E+08 AD= 2.492436247023403E+08 PR=
5.936087373734671E+07
2460615.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-01 00:00:00.0000 TDB
EC= 9.338597067445900E-02 QR= 2.066680274698931E+08 IN=
1.847662094273816E+00
OM= 4.948916076113913E+01 W = 2.867247994972711E+02 Tp=
2460439.026448893826
N = 6.064600966695355E-06 MA= 9.246888017005475E+01 TA=
1.030463381484449E+02
A = 2.279559115400409E+08 AD= 2.492437956101888E+08 PR=
5.936087171719834E+07
2460616.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-02 00:00:00.0000 TDB
.....
.....
************************************************
Every day a SUCKER is born. But nine SOB are born also.
Fuck the virus of relativism, worse than communism.

So we can conclude that Richard Hertz is right only if
all physicists and astronomers born after 1900 are frauds.

Nobody can demonstrate the idiocy of Richard Hertz better
than you, Richard!

Well done! :-D

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Every day a SUCKER is born. But nine SOB are born also.
Fuck the virus of relativism, worse than communism.

So we can conclude that Richard Hertz is right only if
all physicists and astronomers born after 1900 are frauds.
Nobody can demonstrate the idiocy of Richard Hertz better
than you, Richard!
Well done! :-D

Paul, as usual being an imbecile, a liar and a deceiver.

My post was about the deceptive numbers having 15 DIGITS that the site
provides.

It means resolving distances up to micrometers and orbital periods up to
1 nanosecond, BECAUSE these THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are based on a
Keplerian GM = 1.3271246207314793E+11 km^3/s^2, WHICH IS ALSO A
THEORETICAL CALCULATION.

But imbeciles like you, Jan, etc., take the data of Horizons AS IF THEY
WERE TRUE!

The site was developed in order to be used by AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS
(hobbysts). The data CAN'T BE USED FOR ANY SERIOUS CALCULATION.

Watch this extract for Mercury, with 16 digits numbers. Only a very
retarded asshole can take them literally.

AND YOU ARE THE KING OF RETARDED, WITH SEVERE CRETINISM.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ephemeris Type: Osculating Orbital Elements
Target Body: Mercury
Coordinate Center: Sun (body center) [***@10]3
Time Specification: Start=2024-11-01 TDB , Stop=2024-12-01, Step=1
(days)
Table Settings: defaults
Keplerian GM : 1.3271246207314793E+11 km^3/s^2

ONE DAY EXAMPLE

2460644.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-30 00:00:00.0000 TDB
Eccentricity, e EC= 2.056399766464924E-01
Periapsis distance, q (km) QR= 4.600069373883072E+07
Inclination w.r.t X-Y plane, i (degrees) IN= 7.003507142006237E+00
Longitude of Ascending Node, OMEGA, (degrees) OM= 4.829982941962585E+01
Argument of Perifocus, w (degrees) W = 2.919562648103304E+01
Time of periapsis (Julian Day Number) Tp= 2460651.099756300915
Mean motion, n (degrees/sec) N = 4.736504817596935E-05
Mean anomaly, M (degrees) MA= 3.329915522272663E+02
True anomaly, nu (degrees) TA= 3.192959187352151E+02
Semi-major axis, a (km) A = 5.790912481299353E+07
Apoapsis distance (km) AD= 6.981755588715634E+07
Sidereal orbit period (sec) PR= 7.600541197858339E+06

Now check the PRECISION of the above numbers, and tell me that they ARE
REAL NUMBERS, or the result of exaggerated calculations.

Watch the period PR: It's solved up to 9 nanoseconds.

Or the semi-major axis a. It's solved up to 53 micrometers.

Are you denying it, IMBECILE?

And you, because you are an asshole, USED THIS DATA in your stupid
paper.


IGNORANT!

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
The site was developed in order to be used by AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS
(hobbysts). The data CAN'T BE USED FOR ANY SERIOUS CALCULATION.

"JPL planetary ephemerides are generally created to support spacecraft
missions to the planets." That's pretty serious calculation, in my
opinion.

"The JPL Horizons on-line ephemeris system provides access to solar
system data and customizable production of accurate ephemerides for
observers, mission-planners, researchers, and the public, by
numerically characterizing the location, motion, and observability of
solar system objects as a function of time, as seen from locations
within the solar system."

In other words, it's a general purpose system that outputs a variety
of different ephemerides for different purposes *besides* planetary
exploration. Yes, they *do* cater to amateur astronomers *as well as*
to mission planners and professional astronomers.

If I, an amateur astronomer, want to generate an "Observer Table" so
that I can plot the retrograde motions of Mars as observed from Dallas,
I can do so. If I, writing a simulation program, want to generate a
"Vector Table" so that I can get position and velocity of a particular
planet at a particular time, I can do so. If I wanted to get
"Osculating Orbital Elements" for Ceres so that I can rapidly generate
an approximate orbit over a particular span of time, I can do so.

Lower accuracy formulae for planetary positions are also available:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/approx_pos.html

Other ephemerides and toolkits for managing them are available:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/eph_export.html
The data are available in ASCII format as well as in machine-dependent
binary.

Post by rhertz
Watch this extract for Mercury, with 16 digits numbers. Only a very
retarded asshole can take them literally.

NOBODY is intended to "believe" that the output is accurate to 16
figures. The numbers are merely the best possible ASCII representation
of the binary output of the ephemeris-generating program.

I understand where you are coming from. You are taking the rules of
"significant figures" in rather too narrow a fashion.

For five years, I taught technical mathematics (pre-calculus and
calculus) for an online college. They were a bit desperate due to
death of their principal instructor, so I stepped in as a substitute
teacher, even though my PhD is in molecular biology. I got such high
ratings from my students that my temporary stint as a substitute kept
getting extended year after year until one year, the college did a
general review of their curriculum for accreditation purposes, at
which point they discovered that they had to limit me to teaching only
my main course, introductory biology. My teaching hours and
compensation went down so much that I quit.

The point is, I understand about significant figures. The purpose of
rounding final results to an appropriate number of significant
figures is so that YOU DO NOT DECEIVE OTHERS of the precision and
accuracy of your results. And yes, I understand about precision
versus accuracy.

When performing an extended calculation, however, you do not round
*intermediate* results prematurely, but instead retain as many
significant figures as practicable. You round only when ready to
present your FINAL results to others. If you round prematurely, your
calculation will accumulate "dirt", and depending on the nature of
your mathematical manipulations, your final results can potentially
be very far off due to "catastrophic cancellation" or "loss of
significance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_cancellation

The designers of the Horizons system do not know to what uses their
numerical outputs will be used, nor is it designed to provide its
numbers with appropriate statistical brackets. Since their outputs
may be used as starting points for other calculations, it is only
reasonable that the outputs be presented as the best possible ASCII
representation of their program's results.

Does that make sense to you?

[rhertz]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
The site was developed in order to be used by AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS
(hobbysts). The data CAN'T BE USED FOR ANY SERIOUS CALCULATION.

"JPL planetary ephemerides are generally created to support spacecraft
missions to the planets." That's pretty serious calculation, in my
opinion.
"The JPL Horizons on-line ephemeris system provides access to solar
system data and customizable production of accurate ephemerides for
observers, mission-planners, researchers, and the public, by
numerically characterizing the location, motion, and observability of
solar system objects as a function of time, as seen from locations
within the solar system."
In other words, it's a general purpose system that outputs a variety
of different ephemerides for different purposes *besides* planetary
exploration. Yes, they *do* cater to amateur astronomers *as well as*
to mission planners and professional astronomers.
If I, an amateur astronomer, want to generate an "Observer Table" so
that I can plot the retrograde motions of Mars as observed from Dallas,
I can do so. If I, writing a simulation program, want to generate a
"Vector Table" so that I can get position and velocity of a particular
planet at a particular time, I can do so. If I wanted to get
"Osculating Orbital Elements" for Ceres so that I can rapidly generate
an approximate orbit over a particular span of time, I can do so.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/approx_pos.html
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/eph_export.html
The data are available in ASCII format as well as in machine-dependent
binary.

Post by rhertz
Watch this extract for Mercury, with 16 digits numbers. Only a very
retarded asshole can take them literally.

NOBODY is intended to "believe" that the output is accurate to 16
figures. The numbers are merely the best possible ASCII representation
of the binary output of the ephemeris-generating program.
I understand where you are coming from. You are taking the rules of
"significant figures" in rather too narrow a fashion.
For five years, I taught technical mathematics (pre-calculus and
calculus) for an online college. They were a bit desperate due to
death of their principal instructor, so I stepped in as a substitute
teacher, even though my PhD is in molecular biology. I got such high
ratings from my students that my temporary stint as a substitute kept
getting extended year after year until one year, the college did a
general review of their curriculum for accreditation purposes, at
which point they discovered that they had to limit me to teaching only
my main course, introductory biology. My teaching hours and
compensation went down so much that I quit.
The point is, I understand about significant figures. The purpose of
rounding final results to an appropriate number of significant
figures is so that YOU DO NOT DECEIVE OTHERS of the precision and
accuracy of your results. And yes, I understand about precision
versus accuracy.
When performing an extended calculation, however, you do not round
*intermediate* results prematurely, but instead retain as many
significant figures as practicable. You round only when ready to
present your FINAL results to others. If you round prematurely, your
calculation will accumulate "dirt", and depending on the nature of
your mathematical manipulations, your final results can potentially
be very far off due to "catastrophic cancellation" or "loss of
significance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_cancellation
The designers of the Horizons system do not know to what uses their
numerical outputs will be used, nor is it designed to provide its
numbers with appropriate statistical brackets. Since their outputs
may be used as starting points for other calculations, it is only
reasonable that the outputs be presented as the best possible ASCII
representation of their program's results.
Does that make sense to you?

Good post. I think that you did a good job when teaching because your
knowledge on the subject was not biased by a perception that a
mathematician has about calculus, so your approach to teaching it was
easier to be understood.

BTW, please teach something about "making sense" in belief on published
data to Jan, who believes that orbital motion of planets are known up to
nanoseconds level, down to milliarc seconds and centimeters.


In the site, you have this information:

********************************************************
About Horizons

The JPL Horizons on-line solar system data and ephemeris computation
service provides access to key solar system data and flexible production
of highly accurate ephemerides for solar system objects (1,417,196
asteroids, 3,974 comets, 293 planetary satellites {includes satellites
of Earth and dwarf planet Pluto}, 8 planets, the Sun, L1, L2, select
spacecraft, and system barycenters). Horizons is provided by the Solar
System Dynamics Group of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

....
Horizons Available Time Spans
This page shows the maximum available Horizons ephemeris time spans for
each group of bodies selected from the adjacent list. Data are available
only for bodies accessible via Horizons. The time-spans available are
shown below in the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) scale (the uniform
time scale and independent variable of the ephemerides), not UT.

All times are shown as YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm or YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss (where ss
may have 0 to 3 decimal digits).

******************************************************

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its brightness and colors.

Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.
Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.

..and their displacements due to stellar aberration. The precision of
Hipparcos's measurements were such that stars even a fraction of a
degree different in declination would follow measurably different
Bradley ellipses (or rather, overlapping Bradley ellipses from the
spacecraft's orbit around the Sun and its orbit around the Earth.)
The global displacements due to stellar aberration and gravitational
deflection, and the individual displacements due to parallax and
proper motion all needed to be taken in account.
Hipparcos' mission was most decidedly NOT to "prove relativity right".
Rather, adjustments of stars' measured positions due to general
relativistic effects were among the corrections necessary to minimize
the residuals. Otherwise it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to combine the
data measured over a period of years into a consistent map.
======================================================================

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
It was _measured_, not assumed.

I would put it somewhat differently. Gravitational deflection was
_corrected for_, otherwise the data simply wouldn't make sense.
Sort of like, particle accelerators don't measure special
relativistic effects. Rather, special relativistic effects must be
taken into account, otherwise analysis of particle trajectories
don't make sense.

This seems reasonable.

After "Revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs" then another touch-stone
is the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which some say "establishes the
particulate granularity or the quantum" while when Feynman sets it
up in his lecture notes it's "... as would befit a field theory, ...",
establishes continuum mechanics.

The OPTICAL here is key as with regards to both gravitational lensing,
and also large-body lensing. For example, the camera obscura, shows
that a pinhole is a lens, and there's also that simply rolling up a
piece of paper and looking through that, results OPTICAL merely
the wave-guide.

Light: is geometric and OPTICAL, and, "electromagnetic radiation",
has that optical light is special and that optical and radionuclear
radiation are _different_ than electrical field electromagnetic radio
waves.

The Nancy Roman wide-screen will be giving some more wide-field
correlations, while James Webb has thoroughly paint-canned 20'th c.
cosmology.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Here is one factor not included yet in the perihelion advance
of Mercury. Just as our Earth's precession of the equinoxes is
accelerating, so should the apsidal precession of Mercury accelerate
significantly.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Isn't the anomaly increasing from 38" to 43" to 51", so this
could be an acceleration?

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I would contend that Le Verrier Newcomb etc., confronted with a
discrepancy between theoretical and observed precessions, knew
better than to employ a naive Gauss ring computation.

Note: In my "naive" Gauss ring simulation using circular, uniformly
weighted rings, the line representing accumulated precession over
time is completely straight. However, in a computation using
eccentric, weighted rings, the line is slightly curved. Over the
course of thousands of years, as Mercury's line of apsides works
its way around, the rate of precession estimated using a Gauss ring
approximation with eccentric, weighted rings will vary.

Newtonian Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm

"Kevin Brown" (MathPages https://tinyurl.com/2xuyj2j4) and
Prof Fitzpatrick (UT Austin https://tinyurl.com/yck7thzj) provide
slightly discrepant calculations for what a "naive" Gauss ring
simulation would predict assuming circular coplanar rings with uniform
mass distribution. Although my "naive" ring simulation agrees more
closely with Fitzpatrick's numbers than Brown's numbers, I am hesitant
to say that Fitzpatrick's numbers are better. Since my code has never
been peer-reviewed, there is always the possibly that it is my own
simulation that is at fault.

On the other hand, Price and Rush used a ring approximation to compute
531.9 arcsec/century, in amazingly close agreement with the best
current measured values. (Brown discounts this agreement as being the
spurious result of them committing two errors in their calculation
that happen to cancel each other.) https://tinyurl.com/4hzf3u6r

An important fact noted by Fitzpatrick, is that Gauss himself never
used a naive circular ring calculation, but included orbital
eccentricities, non-uniform angular velocities etc. in his calculation.

Since Gauss never used a naive circular ring calculation, it is fair
to assume that LeVerrier never did, either. This would explain why
LeVerrier's theoretical numbers are so remarkably close to the actual
values measured using current high precision technologies.
See Park et al. 2017
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I would contend that Le Verrier Newcomb etc., confronted with a
discrepancy between theoretical and observed precessions, knew
better than to employ a naive Gauss ring computation.

Note: In my "naive" Gauss ring simulation using circular, uniformly
weighted rings, the line representing accumulated precession over
time is completely straight. However, in a computation using
eccentric, weighted rings, the line is slightly curved. Over the
course of thousands of years, as Mercury's line of apsides works
its way around, the rate of precession estimated using a Gauss ring
approximation with eccentric, weighted rings will vary.

Newtonian Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm

"Kevin Brown" (MathPages https://tinyurl.com/2xuyj2j4) and
Prof Fitzpatrick (UT Austin https://tinyurl.com/yck7thzj) provide
slightly discrepant calculations for what a "naive" Gauss ring
simulation would predict assuming circular coplanar rings with uniform
mass distribution. Although my "naive" ring simulation agrees more
closely with Fitzpatrick's numbers than Brown's numbers, I am hesitant
to say that Fitzpatrick's numbers are better. Since my code has never
been peer-reviewed, there is always the possibly that it is my own
simulation that is at fault.
On the other hand, Price and Rush used a ring approximation to compute
531.9 arcsec/century, in amazingly close agreement with the best
current measured values. (Brown discounts this agreement as being the
spurious result of them committing two errors in their calculation
that happen to cancel each other.) https://tinyurl.com/4hzf3u6r
An important fact noted by Fitzpatrick, is that Gauss himself never
used a naive circular ring calculation, but included orbital
eccentricities, non-uniform angular velocities etc. in his calculation.
Since Gauss never used a naive circular ring calculation, it is fair
to assume that LeVerrier never did, either. This would explain why
LeVerrier's theoretical numbers are so remarkably close to the actual
values measured using current high precision technologies.
See Park et al. 2017
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2

(Also there may be considered "intra-Mercurial planets"
like the theoretical "Vulcan" that's figured drifted up
into the ecliptic around 1922.)


"... However, the existence of Vulcan was prompted
initially by mass measurements but then was subsequently
verified by transits." -- https://arxiv.org/html/2403.20281v1


"After this, nobody ever saw Vulcan again,
in spite of several searches at different
total solar eclipses. And in 1916, Albert
Einstein published his General Theory of
Relativity, which explained the deviations
in the motions of Mercury without the need
to invoke an unknown intra-Mercurial planet.
In May 1929 Erwin Freundlich, Potsdam,
photographed the total solar eclipse in Sumatra,
and later carefully examined the plates which
showed a profusion of star images. Comparison
plates were taken six months later. No unknown
object brighter than 9th magnitude was found
near the Sun." --
https://www.astro.auth.gr/ANTIKATOPTRISMOI/nineplanets/nineplanets/hypo.html


"Those who study scientific revolutions recognize
that scientific theories remain viable only as long
as they are able to explain observed phenomena and
account for new observations. When a theory ceases
to be able to do this—as when Newtonian gravity was
unable to explain Mercury's orbital precession—
alternative theories are sought." --
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/85/2/159/1058307/The-Hunt-for-Vulcan-And-How-Albert-Einstein


Yet, the force of gravity in the solar system
points directly at the _source_ not the _image_,
of the well of gravity, as is well known today,
with none at all differences according to the
propagation of light speed, the propagation of
changes in the field of gravity, as Newtonian.
(As instantaneous.)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY.

Yes, of course. Their coordinates and time fully are compatible with
general relativity.

Post by rhertz
You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's
not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities,
but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a
source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively.

Your ignorance is showing again.
There is no 'Newton-Kepler exclusively' information
in existence anymore. (except as a crude approximation)

JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.
At these levels of accuracy anything 'Newton-only'
will immediately and grossly conflict with observations,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY.

Yes, of course. Their coordinates and time fully are compatible with
general relativity.

What an impudent lie. But, of course, what to
expect from a fanatic relativistic doggie.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY.

Yes, of course. Their coordinates and time fully are compatible with
general relativity.

Post by rhertz
You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's
not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities,
but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a
source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively.

Your ignorance is showing again.
There is no 'Newton-Kepler exclusively' information
in existence anymore. (except as a crude approximation)
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.
At these levels of accuracy anything 'Newton-only'
will immediately and grossly conflict with observations,
Jan

https://www.google.com/search?q="J.W.+du+Mond"

Parameterized, Post-Newtonian

Anything pull-gravity conflicts with observations,
and galaxies are big enough to rotate themselves,
and it sort of makes sense there's no dark energy also,
where of course both "dark matter: a non-scientific
non-explanation that's sig-sigma's established that
the model of gravity is wrong" and "dark matter: same
as dark matter the other way", are not yet theories
except what the sky survey has invalidated mechanics,
including gravity.

The fall-gravity, then, fall gravity is a great idea.
Mechanics itself though and indeed a revisited mechanical
reduction, mechanics itself needs a thorough re-set as
with regards to some "Zero-eth" laws of physics.

You know why "frame-dragging" is predicted by theories
of relativity? Well it's whether the angular momentum
about the EM field or the field of gravity gets an
arbitrary double bit cast, that also its reverse is.

That is to say both are "predicted", and also their opposite.

The frame-dragging is surely observed, though. Some then
also point out that this makes for a violation of the
equivalency principle or, you know, a weak one.

Also the sky survey has a wide variety of "apparently
super-luminal sources".

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by J. J. Lodder
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.

That, of course, depends on *which* solar system objects one is
talking about, *what time period* one is talking about, and *what
specific parameters* one is discussing. For instance, Earth-planet
ranging measurements established the position of Mercury to within a
handful of meters while MESSENGER was in orbit, and they continue to
establish highly accurate distances to Mars because of the Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express, and the various active Mars
landers. What these measurements mean in terms of how accurate the
various orbital elements are of the different planets would be the
subject of a _different_ detailed discussion.

I want to focus on LLR ranging measurements. The Moon's orbit is known
to within several centimeters because of the placement on the Moon
decades ago of five currently operational retroreflectors by the US
and the USSR. A sixth tiny retroreflector placed on the Moon by ISRO
in 2023 is used as a positional marker to help lunar orbiters
(currently NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) in their missions, and
is not useful for LLR measurements.

The five operational retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the
space race period are _old technology_, have degraded over time, and
their placements on the Moon are sub-optimal for ranging purposes. To
achieve sub-millimeter ranging to enable improved insights into the
Moon's dynamics, internal structure, Earth-Moon system evolution etc.
and for improved tests of GR, newer technology retroreflectors and
transponders need to be deployed.

1) The old retroreflectors used multiple corner cube prisms arranged
on large sheets which flex from differential heating effects,
lowering measurement accuracy. Large single-cube retroreflectors
made from temperature-resistant silica or sapphire would provide
higher reflectivity and stability over time.
2) Active transponders operating in two colors of light would allow
for much stronger return signals and would allow precise
calculation of signal delays from atmospheric refraction.
3) More widely distributed arrays placed with an eye towards improved
lunar science rather than to meet the requirements of manned space
missions would greatly improve LLR measurements.

If LLR measurements can be improved to the sub-millimeter or micron
level, they will approach the levels of measurement accuracy where
alternative theories of gravitation would expect GR to fail.

[rhertz]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.

That, of course, depends on *which* solar system objects one is
talking about, *what time period* one is talking about, and *what
specific parameters* one is discussing. For instance, Earth-planet
ranging measurements established the position of Mercury to within a
handful of meters while MESSENGER was in orbit, and they continue to
establish highly accurate distances to Mars because of the Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express, and the various active Mars
landers. What these measurements mean in terms of how accurate the
various orbital elements are of the different planets would be the
subject of a _different_ detailed discussion.
I want to focus on LLR ranging measurements. The Moon's orbit is known
to within several centimeters because of the placement on the Moon
decades ago of five currently operational retroreflectors by the US
and the USSR. A sixth tiny retroreflector placed on the Moon by ISRO
in 2023 is used as a positional marker to help lunar orbiters
(currently NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) in their missions, and
is not useful for LLR measurements.
The five operational retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the
space race period are _old technology_, have degraded over time, and
their placements on the Moon are sub-optimal for ranging purposes. To
achieve sub-millimeter ranging to enable improved insights into the
Moon's dynamics, internal structure, Earth-Moon system evolution etc.
and for improved tests of GR, newer technology retroreflectors and
transponders need to be deployed.
1) The old retroreflectors used multiple corner cube prisms arranged
on large sheets which flex from differential heating effects,
lowering measurement accuracy. Large single-cube retroreflectors
made from temperature-resistant silica or sapphire would provide
higher reflectivity and stability over time.
2) Active transponders operating in two colors of light would allow
for much stronger return signals and would allow precise
calculation of signal delays from atmospheric refraction.
3) More widely distributed arrays placed with an eye towards improved
lunar science rather than to meet the requirements of manned space
missions would greatly improve LLR measurements.
If LLR measurements can be improved to the sub-millimeter or micron
level, they will approach the levels of measurement accuracy where
alternative theories of gravitation would expect GR to fail.

You shouldn't believe what you wrote, in particular the last part.

You CAN'T TRACK the Moon's ephemeris with such precision for a long
time. There are MANY PERTURBATIONS that are not contemplated.

Even a solar or galactic fart (cosmic radiation) or the medium term
influence of Earth's wobbling or other influences from the many bodies
of the solar system. Even also galactic influences.

You HAVE TO KNOW that the behavior and influence of the great asteroids
belt is not entirely known, for instance, just to name one source of
perturbations, even when half the mass is provided by four asteroids.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The five operational retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the
space race period are _old technology_, have degraded over time, and
their placements on the Moon are sub-optimal for ranging purposes. To
achieve sub-millimeter ranging to enable improved insights into the
Moon's dynamics, internal structure, Earth-Moon system evolution etc.
and for improved tests of GR, newer technology retroreflectors and
transponders need to be deployed.
1) The old retroreflectors used multiple corner cube prisms arranged
on large sheets which flex from differential heating effects,
lowering measurement accuracy. Large single-cube retroreflectors
made from temperature-resistant silica or sapphire would provide
higher reflectivity and stability over time.
2) Active transponders operating in two colors of light would allow
for much stronger return signals and would allow precise
calculation of signal delays from atmospheric refraction.
3) More widely distributed arrays placed with an eye towards improved
lunar science rather than to meet the requirements of manned space
missions would greatly improve LLR measurements.
If LLR measurements can be improved to the sub-millimeter or micron
level, they will approach the levels of measurement accuracy where
alternative theories of gravitation would expect GR to fail.

You shouldn't believe what you wrote, in particular the last part.
You CAN'T TRACK the Moon's ephemeris with such precision for a long
time. There are MANY PERTURBATIONS that are not contemplated.
Even a solar or galactic fart (cosmic radiation) or the medium term
influence of Earth's wobbling or other influences from the many bodies
of the solar system. Even also galactic influences.
You HAVE TO KNOW that the behavior and influence of the great asteroids
belt is not entirely known, for instance, just to name one source of
perturbations, even when half the mass is provided by four asteroids.

Next-generation retroreflectors and optical transponders would be able
to track and help characterize the various sources of wobbling, would
they not? They'd do a lot to advance lunar science, serving as probes
into lunar core and inner structure, etc.

If you want to know the contributions of Ceres, Pallas, Juno and
Vesta to the Moon's orbit, you first have to be able to measure their
effects, would you not? Likewise the influence of solar flares and
other galactic farts. :-)

Here is a white paper on next generation corner cube reflectors. It
contemplates ultimate LLR ranging accuracies of ~0.1 mm.
https://tinyurl.com/yzzvk4sh

This is about the Blue Ghost mission scheduled for Q4 2024:
https://fireflyspace.com/missions/blue-ghost-mission-1/

I couldn't find the paper that I had read about dual frequency optical
transponders on the Moon. But even as dual frequency GPS provides
dramatically improved positioning, dual frequency optical transponders
should dramatically improve range determination.

Moreover, instead of ranging the Moon from a limited number of large
observatories, optical transponders would open up observations to
even modest sized scopes.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.

That, of course, depends on *which* solar system objects one is
talking about, *what time period* one is talking about, and *what
specific parameters* one is discussing. For instance, Earth-planet
ranging measurements established the position of Mercury to within a
handful of meters while MESSENGER was in orbit, and they continue to
establish highly accurate distances to Mars because of the Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express, and the various active Mars
landers. What these measurements mean in terms of how accurate the
various orbital elements are of the different planets would be the
subject of a _different_ detailed discussion.
I want to focus on LLR ranging measurements. The Moon's orbit is known
to within several centimeters because of the placement on the Moon
decades ago of five currently operational retroreflectors by the US
and the USSR. A sixth tiny retroreflector placed on the Moon by ISRO
in 2023 is used as a positional marker to help lunar orbiters
(currently NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) in their missions, and
is not useful for LLR measurements.
The five operational retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the
space race period are _old technology_, have degraded over time, and
their placements on the Moon are sub-optimal for ranging purposes. To
achieve sub-millimeter ranging to enable improved insights into the
Moon's dynamics, internal structure, Earth-Moon system evolution etc.
and for improved tests of GR, newer technology retroreflectors and
transponders need to be deployed.
1) The old retroreflectors used multiple corner cube prisms arranged
on large sheets which flex from differential heating effects,
lowering measurement accuracy. Large single-cube retroreflectors
made from temperature-resistant silica or sapphire would provide
higher reflectivity and stability over time.
2) Active transponders operating in two colors of light would allow
for much stronger return signals and would allow precise
calculation of signal delays from atmospheric refraction.
3) More widely distributed arrays placed with an eye towards improved
lunar science rather than to meet the requirements of manned space
missions would greatly improve LLR measurements.
If LLR measurements can be improved to the sub-millimeter or micron
level, they will approach the levels of measurement accuracy where
alternative theories of gravitation would expect GR to fail.

When all those asteroids hit the moon that oh five years ago
I guess it was and raised all the dust on the moon and
resulted about a day or so of a blank-faced moon, then
when that dust lowered and it looked more like its old face
than as it had looked for a while, in "changing faces of
the moon", since then I haven't really noticed, yet, you'd
figure everything on the moon has a fresh coat of dust.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.

That, of course, depends on *which* solar system objects one is
talking about, *what time period* one is talking about, and *what
specific parameters* one is discussing. For instance, Earth-planet
ranging measurements established the position of Mercury to within a
handful of meters while MESSENGER was in orbit, and they continue to
establish highly accurate distances to Mars because of the Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express, and the various active Mars
landers. What these measurements mean in terms of how accurate the
various orbital elements are of the different planets would be the
subject of a _different_ detailed discussion.

It is a clockwork in which everything hangs together.
Having some distances at some time to some nanoseconds correct
means that you must have the whole system to comparable accuracies.
(or the computations will go off)

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I want to focus on LLR ranging measurements.

Eh, the Moon is at 300 000km, so 3 x10^13 cm.
So her distance is known to 10^-13 accuracy,
so three orders of magnitude beter than the planetary distances
that we were discussing.

Jan

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The Moon's orbit is known
to within several centimeters because of the placement on the Moon
decades ago of five currently operational retroreflectors by the US
and the USSR. A sixth tiny retroreflector placed on the Moon by ISRO
in 2023 is used as a positional marker to help lunar orbiters
(currently NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) in their missions, and
is not useful for LLR measurements.
The five operational retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the
space race period are _old technology_, have degraded over time, and
their placements on the Moon are sub-optimal for ranging purposes. To
achieve sub-millimeter ranging to enable improved insights into the
Moon's dynamics, internal structure, Earth-Moon system evolution etc.
and for improved tests of GR, newer technology retroreflectors and
transponders need to be deployed.
1) The old retroreflectors used multiple corner cube prisms arranged
on large sheets which flex from differential heating effects,
lowering measurement accuracy. Large single-cube retroreflectors
made from temperature-resistant silica or sapphire would provide
higher reflectivity and stability over time.
2) Active transponders operating in two colors of light would allow
for much stronger return signals and would allow precise
calculation of signal delays from atmospheric refraction.
3) More widely distributed arrays placed with an eye towards improved
lunar science rather than to meet the requirements of manned space
missions would greatly improve LLR measurements.
If LLR measurements can be improved to the sub-millimeter or micron
level, they will approach the levels of measurement accuracy where
alternative theories of gravitation would expect GR to fail.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is a clockwork in which everything hangs together.
Having some distances at some time to some nanoseconds correct
means that you must have the whole system to comparable accuracies.
(or the computations will go off)

The statement of yours which I questioned was "JPL tracks and computes
'everything' in the solar system, from probes to planets, to an
accuracy of about 10^-10."

Some objects in the solar system are tracked to far greater accuracy
than 10^-10. The position of Mars, for instance, is known to about
1-2 meters thanks to transponder data from the Mars orbiters and
landers on the surface, implying positional accuracies on the order
of 10^-12. On the other hand, many objects in the solar system are
tracked to _far lower accuracy_. I imagine that most of the tracked
objects in the Minor Planet Center database have orbits known to
10^-8 or worse. Every year, hundreds to thousands of asteroids are
"lost" because of ill-determined orbits. Furthermore, the orbits of
many of these minor objects do not follow your "clockwork" paradigm
very closely at all, due to non-gravitational forces. For example,
have you heard of the Yarkovsky effect, which is the result of
anisotropic emission of thermal photons from rotating bodies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect
There is also solar radiation pressure, outgassing, occasional
collisions, etc.

The other point that I made was that the meaning of "10^-10 accuracy"
is rather ambiguous. For instance, since it has not been too many
years since the last Venus orbiters and Venus flybys, the current
positional accuracy of Venus may be known to the 10^-10 level. Does
that mean that the longitude of perihelion is known to 10^-10? Of
course not! The orbit of Venus has extremely low eccentricity, which
makes it difficult to determine this value. So the longitude of
perihelion is known to only a few tenths of a degree. That is what
I meant when I wrote that the accuracy depends on "what specific
parameters one is discussing".

[rhertz]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 1:57:21 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

<snip>

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The other point that I made was that the meaning of "10^-10 accuracy"
is rather ambiguous. For instance, since it has not been too many
years since the last Venus orbiters and Venus flybys, the current
positional accuracy of Venus may be known to the 10^-10 level. Does
that mean that the longitude of perihelion is known to 10^-10? Of
course not! The orbit of Venus has extremely low eccentricity, which
makes it difficult to determine this value. So the longitude of
perihelion is known to only a few tenths of a degree. That is what
I meant when I wrote that the accuracy depends on "what specific
parameters one is discussing".

Take the example below, which I extracted for the first three minutes of
today (now). One minute is the best resolution available.

The data, a Vector Table (xyz position and velocity from SSB), would
allow you to compute the orbital path of Venus, if you download the full
data for the orbital period of 224.7016 days (323,571 minutes), if you
ask to generate data for the entire period.


The resolution, as you can see, is about 1 part in 10E+16 (almost
hundred of micrometers).

BUT, THERE IS A CATCH: TO USE THIS DATA (323,571 BLOCKS) FOR POSITION
AND SPEED ///IN A CLOSED ORBIT///, YOU HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY THE 3D DATA
OF THE PERIMETER OF THE ELLIPSE THAT DEFINE THE ORBIT OF VENUS.

BUT, TILL TODAY, THE PERIMETER OF AN ELLIPSE IS UNKNOWN. ONLY
APPROXIMATIONS EXIST, BEING THE RAMANUJAN ALGORITHM THE BEST.

THEN, IT MEANS THAT THE STATE VECTOR METHOD USING THE DATA THAT HORIZONS
PROVIDES, DON'T LEAD YOU TO A CLOSED ORBIT. IT MEANS THAT THE RESULTS
ARE APPROXIMATED. AND THIS IS EVEN WORSE WITH MERCURY AND OTHERS.

THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE AN ACCURACY OF 10E-10 (NOT TO MENTION 10E-16) WOULD
REQUIRE EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS FROM A DEDICATED SPACECRAFT ORBITING
VENUS IN A HIGHLY KNOWN ORBIT, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO RELAY STATE VECTORS
DATA TO EARTH WITH VERY PRECISE TIME SLICING, LOWER THAN 1 SECOND. MORE
THAN 19,414,219 BLOCKS OF DATA, AND FOR SEVERAL ORBITS (TO OBSERVE
PERTURBATIONS AND DEVIATIONS).


AFAIK, there is only ONE project to do such measurements for Mercury
(Japan, two spacecrafts, being ready by the end of 2025).

Meanwhile, all the data available IS THEORETICAL, with some corrections
introduced by several spacecrafts in the past. Not now.

And if it is done as it's being thought with Mercury in 2026, you'd be
surprised of the ACTUAL ORBITAL PATH in a long period of time (say one
year or two). There are many perturbations that simplistic models don't
consider, in particular asynchronous perturbations and random anomalies.

Because of the above comments, I would LOWER the expectations of current
accuracy available for the general public. I'm quite sure that JPL has a
model with better accuracy, but they reserve that data for US only.

After all, it's not a matter of giving to other countries such
information FOR FREE, being some of them competitors in the field of
planet ranging (China, India, Russia, EU ESA, Japan, etc.).

Would you help to your competitors for nothing, so they can beat you?



********************************************

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/

Ephemeris Type: Vector Table

Target Body: Venus
Coordinate Center: Solar System Barycenter (SSB) [***@0]
Time Specification: Start=2024-11-04 TDB , Stop=2024-11-14, Step=1
(minutes)4
Table Settings: defaults


FIRST THREE MINUTES (LOWEST RESOLUTION AVAILABLE AT HORIZONS)

2460618.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-04 00:00:00.0000 TDB
X = 8.090156187452155E+07 Y =-7.238773823901479E+07
Z =-5.677786971194245E+06
VX= 2.286856341615997E+01 VY= 2.619946432328162E+01
VZ=-9.591151141072860E-01
LT= 3.626086375351044E+02 RG= 1.087073347386800E+08
RR=-3.769001975990773E-01

2460618.500694444 = A.D. 2024-Nov-04 00:01:00.0000 TDB
X = 8.090293397320572E+07 Y =-7.238616625790673E+07
Z =-5.677844517046656E+06
VX= 2.286805938787736E+01 VY= 2.619990594365392E+01
VZ=-9.590799661736238E-01
LT= 3.626085621025725E+02 RG= 1.087073121245759E+08
RR=-3.769032744711913E-01

2460618.501388889 = A.D. 2024-Nov-04 00:02:00.0000 TDB
X = 8.090430604164793E+07 Y =-7.238459425030173E+07
Z =-5.677902060790177E+06
VX= 2.286755535112288E+01 VY= 2.620034755436062E+01
VZ=-9.590448178838731E-01
LT= 3.626084866694247E+02 RG= 1.087072895102871E+08
RR=-3.769063512155697E-01


Symbol meaning:

JDTDB Julian Day Number, Barycentric Dynamical Time
X X-component of position vector (km)
Y Y-component of position vector (km)
Z Z-component of position vector (km)
VX X-component of velocity vector (km/sec)
VY Y-component of velocity vector (km/sec)
VZ Z-component of velocity vector (km/sec)
LT One-way down-leg Newtonian light-time (sec)
RG Range; distance from coordinate center (km)
RR Range-rate; radial velocity wrt coord. center (km/sec)


Distance from Solar System Barycenter (SSB)

RG 2024-Nov-04 (00:00) = 108,707,334,738.680 meters (EXAGGERATED)

RG 2024-Nov-04 (00:01) = 108,707,312,124.5759 meters (EXAGGERATED)

RG 2024-Nov-04 (00:02) = 108,707,289,510.2871 meters (EXAGGERATED)

*********************************************

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
Take the example below, which I extracted for the first three minutes of
today (now). One minute is the best resolution available.
The data, a Vector Table (xyz position and velocity from SSB), would
allow you to compute the orbital path of Venus, if you download the full
data for the orbital period of 224.7016 days (323,571 minutes), if you
ask to generate data for the entire period.
The resolution, as you can see, is about 1 part in 10E+16 (almost
hundred of micrometers).

As I stated before, the display of 16 figures merely provides the best
decimal representation of the binary output of the ephemeris program,
and is not intended to imply that the numbers are actually accurate to
that level of accuracy.

Post by rhertz
BUT, THERE IS A CATCH: TO USE THIS DATA (323,571 BLOCKS) FOR POSITION
AND SPEED ///IN A CLOSED ORBIT///, YOU HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY THE 3D DATA
OF THE PERIMETER OF THE ELLIPSE THAT DEFINE THE ORBIT OF VENUS.

Venus does not follow a closed elliptical orbit.

Post by rhertz
BUT, TILL TODAY, THE PERIMETER OF AN ELLIPSE IS UNKNOWN.

There is no simple, exact closed-form solution for the perimeter of an
ellipse.

Post by rhertz
ONLY
APPROXIMATIONS EXIST, BEING THE RAMANUJAN ALGORITHM THE BEST.
THEN, IT MEANS THAT THE STATE VECTOR METHOD USING THE DATA THAT HORIZONS
PROVIDES, DON'T LEAD YOU TO A CLOSED ORBIT.

It shouldn't.

Post by rhertz
IT MEANS THAT THE RESULTS
ARE APPROXIMATED. AND THIS IS EVEN WORSE WITH MERCURY AND OTHERS.
THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE AN ACCURACY OF 10E-10 (NOT TO MENTION 10E-16) WOULD
REQUIRE EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS FROM A DEDICATED SPACECRAFT ORBITING
VENUS IN A HIGHLY KNOWN ORBIT,

The last three Venus obiters were Akatsuki (Dec 2015-Apr 2024), Venus
Express (2006-1014) and Magellan (1990-1994). So yes, up until quite
recently, we would have had tracking data to the "handful of meters"
level.

Post by rhertz
WHICH WOULD HAVE TO RELAY STATE VECTORS
DATA TO EARTH WITH VERY PRECISE TIME SLICING, LOWER THAN 1 SECOND. MORE
THAN 19,414,219 BLOCKS OF DATA, AND FOR SEVERAL ORBITS (TO OBSERVE
PERTURBATIONS AND DEVIATIONS).
AFAIK, there is only ONE project to do such measurements for Mercury
(Japan, two spacecrafts, being ready by the end of 2025).
Meanwhile, all the data available IS THEORETICAL, with some corrections
introduced by several spacecrafts in the past. Not now.
And if it is done as it's being thought with Mercury in 2026, you'd be
surprised of the ACTUAL ORBITAL PATH in a long period of time (say one
year or two). There are many perturbations that simplistic models don't
consider, in particular asynchronous perturbations and random anomalies.

What random anomalies?

Post by rhertz
Because of the above comments, I would LOWER the expectations of current
accuracy available for the general public. I'm quite sure that JPL has a
model with better accuracy, but they reserve that data for US only.
After all, it's not a matter of giving to other countries such
information FOR FREE, being some of them competitors in the field of
planet ranging (China, India, Russia, EU ESA, Japan, etc.).
Would you help to your competitors for nothing, so they can beat you?

I really don't understand the point that you are trying to make. Sure,
data may be held in embargo until the research teams involved get to
process the data and publish their work, but the general practice
nowadays, once the embargo period is over, is to allow open
dissemination of the data.

Science is not a solo effort. So long as there are no commercial
proprietary concerns or national security issues involved, data are
freely shared.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is a clockwork in which everything hangs together.
Having some distances at some time to some nanoseconds correct
means that you must have the whole system to comparable accuracies.
(or the computations will go off)

The statement of yours which I questioned was "JPL tracks and computes
'everything' in the solar system, from probes to planets, to an
accuracy of about 10^-10."
Some objects in the solar system are tracked to far greater accuracy
than 10^-10. The position of Mars, for instance, is known to about
1-2 meters thanks to transponder data from the Mars orbiters and
landers on the surface, implying positional accuracies on the order
of 10^-12.

Tell us also whether the computing system applies The Shit of your
idiot guru - or Euclidean math.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is a clockwork in which everything hangs together.
Having some distances at some time to some nanoseconds correct
means that you must have the whole system to comparable accuracies.
(or the computations will go off)

The statement of yours which I questioned was "JPL tracks and computes
'everything' in the solar system, from probes to planets, to an
accuracy of about 10^-10."
Some objects in the solar system are tracked to far greater accuracy
than 10^-10. The position of Mars, for instance, is known to about
1-2 meters thanks to transponder data from the Mars orbiters and
landers on the surface, implying positional accuracies on the order
of 10^-12. On the other hand, many objects in the solar system are
tracked to _far lower accuracy_. I imagine that most of the tracked
objects in the Minor Planet Center database have orbits known to
10^-8 or worse.

Certainly, 10^-10 is merely a typical accuracy.
But your excessive snipping has removed the context,
and hence the point.
(which was rh's complete ignorance of the state of the art
with his claim that Mercury's precession
cannot be calculated to sufficient accuracy)

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Every year, hundreds to thousands of asteroids are
"lost" because of ill-determined orbits.

Yes, but that contributes only to the asteroid noise,
which is small anyway.

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Furthermore, the orbits of
many of these minor objects do not follow your "clockwork" paradigm
very closely at all, due to non-gravitational forces. For example,
have you heard of the Yarkovsky effect, which is the result of
anisotropic emission of thermal photons from rotating bodies?

Barely detectable, and completely irrelevant
for the calculation of anything else.

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect
There is also solar radiation pressure, outgassing, occasional
collisions, etc.
The other point that I made was that the meaning of "10^-10 accuracy"
is rather ambiguous. For instance, since it has not been too many
years since the last Venus orbiters and Venus flybys, the current
positional accuracy of Venus may be known to the 10^-10 level.

See above.

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Does that mean that the longitude of perihelion is known to 10^-10? Of
course not! The orbit of Venus has extremely low eccentricity, which makes
it difficult to determine this value. So the longitude of perihelion is
that the accuracy depends on "what specific parameters one is discussing".

Disingeneous, to put it mildly.
The age when planetary calculations were done
by perturbing instantaneous orbital elements is long past.
Nowadays JPL and friends just do direct integrations.

And yes, if you try to parametrise the results in unsuitable ways
the parameters may be inaccurate.
This is completely irrelevant for knowing where Venus actually is,

Jan

[rhertz]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:19:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip Jan irrelevant, delusional crap>

Post by J. J. Lodder
Disingeneous, to put it mildly.
The age when planetary calculations were done
by perturbing instantaneous orbital elements is long past.
Nowadays JPL and friends just do direct integrations.
And yes, if you try to parametrise the results in unsuitable ways
the parameters may be inaccurate.
This is completely irrelevant for knowing where Venus actually is,
Jan

Keep doing the entire work of the community of retarded, Jan.

You don't know shit about this subject, but still perseveres to pose as
a know-it-all, imbecile.

It's widely known that the precession of Mercury's orbit, as well as of
other planets, have an orbital value that is +/- 500% variation over the
average of 0.43"/year (2.0847E-6 rad/year).

Due to numerous perturbations over its orbit, the projected 100 years
advance, being graphically represented, looks like a pseudo-random noise
mounted over a linear progression with 0.43"/years (derived from
statistical averages). The peak noisy shift in the perihelion advance is
greater than 5"/year, with UNKNOWN PATTERN for its occurrence.

And more exact measurements than those done from Earth are only 35 years
old. The remaining years for the LAST CENTURY were measured from Earth's
observatories, with all the errors that it implies.

Wait till 2025, when the Japanese spacecrafts orbiting Mercury start to
send more reliable data. Then wait 100 years more to know the truth.

You are very convinced about precision of 1 nanosec and 1 micrometer on
the available data for solar system planets. This serves to describe you
as what your posts transpire: You are a gullible idiot.

Cheers.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
It's widely known that the precession of Mercury's orbit, as well as of
other planets, have an orbital value that is +/- 500% variation over the
average of 0.43"/year (2.0847E-6 rad/year).

Yes, of course. Both Paul and I have presented simulation results, so
this fact should be very well known among the denizens of these groups.

Post by rhertz
Due to numerous perturbations over its orbit, the projected 100 years
advance, being graphically represented, looks like a pseudo-random noise

No, not "pseudo-random" at all.

Post by rhertz
mounted over a linear progression with 0.43"/years (derived from
statistical averages). The peak noisy shift in the perihelion advance is
greater than 5"/year, with UNKNOWN PATTERN for its occurrence.

By no means "unknown". The pattern is dominated by a 12-year period
corresponding to Jupiter's orbit, with secondary contributions by the
other planets.

Post by rhertz
And more exact measurements than those done from Earth are only 35 years
old. The remaining years for the LAST CENTURY were measured from Earth's
observatories, with all the errors that it implies.

MESSENGER orbited Mercury between 2011-2015, providing extremely
precise distance measurements, down to a few meters.

Post by rhertz
Wait till 2025, when the Japanese spacecrafts orbiting Mercury start to
send more reliable data.

BepiColombo is a joint ESA-JAXA effort.

Post by rhertz
Then wait 100 years more to know the truth.
You are very convinced about precision of 1 nanosec and 1 micrometer on
the available data for solar system planets. This serves to describe you
as what your posts transpire: You are a gullible idiot.

How many times to you have to be told? The 16 digit precision of the
NASA Horizons output merely reflects the best decimal representation
of the ephemeris program output, and does not imply that the program
output is actually considered to be that accurate.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
How many times to you have to be told? The 16 digit precision of the
NASA Horizons output merely reflects the best decimal representation
of the ephemeris program output, and does not imply that the program
output is actually considered to be that accurate.

Tell us also whether the computing system is
applying The Shit of your idiot guru - or
Euclidean math.