[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9

[Randy O. Wayne]

Dear All,
This may be interesting to you (http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/OneCulture.pdf):
I recently read Einstein’s (1997) paper on the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and found that logically, I could not get from his assumptions to his conclusion (Wayne, 2015a). Then I realized that there was either a typo or a mistake in equation 7c. I wrote to a famous astrophysicist, who replied on May 23, 2015: Hi Randy, It certainly looks like a typo in the paper by Einstein. The Newtonian potential has to be GM/r, as you noted. By the way, I have personally never referred to Einstein's original papers for equations like this - I always go to one of the textbooks. Not sure whether I should feel ashamed or vindicated ... Perhaps the foundations of the general theory of relativity have not been scrutinized as much as the textbook versions imply (Wayne, 2012, 2015a).
Thanks,
Randy


Randy Wayne,
Providing a Second Opinion on Scientific Issues Since 1982
[second opinion]
http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/


From: Physics <physics-bounces at tuks.nl> On Behalf Of carmam at tiscali.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:55 AM
To: cj at mb-soft.com; physics at tuks.nl
Subject: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9

Unfortunately Carl, I would grow old and grey before I could get even a tenth of the way into the maths involved! Here is an article which is worth a read :- http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MercuryPerihelion.htm .
I can follow the logic - but the maths, no.

Tom.


----Original Message----
From: cj at mb-soft.com<mailto:cj at mb-soft.com>
Date: 23/04/2018 21:33
To: <physics at tuks.nl<mailto:physics at tuks.nl>>
Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9


Guys,

I have something entirely different to ask you about.  Do you like to do difficult math?

"The public" TOTALLY accepts that Einstein's General Relatvity has an "airtight" explanation of the Precession of Mercury's perihelion.  Really strict Theoretical Physicists do NOT believe that.  (including me)

It actually is NOT accurate in calculating it.  The MEASURED precession is DIFFERENT than what Einstein's math shows, by about one percent,  To a strict Theoretical Physicist, that is OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG.

For many years, I have studied that matter, and I think I have found a "far more precisely correct" explanation.

Most Physicists, including Einstein do TWO-DIMENSIONAL math.  Euler expanded the math to THREE DIMENSIONS.

When I have done the math (Euler) regarding Jupiter's precessional on Mercury, I think I have found math results that are twenty times more accurate than Einstein's GR.  As per Euler, the main effect is due to a Z-axis gravitational effect in the Euler equations.  It is much like the third dimensional effect in gyroscopic Euler math where an entirely NEW effect appears, in a third dimension, where the Precession arises.  It is a pure gravitational effect, and it is amazingly accurate for Mercury's perihelion, and (nearly) entirely due to Jupiter.

I am hoping that you might be interested in confirming my Euler math.

Carl Johnson
_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl<mailto:Physics at tuks.nl>
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20180424/ead4623a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4536 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20180424/ead4623a/attachment.jpg>