Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
In other words to account for the advance in preccession, does this give Mercury a gain or loss in speed excess to that expected at perigee?
Den 05.03.2022 16:25, skrev Lou:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’If Mercury and the Sun were the only bodies in the universe,
then GR predicts that the angle to the perihelion would advance
42.98 arcsecs/century in the same direction as Mercury'ss motion.
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?No, the speed is obvious highest at the perihelion, but it
doesn't change. The elliptic orbit is stable in all respects,
but for that it is slowly rotating.
Newtonian gravitation predicts that the ellipse will be
the same, but is not rotating.
On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 21:29:31 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 05.03.2022 16:25, skrev Lou:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’If Mercury and the Sun were the only bodies in the universe,
then GR predicts that the angle to the perihelion would advance
42.98 arcsecs/century in the same direction as Mercury'ss motion.
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?No, the speed is obvious highest at the perihelion, but it
doesn't change. The elliptic orbit is stable in all respects,
but for that it is slowly rotating.
Newtonian gravitation predicts that the ellipse will be
the same, but is not rotating.
Yes obviously the speed is highest at perehilion. But Im assuming the speed is observed to be higher at perehilion for mercury than Newtonian
mechanics predicts. Seeing as an observed advancing preccessional
orbit forces Mercury to travel further each orbit.
I notice a similar anomalous acceleration is observed for satellites
in the flyby anomaly when the satellites ( and Oumuamua) are at
perehilion. Between 0.1 and 3 mm/s at Perihilion. The difficult part
is to see if this additional speed the flyby anomaly gives at perehilion
is on the same order as the boost in speed Mercury recieved at perehilion.
Den 06.03.2022 14:40, skrev Lou:
On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 21:29:31 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 05.03.2022 16:25, skrev Lou:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’If Mercury and the Sun were the only bodies in the universe,
then GR predicts that the angle to the perihelion would advance
42.98 arcsecs/century in the same direction as Mercury'ss motion.
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?No, the speed is obvious highest at the perihelion, but it
doesn't change. The elliptic orbit is stable in all respects,
but for that it is slowly rotating.
Newtonian gravitation predicts that the ellipse will be
the same, but is not rotating.
Yes obviously the speed is highest at perehilion. But Im assuming the speedNo!
is observed to be higher at perehilion for mercury than Newtonian mechanics predicts. Seeing as an observed advancing preccessional
orbit forces Mercury to travel further each orbit.
Why don't you read what you snipped?
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
Equation (3) shows the the gravitational acceleration according to GR.
Note that there is an acceleration in the same direction as
the velocity. Due to the dot product r̂⋅v̂ will this acceleration be zero at the perihelion and aphelion, but it will be in the same
direction as the velocity when the velocity is away from the
perihelion, and in the opposite direction when the velocity is
towards the perihelion. This will make the elliptic orbit rotate.
Note however that centripetal acceleration is different from
the Newtonian acceleration, so the net result is that the
static ellipse of Newton is exactly equal to the rotating
ellipse of GR.
See the simulation:
https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html
I notice a similar anomalous acceleration is observed for satellitesOumuamua is an interstellar object in hyperbolic trajectory,
in the flyby anomaly when the satellites ( and Oumuamua) are at perehilion. Between 0.1 and 3 mm/s at Perihilion. The difficult part
is to see if this additional speed the flyby anomaly gives at perehilion is on the same order as the boost in speed Mercury recieved at perehilion.
which means that it will never visit the Solar system again.
The perihelion was 0.26 AU, which is a bit closer to the Sun
than Mercury. A non-gravitational acceleration was observed,
which is quite common for objects like comets ("dirty snowballs").
This can be caused by outgassing when the object is heated by
the Sun, and from solar pressure (Oumuamua was a small object).
Oumuamua was observed first 40 days after perihelion.
There is no anomalous acceleration at perihelion caused by GR!
Den 06.03.2022 22:34, skrev Lou:
On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 19:32:01 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.03.2022 14:40, skrev Lou:
On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 21:29:31 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 05.03.2022 16:25, skrev Lou:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’If Mercury and the Sun were the only bodies in the universe,
then GR predicts that the angle to the perihelion would advance
42.98 arcsecs/century in the same direction as Mercury'ss motion.
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
Yes obviously the speed is highest at perehilion. But Im assuming the speed
is observed to be higher at perehilion for mercury than Newtonian
mechanics predicts. Seeing as an observed advancing preccessional
orbit forces Mercury to travel further each orbit.
You asked if "this advance [predicted by GR]No!I snipped it because what GR predicts isnt the question I was
Why don't you read what you snipped?
asking. I was wondering whether or not Newton’s predicted
orbital speeds for Mercury were the same as observed.
equate to any anomalous
decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from
its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?"
The answer is that GR and Newton predict the same for
the speed of Mercury at perihelion, and that's the velocity
that is observed (but for small perturbations due to the pull
from the other planets).
Maybe if you think you know the answer to the flyby anomaly...It’s now accepted Oumuamua didnt outgas.
And neither did any of the satellites. Notice the flyby anomaly
is called that because no one knows what caused it. Thats
why Wiki among others use the wording...”possible explanations”
Whoever noticed the flyby anomaly existed didnt do soThe "flyby anomaly" is minute. It is probably something
using GR. As far as I’m aware the satelittes expected flight paths/speeds
were made using Newtonian calculations. And so the anomaly
accelerations observed were in excess of those expected using Newtonian calculations.
wrong with the calculation model used. It could be
related to Earth's rotation.
(I don't dear to mention frame dragging.)
I think the below is answered above.So despite the fact that Mercury Is observed to travel a greater distance
I’ve heard that even Einstein accepted Mercury travelled faster than expected. On a longer route. If that’s true then...It isn't.
That’s called an acceleration. Relative to what is expected from a Newtonian calculation.There is no anomalous acceleration of Mercury at perihelion.
The question Im wondering then is....Is the observed excess Mercury acceleration, that is *excess to what Newton calculated*, on the same order as the flyby anomaly acceleration. Seems a fair comparison
to make considering GR wasnt used to calculate the satellite speeds,
nor the flyby anomaly.
Because if they are, I would say that means both are caused by
the same thing. Same Physics, phenomena, effect, theory, whatever you
wish to call it.
The speed is as expected everywhere along the orbit.
Got it?
On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 19:32:01 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.03.2022 14:40, skrev Lou:
On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 21:29:31 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 05.03.2022 16:25, skrev Lou:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’If Mercury and the Sun were the only bodies in the universe,
then GR predicts that the angle to the perihelion would advance
42.98 arcsecs/century in the same direction as Mercury'ss motion.
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
Yes obviously the speed is highest at perehilion. But Im assuming the speed >>> is observed to be higher at perehilion for mercury than Newtonian
mechanics predicts. Seeing as an observed advancing preccessional
orbit forces Mercury to travel further each orbit.
No!I snipped it because what GR predicts isnt the question I was
Why don't you read what you snipped?
asking. I was wondering whether or not Newton’s predicted
orbital speeds for Mercury were the same as observed.
It’s now accepted Oumuamua didnt outgas.
And neither did any of the satellites. Notice the flyby anomaly
is called that because no one knows what caused it. Thats
why Wiki among others use the wording...”possible explanations”
Whoever noticed the flyby anomaly existed didnt do so
using GR. As far as I’m aware the satelittes expected flight paths/speeds were made using Newtonian calculations. And so the anomaly
accelerations observed were in excess of those expected using Newtonian calculations.
I’ve heard that even Einstein accepted Mercury travelled faster than expected. On a longer route. If that’s true then...
That’s called an acceleration. Relative to what is expected from a Newtonian calculation.
The question Im wondering then is....Is the observed excess Mercury acceleration, that is *excess to what Newton calculated*, on the same
order as the flyby anomaly acceleration. Seems a fair comparison
to make considering GR wasnt used to calculate the satellite speeds,
nor the flyby anomaly.
Because if they are, I would say that means both are caused by
the same thing. Same Physics, phenomena, effect, theory, whatever you
wish to call it.
On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 13:23:22 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.03.2022 22:34, skrev Lou:
I snipped it because what GR predicts isnt the question I was
asking. I was wondering whether or not Newton’s predicted
orbital speeds for Mercury were the same as observed.
You asked if "this advance [predicted by GR]
No it wasn’t predicted by GR. How could it have been? It was discovered decades before Einstein was born.
It’s now accepted Oumuamua didnt outgas.
And neither did any of the satellites. Notice the flyby anomaly
is called that because no one knows what caused it. Thats
why Wiki among others use the wording...”possible explanations”
Whoever noticed the flyby anomaly existed didnt do so
using GR. As far as I’m aware the satelittes expected flight paths/speeds >>> were made using Newtonian calculations. And so the anomaly
accelerations observed were in excess of those expected using Newtonian
calculations.
The "flyby anomaly" is minute. It is probably something
wrong with the calculation model used. It could be
related to Earth's rotation.
(I don't dear to mention frame dragging.)
Maybe if you think you know the answer to the flyby anomaly...
you should publish.The rest of the astrophysics community might
be very interested seeing as so far..it’s a mystery.
There is no anomalous acceleration of Mercury at perihelion.
The speed is as expected everywhere along the orbit.
Got it?
So despite the fact that Mercury Is observed to travel a greater distance than predicted by Newton,...the orbital speed of Mercury is the same as expected from Newtonian calculations?
Interesting claim Paul. How do two objects travelling different
distances at the same speed both complete their journeys...in the
same amount of time?
Den 07.03.2022 15:00, skrev Lou:
On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 13:23:22 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.03.2022 22:34, skrev Lou:
I snipped it because what GR predicts isnt the question I was
asking. I was wondering whether or not Newton’s predicted
orbital speeds for Mercury were the same as observed.
You asked if "this advance [predicted by GR]
No it wasn’t predicted by GR. How could it have been? It was discovered decades before Einstein was born.When we say 'predicted by a theory', it only means that
the theory say what should be measured. It doesn't mean that
the measurement must be made after the 'prediction'.
You said:
"Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances*
over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century
for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million
orbits for a full *excess* turn’ Does this advance equate to any
anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it
moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian
mechanics? "
This indicates that you don't know that the observed perihelion
advance of mercury is ≈575"/century. Newtonian gravitation predicts
that the pull from the other planets should give a perihelion advance
of ≈532"/century. So ≈43"/century were missing.
Even if the missing ≈43"/century were observed before
Einstein was born, GR does indeed predict these ≈43"/century.
It’s now accepted Oumuamua didnt outgas.
And neither did any of the satellites. Notice the flyby anomaly
is called that because no one knows what caused it. Thats
why Wiki among others use the wording...”possible explanations”
Whoever noticed the flyby anomaly existed didnt do so
using GR. As far as I’m aware the satelittes expected flight paths/speeds
were made using Newtonian calculations. And so the anomaly
accelerations observed were in excess of those expected using Newtonian >>> calculations.
The "flyby anomaly" is minute. It is probably something
wrong with the calculation model used. It could be
related to Earth's rotation.
(I don't dear to mention frame dragging.)
Maybe if you think you know the answer to the flyby anomaly...I have no idea what could cause it. It's not my idea that
you should publish.The rest of the astrophysics community might
be very interested seeing as so far..it’s a mystery.
Earth's rotation might have something to do with it.
But it is a complex calculation. I am sure they have to consider relativistic effects,
and they will also have to consider the
influence of other planets than the one that is flown by.
And possibly Earth's rotation.
But for the perturbation due to the drag from the other planets.There is no anomalous acceleration of Mercury at perihelion.
The speed is as expected everywhere along the orbit.
Got it?
(As previously stated).
So despite the fact that Mercury Is observed to travel a greater distance than predicted by Newton,...the orbital speed of Mercury is the same as expected from Newtonian calculations?
Interesting claim Paul. How do two objects travelling different
distances at the same speed both complete their journeys...in the
same amount of time?
I didn't say it was the same as expected by Newtonian
gravitation. It is the same as expected by GR.
But note:Possibly. But NASA among others only use Newton to calculate
If Mercury and the Sun were the only bodies in the universe,
then the ellipse would rotate once during 3026564 years,
and perihelion would move with the speed 3 mm/s.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can add these
3 mm/s to the speed at perihelion. Because as I explained
in the part you snipped, there is a small acceleration
parallel to the velocity. This acceleration is zero at
the perihelion and aphelion. But it is in the same direction
as the velocity when Mercury moves from perihelion to
aphelion, and in opposite direction when Mercury moves
from aphelion.
_This_ is what make the elliptic orbit rotate - in a universe
where Mercury and the Sun are the only objects.
But there are 8 planets in the Solar system. ---------------------------------------------
This is what Newtonian gravitation predicts:
The gravitational acceleration caused by the other planets will
make Mercury's perihelion advance 532.33"/century.
The gravitational acceleration caused by the Sun will not
conduce to any advance of the perihelion.
This is what GR predicts:
The gravitational acceleration caused by the other planets will
make Mercury's perihelion advance 532.33"/century.
The gravitational acceleration caused by the Sun will conduce to
another 42.98"/century advance of the perihelion.
So GR predicts a perihelion advance 575.31"/century as observed.
The observations of everything are as predicted by GR. -----------------------------------------------------
You should note that the advance of Mercury isn't the same
for every orbit; it is varying a lot.
You can see it here:
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/MercuryAdvance.pdf
The perihelion advance per orbit for the 22 first orbits
after EPOCH J2000 (January 1. 2000) are in arcseconds: -6.8,+7.3,+14.4,+6.1,-5.0,+2.2,+3.8,+8.9,-1.8,+1.8,-2.0,+5.4, -2.9,-2.4,-2.4,+6.0,+0.6,-3.9,-7.2,-0.6,+13.4,+1.8,. . .
The perihelion moves back and forth, and you will have
to average over a long time to get +575.31"/century.
You will probably understand that the speed at perihelion
will vary caused by the influence of the other planets.
So the question if the 3 mm/s speed of the perihelion
of Mercury in a universe with only Mercury and the Sun,
would add to the real speed at perihelion isn't very meaningful.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 21:23:07 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.03.2022 15:00, skrev Lou:
On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 13:23:22 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:When we say 'predicted by a theory', it only means that
Den 06.03.2022 22:34, skrev Lou:
I snipped it because what GR predicts isnt the question I was
asking. I was wondering whether or not Newton’s predicted
orbital speeds for Mercury were the same as observed.
You asked if "this advance [predicted by GR]
No it wasn’t predicted by GR. How could it have been? It was discovered >>> decades before Einstein was born.
the theory say what should be measured. It doesn't mean that
the measurement must be made after the 'prediction'.
You said:
"Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances*
over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century
for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million
orbits for a full *excess* turn’ Does this advance equate to any
anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it
moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian
mechanics? "
This indicates that you don't know that the observed perihelion
advance of mercury is ≈575"/century. Newtonian gravitation predicts
that the pull from the other planets should give a perihelion advance
of ≈532"/century. So ≈43"/century were missing.
Even if the missing ≈43"/century were observed before
Einstein was born, GR does indeed predict these ≈43"/century.
I wasn’t asking what GR predicts. My question is confined to
what Newton predicts and the difference to what is observed.
I have no idea what could cause it. It's not my idea thatIt’s now accepted Oumuamua didnt outgas.
And neither did any of the satellites. Notice the flyby anomaly
is called that because no one knows what caused it. Thats
why Wiki among others use the wording...”possible explanations”
Whoever noticed the flyby anomaly existed didnt do so
using GR. As far as I’m aware the satelittes expected flight paths/speeds
were made using Newtonian calculations. And so the anomaly
accelerations observed were in excess of those expected using Newtonian >>>>> calculations.
The "flyby anomaly" is minute. It is probably something
wrong with the calculation model used. It could be
related to Earth's rotation.
(I don't dear to mention frame dragging.)
Maybe if you think you know the answer to the flyby anomaly...
you should publish.The rest of the astrophysics community might
be very interested seeing as so far..it’s a mystery.
Earth's rotation might have something to do with it.
But it is a complex calculation. I am sure they have to consider
relativistic effects,
Apparently GR has been ruled out according to wiki.
Quite why is interesting considering the change to orbit for
both Mercury and the flyby anomaly seem to be on the same
order from what Newton predicts. An important consideration
seeing as NASA uses Newtonian calculations not GR to
study and calculate orbital paths.
Is NASA implicitly suggesting GR is invalid by ignoring its calculations
and predictions and instead opting for Newton?
On 09/03/2022 10:02, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 21:23:07 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.03.2022 15:00, skrev Lou:
On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 13:23:22 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:When we say 'predicted by a theory', it only means that
Den 06.03.2022 22:34, skrev Lou:
I snipped it because what GR predicts isnt the question I was
asking. I was wondering whether or not Newton’s predicted
orbital speeds for Mercury were the same as observed.
You asked if "this advance [predicted by GR]
No it wasn’t predicted by GR. How could it have been? It was discovered
decades before Einstein was born.
the theory say what should be measured. It doesn't mean that
the measurement must be made after the 'prediction'.
You said:
"Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances*
over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century
for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million
orbits for a full *excess* turn’ Does this advance equate to any
anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it
moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian
mechanics? "
This indicates that you don't know that the observed perihelion
advance of mercury is ≈575"/century. Newtonian gravitation predicts
that the pull from the other planets should give a perihelion advance
of ≈532"/century. So ≈43"/century were missing.
Even if the missing ≈43"/century were observed before
Einstein was born, GR does indeed predict these ≈43"/century.
I wasn’t asking what GR predicts. My question is confined toNewton predicts ~532" per century. Observations show that there is an additional 43" per century and GR exactly explains that difference.
what Newton predicts and the difference to what is observed.
I have no idea what could cause it. It's not my idea thatIt’s now accepted Oumuamua didnt outgas.
And neither did any of the satellites. Notice the flyby anomaly
is called that because no one knows what caused it. Thats
why Wiki among others use the wording...”possible explanations” >>>>>
Whoever noticed the flyby anomaly existed didnt do so
using GR. As far as I’m aware the satelittes expected flight paths/speeds
were made using Newtonian calculations. And so the anomaly
accelerations observed were in excess of those expected using Newtonian
calculations.
The "flyby anomaly" is minute. It is probably something
wrong with the calculation model used. It could be
related to Earth's rotation.
(I don't dear to mention frame dragging.)
Maybe if you think you know the answer to the flyby anomaly...
you should publish.The rest of the astrophysics community might
be very interested seeing as so far..it’s a mystery.
Earth's rotation might have something to do with it.
But it is a complex calculation. I am sure they have to consider
relativistic effects,
Apparently GR has been ruled out according to wiki.They *know* when they can make those approximations without losing any precision. No comets or asteroids have ever been seen where relativistic corrections would have significantly affected the orbits. Proximity to Jupiter tends to be the biggest factor followed by the other gas giants.
Quite why is interesting considering the change to orbit for
both Mercury and the flyby anomaly seem to be on the same
order from what Newton predicts. An important consideration
seeing as NASA uses Newtonian calculations not GR to
study and calculate orbital paths.
Is NASA implicitly suggesting GR is invalid by ignoring its calculations and predictions and instead opting for Newton?
Initial orbit determination is hairy enough without making it any more complicated than it already is in Newtonian dynamics. It is perfectly reasonable to use the appropriate method for the task in hand.
ISTR Back when the first binary pulsar was discovered unexplained
systematic periodic errors in the pulse timings were found around the vicinity of Jupiter which were ultimately traced to an overflow in the continuation cards by the symbolic algebra program that generated VSOP
82 FORTRAN code. I'm pretty sure it was fixed before VSOP87.
Discrepancies between GR predictions and real pulsar observations have actually found faults in computer programs that were believed to be
working. ISTR it was this group that made the observations sensitive
enough to pick up errors in the coding of the VSOP series available at
that date.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..908T/abstract
It also rather nicely provides independent evidence of loss of energy by gravitational waves in good accordance with GR predictions (ruling out
some other competing theories in the process).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
I wasn’t asking what GR predicts. My question is confined to
what Newton predicts and the difference to what is observed.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 21:23:07 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Got it now, or will you ask answered questions yet again?
This is what Newtonian gravitation predicts:
The gravitational acceleration caused by the other planets will
make Mercury's perihelion advance 532.33"/century.
The gravitational acceleration caused by the Sun will not
conduce to any advance of the perihelion.
This is what GR predicts:
The gravitational acceleration caused by the other planets will
make Mercury's perihelion advance 532.33"/century.
The gravitational acceleration caused by the Sun will conduce to
another 42.98"/century advance of the perihelion.
So GR predicts a perihelion advance 575.31"/century as observed.
The observations of everything are as predicted by GR.
-----------------------------------------------------
Possibly. But NASA among others only use Newton to calculate
planetary and flyby anomaly speeds. So my question isn’t
about what GR predicts. Fascinating as those predictions by GR
may be.
Den 09.03.2022 11:02, skrev Lou:
I wasn’t asking what GR predicts. My question is confined to
what Newton predicts and the difference to what is observed.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 21:23:07 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This is what Newtonian gravitation predicts:
The gravitational acceleration caused by the other planets will
make Mercury's perihelion advance 532.33"/century.
The gravitational acceleration caused by the Sun will not
conduce to any advance of the perihelion.
This is what GR predicts:
The gravitational acceleration caused by the other planets will
make Mercury's perihelion advance 532.33"/century.
The gravitational acceleration caused by the Sun will conduce to
another 42.98"/century advance of the perihelion.
So GR predicts a perihelion advance 575.31"/century as observed.
The observations of everything are as predicted by GR.
-----------------------------------------------------
Possibly. But NASA among others only use Newton to calculateGot it now, or will you ask answered questions yet again?
planetary and flyby anomaly speeds. So my question isn’t
about what GR predicts. Fascinating as those predictions by GR
may be.
On Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 10:43:32 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Newton predicts ~532" per century. Observations show that there is an
additional 43" per century and GR exactly explains that difference.
GR doesn’t explain the difference. It only uses the predicted preccession from Newton, adds in the difference observed and says the total is caused
by GR. Look at any relativistic derivation and is clear it was back calculated.
Den 09.03.2022 14:07, skrev Lou:
On Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 10:43:32 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Newton predicts ~532" per century. Observations show that there is an
additional 43" per century and GR exactly explains that difference.
GR doesn’t explain the difference. It only uses the predicted preccessionIt is very obvious that you haven't looked "at any relativistic
from Newton, adds in the difference observed and says the total is caused by GR. Look at any relativistic derivation and is clear it was back calculated.
derivation" of the perihelion advance of planets.
So why are bluffing so stupidly?
This reference was given in my very first response to you.
READ CHAPTER 3 page2!
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
Note that equation (8) for the perihelion advance per orbit
works perfectly for all the planets.
You can find the calculation in many books, e.g.:
Ray d’Inverno: Introducing Einstein’s Relativity
CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD
page 197
On Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 10:43:32 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
ISTR Back when the first binary pulsar was discovered unexplained
systematic periodic errors in the pulse timings were found around the
vicinity of Jupiter which were ultimately traced to an overflow in the
continuation cards by the symbolic algebra program that generated VSOP
82 FORTRAN code. I'm pretty sure it was fixed before VSOP87.
Discrepancies between GR predictions and real pulsar observations have
actually found faults in computer programs that were believed to be
working. ISTR it was this group that made the observations sensitive
enough to pick up errors in the coding of the VSOP series available at
that date.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..908T/abstract
I’m sure the same discrepancies would have been noted without GR.
It’s hilarious the way relativists say other models did not agree with
the observations. Yet in fact...they never did try modelling the results
with any other model. ??!!
This is a characteristic fault of relativity supporters. They either claim without evidence that a non Relativistic model cannot supply correct predictions. Or they falsify the predictions made by classical to make relativity look like it’s the only one that can correctly predict the observations.
It also rather nicely provides independent evidence of loss of energy byThanks Martin, but as I’ve pointed out to Paul. I wasn’t asking
gravitational waves in good accordance with GR predictions (ruling out
some other competing theories in the process).
what relativity predicts. I was trying to find out if the predicted speed using Newtonian calculations was different from the observed speed
of Mercury at perehilion. Paul *suggests* it is about 3mm/s extra
speed for Mercury at perehilion than Newton calculates.
Does this sound about right to you?
If so...it’s in line with the observed excess speed at perihelion
for the flyby anomaly. Pointing to the same cause for both
flyby and Mercury preccession anomaly.
On 09/03/2022 13:07, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 10:43:32 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
ISTR Back when the first binary pulsar was discovered unexplained
systematic periodic errors in the pulse timings were found around the
vicinity of Jupiter which were ultimately traced to an overflow in the
continuation cards by the symbolic algebra program that generated VSOP
82 FORTRAN code. I'm pretty sure it was fixed before VSOP87.
Discrepancies between GR predictions and real pulsar observations have
actually found faults in computer programs that were believed to be
working. ISTR it was this group that made the observations sensitive
enough to pick up errors in the coding of the VSOP series available at
that date.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..908T/abstract
I’m sure the same discrepancies would have been noted without GR.That would be *VERY* surprising since the Shapiro time delay for an EM
wave travelling through a gravitational potential well is entirely an
effect of general relativity affecting the shortest trajectory through spacetime. There is *no* corresponding effect in Newtonian theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay
The existence of pulsars that get nice and close to Jupiter sometimes
was an incredibly sensitive test of these predictions. Way better than
had been possible before using interplanetary radar.
It’s hilarious the way relativists say other models did not agree with the observations. Yet in fact...they never did try modelling the results with any other model. ??!!If you look at the paper you will find they compared observations with several other contenders and found them all (except GR) wanting.
People who deny relativity should be forbidden from ever using GPS since
the entire network relies on relativistic effects to work correctly!
This is a characteristic fault of relativity supporters. They either claim without evidence that a non Relativistic model cannot supply correct predictions. Or they falsify the predictions made by classical to make relativity look like it’s the only one that can correctly predict the observations.And a characteristic of relativity deniers is an inability to learn or
gain anything from explanations given to them on a plate.
I don't think he did. My reading was that the speed of Mercury atIt also rather nicely provides independent evidence of loss of energy by >> gravitational waves in good accordance with GR predictions (ruling outThanks Martin, but as I’ve pointed out to Paul. I wasn’t asking
some other competing theories in the process).
what relativity predicts. I was trying to find out if the predicted speed using Newtonian calculations was different from the observed speed
of Mercury at perehilion. Paul *suggests* it is about 3mm/s extra
speed for Mercury at perehilion than Newton calculates.
Does this sound about right to you?
perihelion and aphelion would be virtually the same in both theories
(although in reality impossible to measure that accurately due to the
larger perturbations of all the other planets in the solar system).
The difference comes in between when there is a very small acceleration
that distorts the orbit away from a perfect closed ellipse.
What I thought he said although I haven't checked the numbers is that
each time around the sun successive Mercury perihelia are displaced by
about 3mm away from where Newtonian dynamics would predict.
If so...it’s in line with the observed excess speed at perihelionPredicting how an asteroid or comet will move if it gets to the point of outgassing is always going to be interesting. I don't think you can read anything into the flyby anomaly beyond that observations are imperfect.
for the flyby anomaly. Pointing to the same cause for both
flyby and Mercury preccession anomaly.
Dirty snowballs outgas and that mass loss causes an acceleration. It
will preferentially outgas more strongly on the sunward side and do more
of it on the way out since it was utterly frigid for a lot longer on the
way in before it began to outgas at all. It isn't at all surprising that objects that are not far off being sun grazers gain some extra momentum
from outgassing on their way out of the solar system. They do a lot more outgassing shortly after their perihelion than they do on the way in!
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We now
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational
poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
Den 10.03.2022 14:18, skrev Lou:
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We nowI suppose a knowledgeable person like you know what it is in
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
the caesium atom that has the frequency 9.192631770 GHz.
So maybe you can explain how a free falling caesium atom in
a caesium-beam atomic clock can feel if it is in a GPS-satellite,
or on the ground?
Den 10.03.2022 14:18, skrev Lou:
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already >> sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their
resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We now
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated
relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant
frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational
poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
I suppose a knowledgeable person like you know what it is in
the caesium atom that has the frequency 9.192631770 GHz.
So maybe you can explain how a free falling caesium atom in
a caesium-beam atomic clock can feel if it is in a GPS-satellite,
or on the ground?
On Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 18:01:57 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 10.03.2022 14:18, skrev Lou:
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already >>> sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their
resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We now
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated
relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant
frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational
poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
I suppose a knowledgeable person like you know what it is in
the caesium atom that has the frequency 9.192631770 GHz.
So maybe you can explain how a free falling caesium atom in
a caesium-beam atomic clock can feel if it is in a GPS-satellite,
or on the ground?
I’ve already explained the basic classical physical mechanism that
explains how an atom will resonate at different frequencies under
different gravitational potentials
So maybe you can explain how you think a caesium atom cannot
act like a classical resonating system on earth , or in a satelitte.
Despite the fact that all known measurements of atoms show it
always displays resonant properties regardless of the experimental
setup or environment.
COn Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 12:07:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/03/2022 13:07, Lou wrote:Yes there is. It’s called refraction. And before you start repeating the false
On Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 10:43:32 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:That would be *VERY* surprising since the Shapiro time delay for an EM
ISTR Back when the first binary pulsar was discovered unexplained
systematic periodic errors in the pulse timings were found around the
vicinity of Jupiter which were ultimately traced to an overflow in the >>>> continuation cards by the symbolic algebra program that generated VSOP >>>> 82 FORTRAN code. I'm pretty sure it was fixed before VSOP87.
Discrepancies between GR predictions and real pulsar observations have >>>> actually found faults in computer programs that were believed to be
working. ISTR it was this group that made the observations sensitive
enough to pick up errors in the coding of the VSOP series available at >>>> that date.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..908T/abstract
I’m sure the same discrepancies would have been noted without GR.
wave travelling through a gravitational potential well is entirely an
effect of general relativity affecting the shortest trajectory through
spacetime. There is *no* corresponding effect in Newtonian theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delayTotal nonsense. Nothing of the sort was done. Notice your inability to actually cite the specific page, and quoted text from any of ypur cited papers shows this to be a false claim you make.
The existence of pulsars that get nice and close to Jupiter sometimes
was an incredibly sensitive test of these predictions. Way better than
had been possible before using interplanetary radar.
It’s hilarious the way relativists say other models did not agree with >>> the observations. Yet in fact...they never did try modelling the results >>> with any other model. ??!!If you look at the paper you will find they compared observations with
several other contenders and found them all (except GR) wanting.
People who deny relativity should be forbidden from ever using GPS since
the entire network relies on relativistic effects to work correctly!
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We now
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational
poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
The difference comes in between when there is a very small acceleration
that distorts the orbit away from a perfect closed ellipse.
What I thought he said although I haven't checked the numbers is that
each time around the sun successive Mercury perihelia are displaced by
about 3mm away from where Newtonian dynamics would predict.
I’m glad you , a relativist, are unsure of what garbled message Paul
was making. I certainly found his answer to be vague.
Den 10.03.2022 19:17, skrev Lou:
On Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 18:01:57 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 10.03.2022 14:18, skrev Lou:
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already
sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their >>> resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We now
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated
relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant
frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational >>> poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
It is obviously no point in trying to explain anything to you,I suppose a knowledgeable person like you know what it is in
the caesium atom that has the frequency 9.192631770 GHz.
So maybe you can explain how a free falling caesium atom in
a caesium-beam atomic clock can feel if it is in a GPS-satellite,
or on the ground?
but there may be lurkers.
I’ve already explained the basic classical physical mechanism that explains how an atom will resonate at different frequencies under different gravitational potentialsAs stated above, the atoms in all atomic clocks are
in free fall. There is no way gravitation can affect them.
No external forces are acting on the atoms!
So maybe you can explain how you think a caesium atom cannotThe electrons in an atom can only be at a set
act like a classical resonating system on earth , or in a satelitte. Despite the fact that all known measurements of atoms show it
always displays resonant properties regardless of the experimental
setup or environment.
of energy levels. When the temperature (energy content)
of the atom changes, electrons will change energy level.
The only way an electron can change its energy, is by
absorbing or emitting a photon. For most of transitions
the photon will be in the visible range
(λ = 0.4-0.8 μm, f = 375-750 THz).
This give the characteristic line spectrum of gases.
https://paulba.no/temp/CaesiumSpectrum.pdf
In addition to the transitions that give this spectrum,
there is a hyperfine transition. That is two energy
levels that are very close to each other so the photon
associated with has a very low energy,
(λ = 32.61225572 cm, f = 9.192631770 GHz).
Since this frequency is relatively low, electronic
counters can count the frequency.
(It is of course a bit more complicated than that.)
What kind of 'resonant properties' other than the frequencies
of the radiated photons did you think of?
(A rhetoric question. You have no idea, I am not expecting an answer.)
On 10/03/2022 13:18, Lou wrote:
COn Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 12:07:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:There is no point in trying to explain anything to you but for the
On 09/03/2022 13:07, Lou wrote:Yes there is. It’s called refraction. And before you start repeating the false
On Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 10:43:32 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:That would be *VERY* surprising since the Shapiro time delay for an EM
ISTR Back when the first binary pulsar was discovered unexplained
systematic periodic errors in the pulse timings were found around the >>>> vicinity of Jupiter which were ultimately traced to an overflow in the >>>> continuation cards by the symbolic algebra program that generated VSOP >>>> 82 FORTRAN code. I'm pretty sure it was fixed before VSOP87.
Discrepancies between GR predictions and real pulsar observations have >>>> actually found faults in computer programs that were believed to be >>>> working. ISTR it was this group that made the observations sensitive >>>> enough to pick up errors in the coding of the VSOP series available at >>>> that date.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..908T/abstract
I’m sure the same discrepancies would have been noted without GR.
wave travelling through a gravitational potential well is entirely an
effect of general relativity affecting the shortest trajectory through
spacetime. There is *no* corresponding effect in Newtonian theory.
benefit of any lurkers you are producing bullshit coated word salad.
And you are an out and out bare faced *LIAR*.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delayTotal nonsense. Nothing of the sort was done. Notice your inability to actually cite the specific page, and quoted text from any of ypur cited papers shows this to be a false claim you make.
The existence of pulsars that get nice and close to Jupiter sometimes
was an incredibly sensitive test of these predictions. Way better than
had been possible before using interplanetary radar.
It’s hilarious the way relativists say other models did not agree with >>> the observations. Yet in fact...they never did try modelling the results >>> with any other model. ??!!If you look at the paper you will find they compared observations with
several other contenders and found them all (except GR) wanting.
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1982ApJ...253..908T
Page 916 I quote:
"b) Other Theories of Gravity
A number of other tentatively viable theories of gravitation
also predict the emission of gravitational waves,
and it is useful to compare their predictions with our
observations. Will (1977) has parametrized a number of
theories in a form facihtating specific predictions of the
magnitude of binary orbital period changes due to gravitational
radiation. We have integrated Will’s expressions
around an orbit to provide a general expression for the
time-averaged binary period change due to emission of
gravitational waves,"
and
"The correct values of mp
and mc would be somewhat different if calculated consistently
in other gravitational theories (cf. Eardley 1975;
Will 1980), but this fact does not alter the following
important conclusion: With the exception of general relativity
and the Brans-Dicke theory, none of the theories
predicts even the proper sign of orbital period change due
to emission of gravitational radiation, let alone the proper
magnitude. We stress that this conclusion is valid regardless
of the magnitude of the dipole term; i.e., regardless
of the relative masses of the two orbiting components.
Furthermore, even the Brans-Dicke theory predicts a
magnitude of Pb much larger than observed, unless
either the coupling constant co approaches infinity (in
which case all predictions of the theory reduce to those
of general relativity), or unless the internal structure of
the two stars is so nearly identical2 that S2<10-4."
Since you failed to do me the courtesy of reading the link I provided
and then lied about it not being there this conversation is ended.
People who deny relativity should be forbidden from ever using GPS since >> the entire network relies on relativistic effects to work correctly!
People who sell GR forget that well before Einstein arrived we had already sufficient evidence that resonance and resonant systems can have their resonant frequencies changed due to force applied to system. We nowGR is essential if GPS is to work correctly.
know atoms are resonant systems. Which means for the uneducated relativist...atoms as resonant systems will have different resonant frequencies, depending on the force applied by different gravitational poetentials. As observed in GPS.
No GR needed to explain GPS.
I honestly don't see why you have a problem with relativity. In its most basic form it merely formalises all the consequences of the clear result from Maxwell's equations derivation of electromagnetic waves that the
speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.
GR generalises things further to the laws of physics are the same for
every observer in an inertial reference frame.
You seek to remain ignorant and complicate things unnecessarily by
inventing random "just so" stories and accusing physicists of lying.
The difference comes in between when there is a very small acceleration >> that distorts the orbit away from a perfect closed ellipse.
What I thought he said although I haven't checked the numbers is that
each time around the sun successive Mercury perihelia are displaced by
about 3mm away from where Newtonian dynamics would predict.
I’m glad you , a relativist, are unsure of what garbled message PaulI last did a relativity course more than four decades ago but I still remember enough of it to try and explain it to anyone prepared to
was making. I certainly found his answer to be vague.
listen. I am much more interested in classical orbital dynamics as
applied to solar system objects and fast solution of Kepler's equation.
On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 10:29:57 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is obviously no point in trying to explain anything to you,
but there may be lurkers.
That’s a good excuse for someone like yourself who makes false chains,
and then can’t substantiate them.
As stated above, the atoms in all atomic clocks are
in free fall. There is no way gravitation can affect them.
No external forces are acting on the atoms!
You obviously don’t even know the basics of physics. Gravity still
acts on the atom in a satelitte, on a mountaintop or on the
surface of the earth.
The electrons in an atom can only be at a set
of energy levels. When the temperature (energy content)
of the atom changes, electrons will change energy level.
The only way an electron can change its energy, is by
absorbing or emitting a photon. For most of transitions
the photon will be in the visible range
(λ = 0.4-0.8 μm, f = 375-750 THz).
This give the characteristic line spectrum of gases.
https://paulba.no/temp/CaesiumSpectrum.pdf
In addition to the transitions that give this spectrum,
there is a hyperfine transition. That is two energy
levels that are very close to each other so the photon
associated with has a very low energy,
(λ = 32.61225572 cm, f = 9.192631770 GHz).
Tell me something Paul. If a resonant system has its resonant
frequency changed due to an external force..why are you trying to
pretend that it won’t be observed to vibrate and emit radiation
at a different frequency dictated by its new altered resonant
frequency?
Den 11.03.2022 15:00, skrev Lou:
On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 10:29:57 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Thanks for confirming my words.
It is obviously no point in trying to explain anything to you,
but there may be lurkers.
That’s a good excuse for someone like yourself who makes false chains, and then can’t substantiate them.https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
False 'chain'?
As stated above, the atoms in all atomic clocks are
in free fall. There is no way gravitation can affect them.
No external forces are acting on the atoms!
You obviously don’t even know the basics of physics. Gravity still
acts on the atom in a satelitte, on a mountaintop or on the
surface of the earth.
You are making a giant fool of yourself.
A couple of questions:
Is an astronaut in the ISS weightless?
Is there a force acting on him?
Is he accelerating?
Is he inertial?
You are probably to ignorant of elementary
physics to understand the consequences of
the answers to those question.
Maybe you don't even know the answers?I don’t click on Dodgy websites. But I can see from your
False 'chain'?The electrons in an atom can only be at a set
of energy levels. When the temperature (energy content)
of the atom changes, electrons will change energy level.
The only way an electron can change its energy, is by
absorbing or emitting a photon. For most of transitions
the photon will be in the visible range
(λ = 0.4-0.8 μm, f = 375-750 THz).
This give the characteristic line spectrum of gases.
https://paulba.no/temp/CaesiumSpectrum.pdf
In addition to the transitions that give this spectrum,
there is a hyperfine transition. That is two energy
levels that are very close to each other so the photon
associated with has a very low energy,
(λ = 32.61225572 cm, f = 9.192631770 GHz).
Tell me something Paul. If a resonant system has its resonantSee?
frequency changed due to an external force..why are you trying to
pretend that it won’t be observed to vibrate and emit radiation
at a different frequency dictated by its new altered resonant
frequency?
Thanks for yet again demonstrating that it is no point
in trying to explain anything to you.
I won't try again.
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full *excess* turn’
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
In other words to account for the advance in preccession, does this give Mercury a gain or loss in speed excess to that expected at perigee?
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over
time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for
Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for
a full *excess* turn’
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in
orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change
not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
In other words to account for the advance in preccession, does this
give Mercury a gain or loss in speed excess to that expected at perigee?
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
Is it actually a lot easier to see near the equator
or in the southern hemisphere?
Supposedly ancient man knew of its existence, why is
it nearly impossible to actually see it?
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over
time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for
Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for
a full *excess* turn’
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in
orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change
not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
In other words to account for the advance in preccession, does this
give Mercury a gain or loss in speed excess to that expected at perigee?
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
Is it actually a lot easier to see near the equator
or in the southern hemisphere?
Supposedly ancient man knew of its existence, why is
it nearly impossible to actually see it?
It isn't impossible, I have seen Mercury many times. From the northern hemisphere, the best views are when it is visible in the early evening during late March or April at a favourable eastern elongation , with the ecliptic at a highly inclined angle to the horizon, and it is essential
to have a very clear sky and no obstruction in the western direction.
It will be highest during twilight and will set within an hour or two of
the Sun setting.
I recall some stories that Copernicus himself never saw Mercury owing to
the poor weather (mist, etc) in his part of Poland, but on the other
hand I don't know if he did much actual astronomical observing and measurement himself.
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
Reference tells us that the precessesion of Mercury *advances* over
time. ‘The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for
Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits
for a full *excess* turn’
Does this advance equate to any anomalous decrease or increase in
orbital speed of mercury as it moves away from its perigee. A change
not predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
In other words to account for the advance in preccession, does this
give Mercury a gain or loss in speed excess to that expected at perigee?
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
Is it actually a lot easier to see near the equator
or in the southern hemisphere?
Supposedly ancient man knew of its existence, why is
it nearly impossible to actually see it?
It isn't impossible, I have seen Mercury many times. From the northern hemisphere, the best views are when it is visible in the early evening
during late March or April at a favourable eastern elongation , with the ecliptic at a highly inclined angle to the horizon, and it is essential
to have a very clear sky and no obstruction in the western direction. It
will be highest during twilight and will set within an hour or two of
the Sun setting.
I recall some stories that Copernicus himself never saw Mercury owing to
the poor weather (mist, etc) in his part of Poland, but on the other
hand I don't know if he did much actual astronomical observing and measurement himself.
--
Mike Dworetsky
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
Is it actually a lot easier to see near the equator
or in the southern hemisphere?
Supposedly ancient man knew of its existence, why is
it nearly impossible to actually see it?
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest >elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to
help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you
have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in
the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half
way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
My copy of stellarium has a tree that sits right on top of it! You do
need a clear distant horizon to be able to see it reliably.
Is it actually a lot easier to see near the equator
or in the southern hemisphere?
Supposedly ancient man knew of its existence, why is
it nearly impossible to actually see it?
You just have to look at the right times and have a good clutter free >horizon.
The choice is looking for it early and high up in a bright sky
vs low down and in a darker but by no means dark sky. It is never all
that far from the sun so you are always in fairly bright twilight.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest >>elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to
help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you >>have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >>crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in
the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half
way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
Oh, New Moon?
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of
the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's a
bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still be
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
My copy of stellarium has a tree that sits right on top of it! You do
need a clear distant horizon to be able to see it reliably.
A clear horizon is a bit of an iffy in a City but I've got a couple
of weeks so I'll see if I can find such a rainbow-farting, unicorn
gryphon.
Maybe I could even find an officially "dark" sky site by then? It's
not likely to be below zero weather-wise in May, is it?
Is it actually a lot easier to see near the equator
or in the southern hemisphere?
Yes.
Fewer City lights. More desert, rain-forest and ocean. Everything up
there is easier to see away from the North.
Of course, Farside at night would be even better but I don't suppose
anyone is ever going to let *me* go there, ever. Farside has even
fewer City lights than does the deep south Pacific.
Supposedly ancient man knew of its existence, why is
it nearly impossible to actually see it?
You just have to look at the right times and have a good clutter free >>horizon.
Loads of Early Astronomy was done in the valley between the two
rivers, a fairly flat place with god views of the sky. It was also
done in a spacetime that had damned few city lights and those that did
exist were pale and easy to avoid.
Dark skies were the norm.
In my life, I've seen about two dark skies and even those were broken
by relatively distant car headlamps. Those fucking things are
brighter, even at a couple of miles [a couple of thousands metres]
than Jupiter. Even the damned *brake*-lights are able to impair
night-vision a little from the horizon.
In the bottom end of UKland, it is also not easy to get far from the
skyglow of the sprawling City. She's a crowded country.
The choice is looking for it early and high up in a bright sky
vs low down and in a darker but by no means dark sky. It is never all
that far from the sun so you are always in fairly bright twilight.
I wonder, would Mercury be easier to see more often from Venus? Yes,
yes, I know, Venus has a little issue with it being sort of cloudy
some of the time but that could be fixed in a decade or two. That
she's also fairly warm is a bonus. I *like* warm.
Thank you for the information on the best time next to see the tiny
world, I'll try.
J.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest
elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to
help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you
have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin
crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in
the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half
way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
Oh, New Moon?
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of
the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's aIf you can't run Stellarium at home then various online tools will draw
bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still be
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
On 05/04/2022 18:13, John wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest
elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to
help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you >>> have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >>> crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in
the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day the moon won't be quite such a good guide but will
still give you a rough idea where to look. Even in cities you can
usually find a bit of high ground
in a park with an unobstructed W
horizon. It is a naked eye object about as bright as a first magnitude
star about 10 degrees to the W of bright orange star Aldebaran.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half
way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
Oh, New Moon?
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
I doubt it. But in America who can tell.
I do recall one of my friends being stopped carrying an antique 3" brass >telescope on a mahogany tripod to such a vantage point at 4am in the
morning to catch Mercury - set of RAS threaded eyepieces with it too.
The policeman was not all that impressed by the small colourful crescent >bobbing about in the turbulence but considered that it probably was legit.
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of
the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
I doubt anyone will stop you for binoculars. Birders use them too.
"Land of the Free" always was a misnomer. You can be beaten to a pulp by
US police merely for jay walking as one unlucky UK academic found out
the hard way.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4202568/Historian-pinned-to-ground-by-US-police-and-beaten-for-jaywalking.html
One of my supervisors at university had permanent scarring after an
encounter with US police (I'm pretty sure he was drunk at the time).
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's aIf you can't run Stellarium at home then various online tools will draw
bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still be
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
up simulations and finder charts for you. The Sky live is not bad:
https://theskylive.com/planetarium
With luck it will infer your location from IP address too.
On 05/04/2022 18:13, John wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest
elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to
help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you >>> have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >>> crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in
the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day the moon won't be quite such a good guide but will
still give you a rough idea where to look.
Even in cities you can
usually find a bit of high ground in a park with an unobstructed W
horizon. It is a naked eye object about as bright as a first magnitude
star about 10 degrees to the W of bright orange star Aldebaran.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half
way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
Oh, New Moon?
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
I doubt it. But in America who can tell.
I do recall one of my friends being stopped carrying an antique 3" brass >telescope on a mahogany tripod to such a vantage point at 4am in the
morning to catch Mercury - set of RAS threaded eyepieces with it too.
The policeman was not all that impressed by the small colourful crescent >bobbing about in the turbulence but considered that it probably was legit.
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of
the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
I doubt anyone will stop you for binoculars. Birders use them too.
"Land of the Free" always was a misnomer. You can be beaten to a pulp by
US police merely for jay walking as one unlucky UK academic found out
the hard way.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4202568/Historian-pinned-to-ground-by-US-police-and-beaten-for-jaywalking.html
One of my supervisors at university had permanent scarring after an
encounter with US police (I'm pretty sure he was drunk at the time).
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's aIf you can't run Stellarium at home then various online tools will draw
bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still be
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
up simulations and finder charts for you. The Sky live is not bad:
https://theskylive.com/planetarium
With luck it will infer your location from IP address too.
On 05/04/2022 18:13, John wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest
elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to
help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you >>> have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >>> crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in
the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day the moon won't be quite such a good guide but will
still give you a rough idea where to look. Even in cities you can
usually find a bit of high ground in a park with an unobstructed W
horizon. It is a naked eye object about as bright as a first magnitude
star about 10 degrees to the W of bright orange star Aldebaran.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half
way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
Oh, New Moon?
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
I doubt it. But in America who can tell.
I do recall one of my friends being stopped carrying an antique 3" brass telescope on a mahogany tripod to such a vantage point at 4am in the
morning to catch Mercury - set of RAS threaded eyepieces with it too.
The policeman was not all that impressed by the small colourful crescent bobbing about in the turbulence but considered that it probably was legit.
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of
the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
I doubt anyone will stop you for binoculars. Birders use them too.
"Land of the Free" always was a misnomer. You can be beaten to a pulp by
US police merely for jay walking as one unlucky UK academic found out
the hard way.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4202568/Historian-pinned-to-ground-by-US-police-and-beaten-for-jaywalking.html
One of my supervisors at university had permanent scarring after an
encounter with US police (I'm pretty sure he was drunk at the time).
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's aIf you can't run Stellarium at home then various online tools will draw
bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still be
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
up simulations and finder charts for you. The Sky live is not bad:
https://theskylive.com/planetarium
With luck it will infer your location from IP address too.
On 4/6/22 3:34 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/04/2022 18:13, John wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest
elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to >>>> help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you >>>> have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >>>> crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in >>>> the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day the moon won't be quite such a good guide but will
still give you a rough idea where to look. Even in cities you can
usually find a bit of high ground in a park with an unobstructed W
horizon. It is a naked eye object about as bright as a first magnitude
star about 10 degrees to the W of bright orange star Aldebaran.
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half >>>> way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then.
Oh, New Moon?
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
I doubt it. But in America who can tell.
I do recall one of my friends being stopped carrying an antique 3" brass
telescope on a mahogany tripod to such a vantage point at 4am in the
morning to catch Mercury - set of RAS threaded eyepieces with it too.
The policeman was not all that impressed by the small colourful crescent
bobbing about in the turbulence but considered that it probably was legit. >>>
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of
the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
I doubt anyone will stop you for binoculars. Birders use them too.
"Land of the Free" always was a misnomer. You can be beaten to a pulp by
US police merely for jay walking as one unlucky UK academic found out
the hard way.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4202568/Historian-pinned-to-ground-by-US-police-and-beaten-for-jaywalking.html
One of my supervisors at university had permanent scarring after an
encounter with US police (I'm pretty sure he was drunk at the time).
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's aIf you can't run Stellarium at home then various online tools will draw
bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still be
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
up simulations and finder charts for you. The Sky live is not bad:
https://theskylive.com/planetarium
With luck it will infer your location from IP address too.
I think I missed it.
It looks like June 15-25 before dawn.
On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:32:07 -0700, Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 4/6/22 3:34 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/04/2022 18:13, John wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:23:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/2022 01:24, Trolidan7 wrote:
On 3/5/22 7:25 AM, Lou wrote:
I live at about 45 degrees north and I have never seen
Mercury before.
It really isn't that hard to see but it helps to catch it at greatest >>>>> elongation or when there is a helpful crescent moon or Venus nearby to >>>>> help you find it. Like all these things it is much more obvious once you >>>>> have found it and much easier to find the second time you try.
I live at 54N and see it quite regularly when it is about.
I have seen Uranus with binoculars and I might have
possibly even seen Neptune with binoculars.
But Mercury? Is it because even the slightest of trees
on the horizon make it nearly impossible to see for
just a few minutes after sunset or before sunrise?
On 2nd May 2022 it will be almost at maximum elongation with a very thin >>>>> crescent moon just to the East of it in the W evening sky. About 2
degrees apart so find the moon with binoculars and you should see it in >>>>> the same field. A modest telescope will show it as a crescent shape.
Okay, 2/5/22, I'll try to remember this. There is absolutely no
chance that I will but I'll *try*.
Thank you.
The following day the moon won't be quite such a good guide but will
still give you a rough idea where to look. Even in cities you can
usually find a bit of high ground in a park with an unobstructed W
horizon. It is a naked eye object about as bright as a first magnitude
star about 10 degrees to the W of bright orange star Aldebaran.
Oh, New Moon?
The following day it will be at about 4 o'clock from the moon and half >>>>> way down to the horizon. The crescent moon should be obvious by then. >>>>
"Binocular", right. I'm in a City. If I wander about in UKland at
weird of the clock with a binocular "I AM THE LAW" will be on top of
me like starving hyenas on carrion in a time too short to measure.
I doubt it. But in America who can tell.
I do recall one of my friends being stopped carrying an antique 3" brass >>> telescope on a mahogany tripod to such a vantage point at 4am in the
morning to catch Mercury - set of RAS threaded eyepieces with it too.
The policeman was not all that impressed by the small colourful crescent >>> bobbing about in the turbulence but considered that it probably was legit. >>>>
2022 is *not* a good time to be doing weird stuff. Not in a "land of >>>> the free" with a "Democracy".
But I may risk it. *If* I remember.
I doubt anyone will stop you for binoculars. Birders use them too.
"Land of the Free" always was a misnomer. You can be beaten to a pulp by >>> US police merely for jay walking as one unlucky UK academic found out
the hard way.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4202568/Historian-pinned-to-ground-by-US-police-and-beaten-for-jaywalking.html
One of my supervisors at university had permanent scarring after an
encounter with US police (I'm pretty sure he was drunk at the time).
Do you have a ... oh, "evening sky" and near sundown. Okay, that's a >>>> bonus. Sufficient people (meaning "the Straights") might still beIf you can't run Stellarium at home then various online tools will draw
wandering about at sundown to act as cover for the Creatures of the
Night and I'm fairly likely to be awake at sundown.
up simulations and finder charts for you. The Sky live is not bad:
https://theskylive.com/planetarium
With luck it will infer your location from IP address too.
I think I missed it.
It looks like June 15-25 before dawn.
Fortunately, the rumoured planet is supposed to have a rather short
orbital period, or "local year". She swings wide of the Sun relatively
often. Not for long each time but it's not a long time between her
widest passages away from Sol from Earth's perspective.
As mentioned above, there are sites that can track the little bugger
for us. Also softwares that can be installed on our boxes.
I still say "Mercury" is as mythical as Vulcan but I'm open to being
proven wrong in this. :)
On 5/14/22 8:40 AM, John wrote:<<excessive snippage>>
I still say "Mercury" is as mythical as Vulcan but I'm open to being
proven wrong in this. :)
On June 21 the summer solstice in the northern hemisphere at about
45 degrees north I had a very good viewing before and at dawn with
a clear sky in the east.
From about 4:15 AM to sunrise I looked outside about every ten minutes
with binoculars.
At that time and still near dawn there were all of the visible planets
able to be seen in a line.
The moon was south of the northern triangle, Vega, Deneb, and Altair.
Then a little bit further east in the sky you could clearly see Saturn.
Then further east from there and much brighter you could see Jupiter,
and Mars was slightly east of Jupiter.
I could also see Venus very bright in the sky low in the twilight.
But I kept looking again and again for something slightly dimmer than
Venus between Venus and the sun as it was getting closer to sunrise.
Nothing.
Still from the other planets you could see that the ecliptic was very >slanted.
So basic question.
When is it most optimum to look for Mercury?
The winter solstice?
or the equinoxes?
My guess would be the equinoxes but I want to be sure.
I think I am going to stop looking somewhat because I could not find
it under near optimal conditions this time.
So basic question.
When is it most optimum to look for Mercury?
The winter solstice?
or the equinoxes?
Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> wrote:
So basic question.
When is it most optimum to look for Mercury?
The winter solstice?
or the equinoxes?
Equinoxes are better than solstices.
But my favorites are April and May evening appearences, even thougrh I
know that August ans September morning apprearnce are better due to much larger elnongation.
But then you have to get up in the wee hours...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:21:03 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,830 |
| Posted today: | 1 |