Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 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.


Edited by rhertz, 18 June 2019 - 08:32 PM.


#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 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 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 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

#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2711 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.  



#5 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2711 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. 



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2963 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.


#7 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 04:56 AM

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



#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2711 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



#9 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 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

#10 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2711 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.  



#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2963 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.



#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 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. 



#13 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2963 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.