Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does General Relativity Explain The Random Delay In Halley's Comet Orbit?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 09:33 PM

It is known that Halley's Comet has a periodicity of 75.3 years, with six Earth flybys registered since 1608.

 

But each flyby has a random delay between one to two weeks, which can't be explained by Newton's gravitational theory. A modified

time-retarded gravitational field applied by NASA over Mercury and Halley comet, due to the effect of a massive spinning body, has

been used to explain both effects, in the same way Gerber explained correctly Mercury's precession advance per century in 1897.

 

Curiously (and was a motive of huge disputes about plagiarism between 1916 and 1921 in Europe), Gerber's formula for the recession of Mercury's perihelion is EXACTLY the same that the one Einstein presented in 1915 as the first proof of his GTR.

 

NASA modified Newton's theory including retarded gravitational effect of the Sun (which considers that gravitational forces propagate at the speed of light) have been also used to explain anomalous behaviors at Moon's orbitals.

 

I wonder if anyone knows if GTR has been applied to this particular issue and solved the mistery as it "did" with Mercury's enigma.

 

It also helps if it anyone know if GTR has been applied to other large period comets, of which Halley is the most known.

 

This post has been originated on a 1911 paper I've read about a complementary theory (neoclassical causal theory) written by J. Hafele, a physicist who worked in the famous Hafele-Keating 1972 experiment to prove time dilation due to STR.

 

 

 

 

 

 



#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 04:20 AM

Perhaps Einstein was plagarizing or develoed his ideas separately. 

 

Non-gravitational effects, such as radiation pressure from the Sun, Halley’s mass loss due to the interaction with the stellar wind or internal processes. Might affect its orbit, also interacting with different planets in every few years affect its orbit. 

 

https://astronomynow...lley-explained/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07037



#3 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 06:51 AM

Perhaps Einstein was plagarizing or develoed his ideas separately. 

 

Non-gravitational effects, such as radiation pressure from the Sun, Halley’s mass loss due to the interaction with the stellar wind or internal processes. Might affect its orbit, also interacting with different planets in every few years affect its orbit. 

 

https://astronomynow...lley-explained/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07037

 

It seems more complicated than what you mention, as these effects have been discarded by many physicists, specially those who work

at different NASA divisions, where there is a strong interest in solving the Flyby Anomaly, as it is vital for NASA project's on short and long

range spacecrafts.

 

I have an excerpt from 2008, where NASA's JPL physicists throw the towell away:

 

"Earlier this year, a group of JPL researchers that had been working on the problem for years basically threw up their hands, saying

  they hoped other physicists could come up with a solution. They had concluded the anomaly was too large to be explained by

  known effects related to Einstein’s general theory of relativity."

 

Also, doing some research around Hafele's theory, I've found that there are several MOND theories developed (and developing) around

the globe that, besides including retarded gravitational effects as a rule (speed of gravity), introduce many other influences that seem to

be, at first sight, very unconventional for what is called "mainstream physics":

 

  • Effects due to Dark Matter in the proximity of massive spatial bodies.
  • Effects due to changes in universal constancy of the speed of light.
  • Differences in the speed of gravity relative to the speed of light in vacuum (2% to 6% higher).
  • Adjustments needed in special and general relativity.
  • Unexplained anisotropies in the gravitational field.

It seems also that many astronomical anomalies discovered in the solar system are really pushing to develop a new theory

that may explain the tiny differences (but yet too large for GTR and STR to explain) which are permanently being registered at NASA.

 

Hafele, who is a famous advocate for Einstein's relativity, is one of the physicists that is introducing his own MOND (Modified Newton's

Dynamics) and, in this paper, he presents it and also recounts some other theories going around.

 

What fills me with pleasure is the late, but absolutely due, recognition of the 1897 Gerber's theory that explained Mercury's perihelion

18 years before Einstein's GTR presentation using values derived from Gerber's formula as one of the three self-proposed tests of GTR.

 

I have a link to the Hafele's Flyby theory, filled with numerical verifications, for a modified Newton's gravitational dynamic. As a relativity believer,

Hafele warns that his theory applies only on weak gravitational fields and for low v/c ratios.

 

Earth Flyby Anomalies Explained by a Time-Retarded Causal Version of

Newtonian Gravitational Theory

 

http://zelmanov.ptep.../zj-2012-08.pdf

 

The paper has interesting numerical data and also contains some references to other theories.



#4 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 08:22 AM

 

Earth Flyby Anomalies Explained by a Time-Retarded Causal Version of

Newtonian Gravitational Theory

 

http://zelmanov.ptep.../zj-2012-08.pdf

 

The paper has interesting numerical data and also contains some references to other theories.

 

I am aware of Cahills theories, from a long time back. I thought he had been discredited in some way, possibly because his Quantum foam inflow model doesn't need dark matter to explain the movements of spiral galaxies, like various versions of MOND :).

 

The additional orthogonal gravity affect in this version of MOND is interesting, I don't recall Cahill having anything like that in his paper. 

 

I had no idea there was so many anomalous things that GR can not explain.  


  • rhertz likes this

#5 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 08:58 AM

It is known that Halley's Comet has a periodicity of 75.3 years, with six Earth flybys registered since 1608.

 

But each flyby has a random delay between one to two weeks, which can't be explained by Newton's gravitational theory. A modified

time-retarded gravitational field applied by NASA over Mercury and Halley comet, due to the effect of a massive spinning body, has

been used to explain both effects, in the same way Gerber explained correctly Mercury's precession advance per century in 1897.

 

Curiously (and was a motive of huge disputes about plagiarism between 1916 and 1921 in Europe), Gerber's formula for the recession of Mercury's perihelion is EXACTLY the same that the one Einstein presented in 1915 as the first proof of his GTR.

 

NASA modified Newton's theory including retarded gravitational effect of the Sun (which considers that gravitational forces propagate at the speed of light) have been also used to explain anomalous behaviors at Moon's orbitals.

 

I wonder if anyone knows if GTR has been applied to this particular issue and solved the mistery as it "did" with Mercury's enigma.

 

It also helps if it anyone know if GTR has been applied to other large period comets, of which Halley is the most known.

 

This post has been originated on a 1911 paper I've read about a complementary theory (neoclassical causal theory) written by J. Hafele, a physicist who worked in the famous Hafele-Keating 1972 experiment to prove time dilation due to STR.

Gerber didn't explain it correctly. He used an explanation that was shown to be wrong, and somehow got the correct formula (equivalent to Einstein's) using faulty reasoning. People have puzzled for years over how he got the formula he did, as it does not follow from what he wrote.  

 

But in a broader sense, it can be seen as yet another of those bits and pieces that were lying around at the end of the c.19th, which Einstein was able to slot into a coherent theor, for the first time.  



#6 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 02:25 AM

Tell it to NASA scientists, who celebrates the figure of Gerber. He was downplayed because he was a high school teacher and was a Weber's follower.

 

And what Einstein had to say about Gerber, I don`t give a rat a*s for it. He copied Gerber and expended time between 1916 and 1921 defending himself by using the LOWEST and CHEAPEST argument against Gerber, behaving like a little girl that was hurt in her feelings about her beauty. So, the narcisist Al pulled the card: Gerber is wrong because he didn't follow the theory I invented (1920 Einstein's dixit).

 

Search about the last part and, if you get proofs in contrary, call me a liar. These words are written in several newspapers at that time.

I am sure readers will be able to compare our responses and make their own judgement.

 

Here's a link for them to read: https://en.wikipedia...i/Paul_Gerber. 



#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 03:31 AM

Your link doesn't appear to be working, you can follow this: https://en.wikipedia...ber#Controversy

 

I am amused that there have been claims that they have found reasoning behind Gerbers results, even though the new derivations are even called into question. What isn't called into question these days though? Scientists are too skeptical.

 

I am open to the idea that Einstein has indeed plagiarized work, from more than one author over the years. From the constancy of the speed of light, to setting gravity effects as a finite speed equal to light, to energy mass equivalence and spacetime dilations, the largest parts of relativity where already discovered before Einstein. I also find Einstein's comments amusing concerning what he thought of the situation. I find it almost degrading to poor Gerber.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 16 May 2019 - 03:31 AM.


#8 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 04:56 AM

exchemist link fixed https://en.wikipedia...iki/Paul_Gerber



#9 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 05:37 AM

And read it, and tell where he's wrong.

 

http://www.alternati.../Perihelion.htm

No need: already done long ago by von Laue among others. I rather think this may be the paper, but my German is not good enough to be sure: https://onlinelibrar...ndp.19173581103



#10 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 08:51 AM

No need: already done long ago by von Laue among others. I rather think this may be the paper, but my German is not good enough to be sure: https://onlinelibrar...ndp.19173581103

 

Ich sprechen nein deutsch, and google translate doesn't help with that link

 

This link goes over the differences between Einstein and Gerbers ideas and it is in English https://www.mathpage...56/kmath656.htm I think Einstein wins. 


  • exchemist likes this

#11 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:03 AM

Ich sprechen nein deutsch, and google translate doesn't help with that link

 

This link goes over the differences between Einstein and Gerbers ideas and it is in English https://www.mathpage...56/kmath656.htm I think Einstein wins. 

Thanks for this. Yes this is a summary of Roseveare's analysis of Gerber's work, which is also referred to in the Wiki article on Gerber. 

 

I've only skimmed it but it looks as if the basic problem is that any Newtonian treatment of the effects of gravitation on light involves acceleration of light, contrary to the observational evidence that c is invariant. So Gerber's ideas can't produce a coherent theory in the way that Einstein's do.  



#12 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 04:14 PM

I find Einstein's statement quite harsh, and there are other experts who have stuck up for Gerber.

 

You know, Einstein's work contained quite a few errors that went unseen for many years, perhaps even till after his death. He was also not the greatest mathematician and his idea's were hardly unique. The only unique thing he actually did was piece a jigsaw puzzle together, which is a feat of course. But to think of him as the sole author of relativity, like he thought of himself, would be a big flat lie.



#13 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 03:16 AM

Thanks for this. Yes this is a summary of Roseveare's analysis of Gerber's work, which is also referred to in the Wiki article on Gerber. 

 

I've only skimmed it but it looks as if the basic problem is that any Newtonian treatment of the effects of gravitation on light involves acceleration of light, contrary to the observational evidence that c is invariant. So Gerber's ideas can't produce a coherent theory in the way that Einstein's do.  

 

your welcome, Gerbers work might look in parts similar to Einsteins, but they are not equal, and Einsteins theory gives a more accurate result today.

 

 

 

You know, Einstein's work contained quite a few errors that went unseen for many years, perhaps even till after his death. He was also not the greatest mathematician and his idea's were hardly unique. The only unique thing he actually did was piece a jigsaw puzzle together, which is a feat of course. But to think of him as the sole author of relativity, like he thought of himself, would be a big flat lie.

 

Would those errors have given the same result as Gerbers errors.

 

I understand he was a Physicist not a mathematician :) All Physicists have to do some background to learn about a subject, based on other peoples understandings. Einstein had lots of discussions with other Physicists and Mathematicians. His claim he did not know of Gerbers work and developed his theory separately is likely true. There is no evidence of them ever meeting, or corresponding in any way. 



#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 03:31 AM


 

Would those errors have given the same result as Gerbers errors.

 

I understand he was a Physicist not a mathematician :) All Physicists have to do some background to learn about a subject, based on other peoples understandings. Einstein had lots of discussions with other Physicists and Mathematicians. His claim he did not know of Gerbers work and developed his theory separately is likely true. There is no evidence of them ever meeting, or corresponding in any way. 

 

If I recall, there was notational errors Einstein has made in various works, one particular one, if memory serves, for instance, the origin of inertia had at least four corrections when it was converted into English. My point is, that physicists do tend to write errors in their formulas - but keep in mind, the constancy of the speed of light and gravity having a finite speed equal to that of light speed, was known even before Einstein, so there could be a chance Gerber was aware of it and through a sloppy derivation, still came to the right the answer; in other words, it can happen.

 

A lot of unpublished works by dead ''giants'' of physics, shows numerous errors as well... just wish I could remember half of them now. It seems to me though, this whole issue of Gerber getting the wrong result because of a problem of setting the speed of light equal to that of gravity, appears to be moot since he still arrived at the right result. That isn't an accident, there was a reason Gerber got the result he did and it has been investigated and supported by other physicists - what I find interesting is that Einstein is very quick to call relativity ''his theory,'' when the theory of relativity was largely created before him, even down to length contractions.

 

It is true, Einstein is not a pure mathematician and in fact required help from his wife to construct the theory of General Relativity. She was however a pure mathematician so this was fortuitous for him without doubt; it stands that this little detail couldn't be hidden and he cannot really call himself the sole author of General Relativity either, even though we tend to think that these days... damn, even the bending of light round objects had been predicted before Einstein.

 

All in all, its hard not to be convinced Einstein did some plagiarizing at some point and likely from more than one source. His conclusion that Gerber getting the right result as being insignificant because of what analysts have said concerning how he got his result, seems like nit-picking. The fact still remains, Gerber got the right result and it seems to have annoyed Einstein, for some reason, that this fact came to light.



#15 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 04:06 PM

If I recall, there was notational errors Einstein has made in various works, one particular one, if memory serves, for instance, the origin of inertia had at least four corrections when it was converted into English. My point is, that physicists do tend to write errors in their formulas - but keep in mind, the constancy of the speed of light and gravity having a finite speed equal to that of light speed, was known even before Einstein, so there could be a chance Gerber was aware of it and through a sloppy derivation, still came to the right the answer; in other words, it can happen.

 

A lot of unpublished works by dead ''giants'' of physics, shows numerous errors as well... just wish I could remember half of them now. It seems to me though, this whole issue of Gerber getting the wrong result because of a problem of setting the speed of light equal to that of gravity, appears to be moot since he still arrived at the right result. That isn't an accident, there was a reason Gerber got the result he did and it has been investigated and supported by other physicists - what I find interesting is that Einstein is very quick to call relativity ''his theory,'' when the theory of relativity was largely created before him, even down to length contractions.

 

It is true, Einstein is not a pure mathematician and in fact required help from his wife to construct the theory of General Relativity. She was however a pure mathematician so this was fortuitous for him without doubt; it stands that this little detail couldn't be hidden and he cannot really call himself the sole author of General Relativity either, even though we tend to think that these days... damn, even the bending of light round objects had been predicted before Einstein.

 

All in all, its hard not to be convinced Einstein did some plagiarizing at some point and likely from more than one source. His conclusion that Gerber getting the right result as being insignificant because of what analysts have said concerning how he got his result, seems like nit-picking. The fact still remains, Gerber got the right result and it seems to have annoyed Einstein, for some reason, that this fact came to light.

 

 

There is an interesting thread debating this subject at this link (from 2016):

 

How was the Newtonian mercury perihelion precession calculated?

https://www.research...sion_calculated

 

 

I took some excerpts of answers provided by Andrew Worsley, a graduate Alumnus of University of London, who's being working in

quantum and gravitational physics and has a number of internationally published papers in these fields.

His current project is 'Black hole physics and dark matter modelling.

 

1) Einstein first used Gerber's equation to calculate it, famously in November 1915, in  a presentation to the Prussian academy of Science,

    and called it a "higher degree of approximation".

    That is not to say that full GTR is the same  as Gerber, it is completely different and totally original and also wrong, whereas Gerber's
    equation it seems turns out to be the correct equation.
    Ironic  but a true story, look up Gerber on wiki then look at Einstein's  original papers.
 
    My note here: This true fact was noted by Schwartzchild, when debating with Einstein about his exact solution, by December 1915.

    It also generated an ironic response from Hilbert, after conceding Einstein's priority. He remarked his surprise due to the speed at

    which Einstein performed the due calculations. The truth was that such set of calculations were done in 1914, when he only had his

    Entwurf 2.0. So, he used Gerber's formula which he knew, apparently, since long time and possibly inspired him BY 1907/1908 to

    extend his 1905 theory to gravity. There are written proofs, as earlier as such, that the idea of retarded potentials inspired him to

    extend his theory to the Mercury perihelion. First records about light bending appeared not before 1910/1911.

 

2) In actual fact if you take into account time dilation, then Gerber is spot on - but does not break down a the black hole event horizon

And the advance in the perihelion is known at best to 2 dp, at a velocity of orbit  of  47,000 m/s, SR wiil have only an effect at the 8 dp level.
So WIki doesn't know SR,  and  is more than a little biased.
 
   My note here: In the heat of the discussion (66 posts), the critics over Gerber goes more to his "error" predicting light deflection than on errors
   in Mercury's advance per century. Also, there is a discussion about Einstein bashing the "long time ago dead" Gerber as a nervous reaction.
   The discussion continues, reconstructing the image of Gerber as one of the founding fathers of MOND theories (Modified Newton's Dynamics).
 
    As I wrote before, Gerber's work is celebrated even at NASA as an excellent advance over Newton's action at a distance.
 
There is more, and I don't enter into a discussion about GTR vs. MOND theories to provide valuable answers.
 
As I posted in my OP, there is no known positive results applying GTR to Halley's comet or other registered excentric orbiting objects, with
periods larger than Halleys's comet. And MOND theories are champions at this particular topic, or the Mercury's perihelion, Flybys or anomalous
moon's behaviors.

  • Dubbelosix likes this