Every one of the theoretical and experimental tests about the
predictions of general relativity have been widely questioned in the
last 100 years.
1. THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF THE "EXTRA" ADVANCE OF MERCURY'S
PERIHELION.
Since Le Verrier´s calculation (1854) of the "missing" 43"/century in
the advance of Mercury's perihelion until these days, a common MISTAKE persists. Actually, the original discrepancy was of 37" (Le Verrier), corrected in 1898 to 43" by the US astronomer Newcomb.
In ALL THESE CASES, and even today, the total calculation is based on
the influence of every planet on the precession of Mercury BY USING
GAUSS´S MODEL OF TORUS OF GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE by each planet on
Mercury.
KEEP THIS IN MIND: To calculate the gravitational influence of every
planet (and other celestial bodies) over Mercury for the lapse of 100
years IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN TODAY, with help of supercomputers. This would require hundred of millions of calculations to be performed, slicing the
100 years in FRACTIONS of the orbital period of the fastest planet
(Mercury) and APPLIED TO THE SEGMENTED ORBIT OF THE REST OF THE PLANETS.
At every step, a calculation of the perturbations of one planet over
each other HAS TO BE COMPUTED. Then, step by step, such result HAS TO BE APPLIED as the input of the next step in parametric calculations. No analytical expression can be written to contemplate this N-Body problem,
and the only way is to compute each influence step by step in a supercomputer, which lead to almost infinite calculations for the 100
years period.
The use of Gauss' gravity torus IS A VERY GROSS CALCULATION: It consists
in replacing the hundred of millions of calculations per planet
(ignoring influence of the other planets) by a gravitational torus,
which is based in the replacement of orbits by A SINGLE TORUS, which contemplate the gravitational influence as a replacement of punctual
orbital positions by a single torus along the orbit. It's about
replacing the Newton law of gravity (applied at each position of a
planet) by a SOLID TORUS with the equivalence of mass of the planet
SPREAD ALL OVER the orbit of it.
2. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF DEFLECTION OF STARLIGHT (Eddington, etc)
The 1919 expedition by the British was HIGHLY BIASED due to Eddington
and the team of calculists, who discarded VITAL DATA that proved that
the verification WAS FALSE, and had political influences just after WWI.
This long article, supported by the Royal Astronomical Society explain a
100 years of controversy in detail. There are hundred of other papers,
but I selected this as the most relevant.
The 1919 eclipse results that verified general relativity and their
later detractors: a story re-told
Gerard Gilmore and Gudrun Tausch-Pebody
Published:21 October 2021https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040
Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
reference frame with that of the Earth.
2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and thatthe observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon. Earth
rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL
equatorial coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because
the Earth rotates daily.
4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the
ELEVATION of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light
of the Sun (and stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One ofthe most important is the REFRACTION of the
light passing through atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so,
elevation angle at noon
CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
elevation in summer time.
5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in
the moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from
being at90 degrees respect to the Sun.
ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:20:50 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.10.2024 20:41, skrev rhertz:
In ALL THESE CASES, and even today, the total calculation is based on
the influence of every planet on the precession of Mercury BY USING
GAUSS´S MODEL OF TORUS OF GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE by each planet on
Mercury.
KEEP THIS IN MIND: To calculate the gravitational influence of every
planet (and other celestial bodies) over Mercury for the lapse of 100
years IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN TODAY, with help of supercomputers. This would
require hundred of millions of calculations to be performed, slicing the >>> 100 years in FRACTIONS of the orbital period of the fastest planet
(Mercury) and APPLIED TO THE SEGMENTED ORBIT OF THE REST OF THE PLANETS.
You don't need a supercomputer to make hundreds of millions of
calculations.
I have simulated the solar system for 10 thousand years,
and simulated the perihelion advance for all the planets.
It's done in 15 hours on my computer.
Hundreds of millions calculations is a GROSS underestimation!
https://paulba.no/Application.html
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/MercuryAdvance.pdf
At every step, a calculation of the perturbations of one planet over
each other HAS TO BE COMPUTED. Then, step by step, such result HAS TO BE >>> APPLIED as the input of the next step in parametric calculations. No
analytical expression can be written to contemplate this N-Body problem, >>> and the only way is to compute each influence step by step in a
supercomputer, which lead to almost infinite calculations for the 100
years period.
Quite.
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
See equations (11) to (20)
This calculation is done every 5. second true time.
That's 61.5 billion times to simulate 10 thousand years.
And this is not the calculation that costs most calculations.
To determine the point of perihelion, the distance planet-sun
has to be compared to the previous distance to find the minimum.
This has to be done for _all_ the planets.
My computer can make 150 billion flops/second.
So in 15 hours it can make 8100 terra flops.
You have to update you knowledge of what a modern computer,
which is NOT a supercomputer, can do!
Pathetic, Paul. Really pathetic.
But what to expect from a narcissist idiot like you?
You are IGNORANT, imbecile, deceiver, vain and arrogant IDIOT!
1) Your stupid, childish paper "Simulation of the solar system according
to GR", which you posted last year, is based on ISOLATED parameters for Keplerian orbits and State Vectors (xyz position and velocity of
planets), which is available FOR FREE at the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
It only contemplates orbital parameters of each planet, DISMISSING the influence of the other planets on the target planet. Any HS kid could
have done such a paper, and probably better, looking LESS IDIOTIC.
Here, go to gather more reliable data, imbecile. They resolve orbits of planets, moon, comets and asteroids with less than 1 second resolution,
and over hundred of years. You can download Megabytes of data there:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/
2) You are completely IGNORANT of the tiny effects of the remaining
planets over Mercury's precession, which REQUIRES the impossible
solution of the 8-Body problem (even more with pseudo-planets). This
problem, I repeat, has no analytical solution and ONLY BY NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS (which are recursive, due to the influence of one planet
over others) it could be APPROXIMATED.
To do such parametric calculations, the orbit of planets has to be
decomposed IN TEMPORAL SEGMENTS based on the Period of Mercury, over 100 years or more. Being the period of Mercury 87.97 days, units of temporal calculations should be about 1 hour, during which Mercury moved 170,000
Km on his perimeter.
This represents 876,172 complex calculations upon Mercury over 100
years. Each calculation has to include first order (decoupled) and
second order calculations from the other 8 planets, including Pluto.
Each complex calculation involves 266,391,926 calculations, giving the
huge number of 233,405,146,750,829 parametric calculations over 100
years.
3) But such large number IS NOT ENOUGH. It only contemplates the
position and velocity (xyz state vectors) for Mercury's orbit over 100
years. NOW, it's necessary to contemplate the EFFECTS OVER PRECESSION.
Additional calculations, based on LRL (Laplace–Runge–Lenz) vector, have to be applied to each instance, driving the number of total calculations
to ABSURDLY HUGE numbers.
Now, try to do the above with your fucking PC.
A _simulation_ starts with finding the initial positions and velocities
of all the planets and Sun in the centre of gravity frame of reference
at a specific time, in this case EPOCH J2000.
Then the acceleration of each of the nine bodies
Now, try to do the above with your fucking PC.
I _have_ done the simulation on my PC.
3) Regarding your own supercomputer of 150 GFlops/sec, I recommend
posting it in the site 500.org, because it's a beast.
It doubles the advertised power of Intel Core i7. But of course that you
know that this is THE INVERSE OF THE TIME FOR ADDING TWO NUMBERS, don't
you?
When multiplications and divisions are measured, the number of GFlops
drop 100 times.
PLUS: to compute a formula, each operation with
variables has to be included so, for something so simple as Newton's law
of gravitation, the number of GFlops drop to MFlops, having you to
include the single line of code.
But you probably got a PC with Intel Core i9, in the range of TFlops.
Good luck with your electricity bill, as it get very, very hot. Later,
the uP cracks down.
I was going to attach some figures about the use of LRL in the
precession of Mercury, but you don't worth the effort.
You are a delusional, irrecoverable relativist who have no limits to
defend yourself by using DECEPTIVE INFORMATION. You even MANUFACTURE IT, pretentious charlatan!
Keep laughing, imbecile + ignorant + relativist (I don't know which name
is worse).
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
One thing that shocked many amateur relativists, in the other forum, was
when I wrote that the precession of Mercury, AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, was close to 5,600"/cy = 1.5556 degrees/century.
This value was what observational astronomy provided for centuries,
until measurements done with outer space observatories (about 45 years
ago) were capable TO DECOUPLE Earth's precession from the rest of solar system's influences.
The equation for Mercury's precession is, APPROXIMATELY:
5,025"/cy (Earth) + 575"/cy (rest of planets) = 5,600"/cy
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY.
Yes, of course. Their coordinates and time fully are compatible with
general relativity.
I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON GENERAL RELATIVITY.
You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's
not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities,
but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively.
Le 28/10/2024 23:55, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a crit :
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.
Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity. MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending
On 10/29/2024 10:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Python <python@not-formail.invalid> wrote:
Le 28/10/2024 23:55, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a crit :
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------672016674137e9.93787653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Such messages are not interpreted by most newsreaders. They appears as
base64 gibberish.
Not that we are missing much nevertheless :-)
Not just 'not interpreted'.
A properly configured newsserver will reject them,
Jan
Oh, not necessarily, there's nothing with regards to standards
that says much anything about message-bodies at all.
Shows up fine here.
Den 30.10.2024 01:30, skrev rhertz:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:35:06 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.
Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its brightness and colors.
Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
Change in the distances between the stars can be caused by:
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.
Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
to find:
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.
About the last:
Imagine a star in the ecliptic plane.
When the angle star-Sun is 180⁰ the deflection is zero.
When the angle star-Sun is 90⁰ the deflection is 4 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 45⁰ the deflection is 12 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 30⁰ the deflection is 15 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 15⁰ the deflection is 31 mas
This means that the change of stellar position due to
gravitational deflection is observable, even at angles
star-sun ≥ 90⁰
PURE COMMON SENSE: IF NO UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE EXISTED BY THE
TIME OF HIPPARCOS, ON WHAT BASIS AFFIRMATIONS LIKE THAT "HIPPARCOS WAS
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA TO MEASURE STARLIGHT DEFLECTION WITH PRECISION IN
THE ORDER OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS"?
Of course there was celestial frames of reference before HIPPARCOS.
The most used in star catalogues was (is) a solar centred equatorial
system. The position is given in declination (the angle from the
equatorial plane) and Right ascension (the angle from the Vernal
equinox).
The OBVIOUS ANSWER is that IT COULDN'T BE DONE IN THE 90s, because prior
to HIPPARCOS, the "absolute position" of each of the 100,000 stars WAS
UNKNOWN with accuracy with such absurd accuracy (1/200 of 1 arcsecond).
So, this is worse than the problem of the chicken and the egg.
So HIPPARCOS couldn't determine the positions of the stars to within
few mas because the positions of the stars were not known to that
precision? :-D
Impressive logic! :-D
Worse yet: Years after the download and post-processing of about 100 GB
collected by HIPPARCOS, a catalogue was published WITH MANUAL
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS of star's positions and proper lateral motion.
AND THIS IS CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING! THIS IS FRAUD, A MASSIVE ONE!
READ THIS:
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity.
Of course the positions had to be corrected for stellar aberration,
and the relevant speed is HIPPARCOS' speed relative to the Sun.
The difference between "Newtonian" and "relativistic" stellar aberration
is negligible. The former is arctan(v/c) while the latter is arcsin(v/c) where v is the observer's speed relative to the Sun. The speed of the
Earth is ~1e-4⋅c, and the speed of the satellite is of the same order. arctan(1e-4) = 20.62648055595", arcsin(1e-4) = 20.6264806590871",
the difference is ~1e-7 arcsec or 0.0001 mas.
MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to
the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the
PPN formalism.
Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
It was _measured_, not assumed.
THIS MEANS THAT RESULTS WERE FORGED BY RELATIVISTS, USING THEORETICAL
MODELS OF RELATIVITY (PPN).
It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE that HIPPARCOS COULD MEASURE ANY EFFECT
DUE TO RELATIVITY. Raw data, once downloaded, was post-processed HEAVILY
by using the BEST SUITABLE statistical algorithms, which took years to
compute. And the MAJOR ASPECT is that the REFERENCE FRAME that was used,
by 1990, is A THEORETICAL
HOW WAS CREATED A GALACTIC FRAME OF REFERENCE, TO DEFINE POSITIONS OF
STARS?
NO VALID FRAME OF REFERENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE 90s, THEN ESA INVENTED
ONE: The Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF), taking care about
it to be closely related to the International Celestial Reference Frame
(ICRF), based on more than 200 extragalactic sources.
Of course there were frames of reference available before 1990,
as explained above.
But a solar centred frame of reference is not inertial, because
the sun is accelerated by the pull from the planets.
That's why "The International Celestial Reference System" (ICRS)
has the barycentre of the solar system as centre.
And the reference direction is given by the direction to several
very distant radio sources (quasars, etc.) This directions are
measured with the VLBA array of radio telescopes, to a precision ~1 mas.
So ICRS is an inertial, non rotating frame of reference.
With the HIPPARCOS successor, GAIA, a new reference frame was created by
ESA: Gaia-CRF. So, now there are TWO reference frames, competing one
with each other.
There are several.
The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS)
Hipparcos Celestial Reference Frame (HCRF)
Second Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF2)
Third Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF3)
But they are not competing. The difference is
mostly how the directions to the distant reference objects
are measured.
In August 1997, the International Astronomical Union resolved in
Resolution B2 of its XXIIIrd General Assembly "that the Hipparcos
Catalogue shall be the primary realization of the ICRS at optical
wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues were constructed such that the
resulting Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF) coincides, to
within observational uncertainties, with the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF), and representing the best estimates at the time
of the catalogue completion (in 1996).
QUOTE FROM ESA:
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPPARCOS is an acronym for "HIgh Precision PArallax COllecting
Satellite".
It was the very first space mission for measuring the RELATIVE
positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars for
astrometry.
The intended goal was to measure the FIVE ASTROMETRIC PARAMETERS of some
120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec,
over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and
two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the
Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.
......................
The directions and motions of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue are
precise to about one milli-arcsecond, or a quarter of a millionth of a
degree.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE COMMENT ABOUT THAT HIPPARCOS HELPED TO PROVE GR AS A PART OF ITS
MISSION IS FALSE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MISSION AT ESA
AND NASA SITE, DECADES AFTER HIPPARCOS PROJECT FINISHED.
Of course "proving GR" was not part of Hipparcos mission!
In 1989 all the astronomers (and physicists) took GR for granted,
no costly project will ever be done to test GR. It's settled!
But since the HIPPARCOS had produced a lot of data, a byproduct
is that GR's prediction for gravitational deflection can be tested.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
THE DEEP AND DARK HAND OF RELATIVISTS IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE, REWRITING
HISTORY TO DRIVE EINSTEIN'S FIGURE AND RELATIVITY UP TO THE SKY.
BUT IT'S ALL A LIE, AN HOAX!
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A JOB ON THESE SUBJECTS, TRY TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE
ASSERTIONS AND TELL ME HOW DID IT WORK FOR YOU.
YOU WOULD BE CANCELLED ASAP!
FUCK RELATIVISTS AND THEIR SINISTER AGENDA.
Well shouted, Richard. :-D
I am sure the astronomers will be very embarrassed when
you have disclosed their fraud.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:35:06 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.
Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its brightness and colors.
PURE COMMON SENSE: IF NO UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE EXISTED BY THE
TIME OF HIPPARCOS, ON WHAT BASIS AFFIRMATIONS LIKE THAT "HIPPARCOS WAS
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA TO MEASURE STARLIGHT DEFLECTION WITH PRECISION IN
THE ORDER OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS"?
The OBVIOUS ANSWER is that IT COULDN'T BE DONE IN THE 90s, because prior
to HIPPARCOS, the "absolute position" of each of the 100,000 stars WAS UNKNOWN with accuracy with such absurd accuracy (1/200 of 1 arcsecond).
So, this is worse than the problem of the chicken and the egg.
Worse yet: Years after the download and post-processing of about 100 GB collected by HIPPARCOS, a catalogue was published WITH MANUAL
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS of star's positions and proper lateral motion.
AND THIS IS CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING! THIS IS FRAUD, A MASSIVE ONE!
READ THIS:
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity.
MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to
the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the
PPN formalism.
THIS MEANS THAT RESULTS WERE FORGED BY RELATIVISTS, USING THEORETICAL
MODELS OF RELATIVITY (PPN).
It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE that HIPPARCOS COULD MEASURE ANY EFFECT
DUE TO RELATIVITY. Raw data, once downloaded, was post-processed HEAVILY
by using the BEST SUITABLE statistical algorithms, which took years to compute. And the MAJOR ASPECT is that the REFERENCE FRAME that was used,
by 1990, is A THEORETICAL
HOW WAS CREATED A GALACTIC FRAME OF REFERENCE, TO DEFINE POSITIONS OF
STARS?
NO VALID FRAME OF REFERENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE 90s, THEN ESA INVENTED
ONE: The Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF), taking care about
it to be closely related to the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF), based on more than 200 extragalactic sources.
With the HIPPARCOS successor, GAIA, a new reference frame was created by
ESA: Gaia-CRF. So, now there are TWO reference frames, competing one
with each other.
In August 1997, the International Astronomical Union resolved in
Resolution B2 of its XXIIIrd General Assembly "that the Hipparcos
Catalogue shall be the primary realization of the ICRS at optical wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues were constructed such that the
resulting Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF) coincides, to
within observational uncertainties, with the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF), and representing the best estimates at the time
of the catalogue completion (in 1996).
QUOTE FROM ESA:
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPPARCOS is an acronym for "HIgh Precision PArallax COllecting
Satellite".
It was the very first space mission for measuring the RELATIVE
positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars for
astrometry.
The intended goal was to measure the FIVE ASTROMETRIC PARAMETERS of some 120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec,
over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the
Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision. ......................
The directions and motions of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue are
precise to about one milli-arcsecond, or a quarter of a millionth of a degree.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE COMMENT ABOUT THAT HIPPARCOS HELPED TO PROVE GR AS A PART OF ITS
MISSION IS FALSE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MISSION AT ESA
AND NASA SITE, DECADES AFTER HIPPARCOS PROJECT FINISHED.
THE DEEP AND DARK HAND OF RELATIVISTS IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE, REWRITING HISTORY TO DRIVE EINSTEIN'S FIGURE AND RELATIVITY UP TO THE SKY.
BUT IT'S ALL A LIE, AN HOAX!
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A JOB ON THESE SUBJECTS, TRY TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE ASSERTIONS AND TELL ME HOW DID IT WORK FOR YOU.
YOU WOULD BE CANCELLED ASAP!
FUCK RELATIVISTS AND THEIR SINISTER AGENDA.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:45:10 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 30.10.2024 01:30, skrev rhertz:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:35:06 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not >>>> measure directly the light bending" = Serret.
Of course IT DID NOT!
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND >>> LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its brightness and colors.
Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
Change in the distances between the stars can be caused by:
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.
Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
to find:
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.
..and their displacements due to stellar aberration. The precision of Hipparcos's measurements were such that stars even a fraction of a
degree different in declination would follow measurably different
Bradley ellipses (or rather, overlapping Bradley ellipses from the spacecraft's orbit around the Sun and its orbit around the Earth.)
The global displacements due to stellar aberration and gravitational deflection, and the individual displacements due to parallax and
proper motion all needed to be taken in account.
Hipparcos' mission was most decidedly NOT to "prove relativity right". Rather, adjustments of stars' measured positions due to general
relativistic effects were among the corrections necessary to minimize
the residuals. Otherwise it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to combine the
data measured over a period of years into a consistent map.
======================================================================
Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
It was _measured_, not assumed.
I would put it somewhat differently. Gravitational deflection was
_corrected for_, otherwise the data simply wouldn't make sense.
Sort of like, particle accelerators don't measure special
relativistic effects. Rather, special relativistic effects must be
taken into account, otherwise analysis of particle trajectories
don't make sense.
Le 31/10/2024 à 19:58, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.
"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 21:20, Python pisze:
Le 31/10/2024 à 19:58, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >>> Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.
"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.
Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Python: What is crackpot is the "geometry" of relativity with curved
space and parallel lines meeting. It doesn't take a genius to reject
such foolish nonsense.
Le 31/10/2024 à 21:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 21:20, Python pisze:
Le 31/10/2024 à 19:58, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine >>>> points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data, >>>> as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in >>>> many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments >>>> on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.
"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.
Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine crackpot.
No doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander",
Maciej.
Le 31/10/2024 à 22:09, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
Python: What is crackpot is the "geometry" of relativity with curved
space and parallel lines meeting. It doesn't take a genius to reject
such foolish nonsense.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever.
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 22:01, Python pisze:
Le 31/10/2024 à 21:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 21:20, Python pisze:
Le 31/10/2024 à 19:58, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the
years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is
essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve fine >>>>> points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate data, >>>>> as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony Heller in >>>>> many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no instruments >>>>> on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.
"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character making
fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.
Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine crackpot.
No doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander",
No, this is just an ordinary insult.
and you deserve it
Maciej.
Oh, your moronic church has persuaded you:
you' re the voice of Humanity and Progress,
Le 31/10/2024 à 22:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 22:01, Python pisze:
Le 31/10/2024 à 21:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 21:20, Python pisze:
Le 31/10/2024 à 19:58, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
Mr. Hertz: I don't like making ad hominem criticisms, but over the >>>>>> years, it has become increasingly certain to me that relativity is >>>>>> essentially fake. They are not above board. They pretend to solve
fine
points like Mercury's anomalous precession.
An analogous example is NASA's fraudulent manipulation of climate
data,
as shown in detail on YouTube by professional specialist Tony
Heller in
many videos. NASA's James Hansen was their shyster to swindle the
taxpayers. NASA fabricates temperatures where they have no
instruments
on the globe.
Relativism won't last much longer.
"Laurence Clark Crossen" we know that you are a fake character
making fun of cranks down here by posting worse shit than their own
posts.
This may be funny, sometime. Most of the time it is not.
Python, we know you're a true idiot trained by
your mad ideology to bark, spit and slander
at its enemies; this may not be funny and
it is not.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Do not feel insecure Wozmaniak. You are definitely a genuine
crackpot. No doubt about that. And, yes, this is "slander",
No, this is just an ordinary insult.
and you deserve it
Maciej.
Oh, your moronic church has persuaded you:
you' re the voice of Humanity and Progress,
Nope.
But I'm quite sure you aren't.
It's a shame to read the justifications that both of you wrote about the FRAUDULENT CORRECTIONS made on the HIPPARCOS raw database, TO FORCEFULLY INCLUDE corrections due to the FALSE DEFLECTION invented in GR, and "SR corrections" that were made to STEAL THE NON-RELATIVISTIC EFFECT of aberration, discovered by Bradley centuries ago (even measured the speed
of light with 0.5% error, by 1727).
The parallax effect, mostly 20 times smaller than aberration, was
discovered by Bessel almost 100 years after Bradley. Such effect was
masked by the one caused by aberration.
That NEW CORRECTIONS due to starlight deflection by the Sun, allegedly covering HALF of the "almost static plane" that is considered a valid representation of the sky beyond the Solar System, HAD TO BE INTRODUCED MANUALLY in order TO INSERT GR BY FORCE, tell anyone with two working
neurons THAT IS A FRAUDULENT WAY to reinforce the adoption of GR in astrometry.
The above paragraph shows that RELATIVISM IS A VIRUS, A PLAGUE THAT HAS INFECTED SCIENCE, and that relies ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY TO PROVE IT EXPERIMENTALLY. Only sustained by THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, born in the
sick mind of Einstein+Eddington+other accomplishes a century ago.
The same Modus Operandi has been used with Pound-Rebka, Hafele-Keating, Shapiro's proposal and many others since the 60s, just to force the replacement of Newton-Kepler figure by the one of Einstein.
What makes all these "experiments" outrageous is that NONE OF THE
AUTHORS IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FRAUDULENT RESULTS, because of:
1) The impossibility, for independent sources, to VERIFY such results.
2) The INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT of these experiments and their results in
the daily life of humans and the advance of civilization. GR and SR
remain CONFINED in niches of absurd cults that are: cosmology, astronomy
and particle physics.
GR and SR will remain, for centuries, as STERILE, PARASITIC THEORIES
that contribute IN NOTHING to the advancement of science, but that EAT valuable resources and bright minds that could find way better
destinations.
It has to be noted that the driving forces behind the support of
relativism have been relying on (since the 60s) in COMPUTER SCIENCES,
MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GATHERED DATA and STATISTICAL MANIPULATION OF RESULTS, being that a common occurrence is that:
1) Raw original data IS NEVER AVAILABLE outside a small circle of
people.
2) Algorithms of any kind that were used REMAIN AS UNKNOWN as the
formulae that supported Einstein's 1915 claim that deflection of light doubled the 1911 Newtonian calculations, plagiarized from von Soldner.
Einstein NEVER DISCLOSED HOW DID HE CALCULATE SUCH VALUE (y = 1).
But fanatic relativists ABOUND. Take, for instance the figure of Jan
(man or woman?), who assert that orbit of planets are known UP TO
NANOSECOND RESOLUTION AND DISTANCES UP TO 1 centimeter.
And all of that is because Jan BELIEVE that data from NASA JPL HORIZONS database is based ON REAL MEASUREMENTS. You hardly can get a person more IMBECILE than Jan, who is mentally unable to explore such website TO
FIND THAT the programs behind HORIZONS are originated due to the work of
a single person, who liked to use 14 DIGITS. (John.D.Giorgini).
Computations were done by the Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons
On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
OBSERVE HOW DATA WITH UP TO 14 DIGITS IS THEORETICALLY GENERATED FROM PARAMETERS THAT HAVE MUCH LOWER PRECISION. THE EXPANSION IN THE NUMBER
OF DIGITS IS ORIGINATED, MAINLY, BY THE CONVERSION IN ASTRONOMICAL
UNITS, AS DEFINED BY THE International Astronomical Union (IAU).
QUERY ON https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/:
Ephemeris Type: Osculating Orbital Elements
Target Body: Mars
Coordinate Center: Sun (body center)
Time Specification: Start=2024-10-31 TDB , Stop=2024-11-30, Step=1
(days)
Table Settings: defaults
RESULTS (Observe the date of the last revision)
*********************************************************
Revised: June 21, 2016 Mars 499 / 4
PHYSICAL DATA (updated 2019-Oct-29):
Vol. mean radius (km) = 3389.92+-0.04 Density (g/cm^3) = 3.933(5+-4)
Mass x10^23 (kg) = 6.4171 Flattening, f = 1/169.779
Volume (x10^10 km^3) = 16.318 Equatorial radius (km)= 3396.19
Sidereal rot. period = 24.622962 hr Sid. rot. rate, rad/s = 0.0000708822
Mean solar day (sol) = 88775.24415 s Polar gravity m/s^2 = 3.758
Core radius (km) = ~1700 Equ. gravity m/s^2 = 3.71
Geometric Albedo = 0.150
GM (km^3/s^2) = 42828.375214 Mass ratio (Sun/Mars) = 3098703.59
GM 1-sigma (km^3/s^2) = +- 0.00028 Mass of atmosphere, kg= ~ 2.5 x 10^16
Mean temperature (K) = 210 Atmos. pressure (bar) = 0.0056
Obliquity to orbit = 25.19 deg Max. angular diam. = 17.9"
Mean sidereal orb per = 1.88081578 y Visual mag. V(1,0) = -1.52
Mean sidereal orb per = 686.98 d Orbital speed, km/s = 24.13
Hill's sphere rad. Rp = 319.8 Escape speed, km/s = 5.027
Perihelion Aphelion Mean
Solar Constant (W/m^2) 717 493 589
Maximum Planetary IR (W/m^2) 470 315 390
Minimum Planetary IR (W/m^2) 30 30 30
**********************************************
EPHEMERIS (EVERY 1 DAY):
2460614.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Oct-31 00:00:00.0000 TDB
EC= 9.338519612718710E-02 QR= 2.066682087213624E+08 IN=
1.847663775996107E+00
OM= 4.948919028212440E+01 W = 2.867247660006598E+02 Tp=
2460439.026265358552
N = 6.064600760306989E-06 MA= 9.194499168660577E+01 TA=
1.025371584115114E+02
A = 2.279559167118513E+08 AD= 2.492436247023403E+08 PR=
5.936087373734671E+07
2460615.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-01 00:00:00.0000 TDB
EC= 9.338597067445900E-02 QR= 2.066680274698931E+08 IN=
1.847662094273816E+00
OM= 4.948916076113913E+01 W = 2.867247994972711E+02 Tp=
2460439.026448893826
N = 6.064600966695355E-06 MA= 9.246888017005475E+01 TA=
1.030463381484449E+02
A = 2.279559115400409E+08 AD= 2.492437956101888E+08 PR=
5.936087171719834E+07
2460616.500000000 = A.D. 2024-Nov-02 00:00:00.0000 TDB
.....
.....
************************************************
Every day a SUCKER is born. But nine SOB are born also.
Fuck the virus of relativism, worse than communism.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:15:20 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.
That, of course, depends on *which* solar system objects one is
talking about, *what time period* one is talking about, and *what
specific parameters* one is discussing. For instance, Earth-planet
ranging measurements established the position of Mercury to within a
handful of meters while MESSENGER was in orbit, and they continue to establish highly accurate distances to Mars because of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express, and the various active Mars
landers. What these measurements mean in terms of how accurate the
various orbital elements are of the different planets would be the
subject of a _different_ detailed discussion.
I want to focus on LLR ranging measurements.
The Moon's orbit is known
to within several centimeters because of the placement on the Moon
decades ago of five currently operational retroreflectors by the US
and the USSR. A sixth tiny retroreflector placed on the Moon by ISRO
in 2023 is used as a positional marker to help lunar orbiters
(currently NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) in their missions, and
is not useful for LLR measurements.
The five operational retroreflectors placed on the Moon during the
space race period are _old technology_, have degraded over time, and
their placements on the Moon are sub-optimal for ranging purposes. To
achieve sub-millimeter ranging to enable improved insights into the
Moon's dynamics, internal structure, Earth-Moon system evolution etc.
and for improved tests of GR, newer technology retroreflectors and transponders need to be deployed.
1) The old retroreflectors used multiple corner cube prisms arranged
on large sheets which flex from differential heating effects,
lowering measurement accuracy. Large single-cube retroreflectors
made from temperature-resistant silica or sapphire would provide
higher reflectivity and stability over time.
2) Active transponders operating in two colors of light would allow
for much stronger return signals and would allow precise
calculation of signal delays from atmospheric refraction.
3) More widely distributed arrays placed with an eye towards improved
lunar science rather than to meet the requirements of manned space
missions would greatly improve LLR measurements.
If LLR measurements can be improved to the sub-millimeter or micron
level, they will approach the levels of measurement accuracy where alternative theories of gravitation would expect GR to fail.
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:30:01 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a clockwork in which everything hangs together.
Having some distances at some time to some nanoseconds correct
means that you must have the whole system to comparable accuracies.
(or the computations will go off)
The statement of yours which I questioned was "JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system, from probes to planets, to an
accuracy of about 10^-10."
Some objects in the solar system are tracked to far greater accuracy
than 10^-10. The position of Mars, for instance, is known to about
1-2 meters thanks to transponder data from the Mars orbiters and
landers on the surface, implying positional accuracies on the order
of 10^-12.
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:30:01 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a clockwork in which everything hangs together.
Having some distances at some time to some nanoseconds correct
means that you must have the whole system to comparable accuracies.
(or the computations will go off)
The statement of yours which I questioned was "JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system, from probes to planets, to an
accuracy of about 10^-10."
Some objects in the solar system are tracked to far greater accuracy
than 10^-10. The position of Mars, for instance, is known to about
1-2 meters thanks to transponder data from the Mars orbiters and
landers on the surface, implying positional accuracies on the order
of 10^-12. On the other hand, many objects in the solar system are
tracked to _far lower accuracy_. I imagine that most of the tracked
objects in the Minor Planet Center database have orbits known to
10^-8 or worse.
Every year, hundreds to thousands of asteroids are
"lost" because of ill-determined orbits.
Furthermore, the orbits of
many of these minor objects do not follow your "clockwork" paradigm
very closely at all, due to non-gravitational forces. For example,
have you heard of the Yarkovsky effect, which is the result of
anisotropic emission of thermal photons from rotating bodies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect
There is also solar radiation pressure, outgassing, occasional
collisions, etc.
The other point that I made was that the meaning of "10^-10 accuracy"
is rather ambiguous. For instance, since it has not been too many
years since the last Venus orbiters and Venus flybys, the current
positional accuracy of Venus may be known to the 10^-10 level.
Does that mean that the longitude of perihelion is known to 10^-10? Of
course not! The orbit of Venus has extremely low eccentricity, which makes
it difficult to determine this value. So the longitude of perihelion is
known to only a few tenths of a degree. That is what I meant when I wrote that the accuracy depends on "what specific parameters one is discussing".
How many times to you have to be told? The 16 digit precision of the
NASA Horizons output merely reflects the best decimal representation
of the ephemeris program output, and does not imply that the program
output is actually considered to be that accurate.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 24:13:52 |
| Calls: | 9,665 |
| Files: | 13,716 |
| Messages: | 6,168,299 |