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 .<br>I can follow the logic - but the maths, no.<br><br>Tom.<br>
<br><br>
----Original Message----<br>
From: cj@mb-soft.com<br>
Date: 23/04/2018 21:33 <br>
To: <physics@tuks.nl><br>
Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9<br>
<br>
<div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Guys,</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">I have something entirely different to ask you
about. Do you like to do difficult math?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">"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) </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">For many years, I have studied that matter, and I
think I have found a "far more precisely correct" explanation.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Most Physicists, including Einstein do
TWO-DIMENSIONAL math. Euler expanded the math to THREE
DIMENSIONS.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">I am hoping that you might be interested in
confirming my Euler math.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Carl Johnson</span></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Physics mailing list<br>Physics@tuks.nl<br>http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics<br><br>
<br>