Planetary precession in flat space

[Dr_Strangelove]

I developed a simple explanation of planetary precession using only Newtonian mechanics and SR. NO curved space necessary.

http://toe.sytes.net:65333/orbital%20precession.pdf

[Epsilon=One]

I developed a simple explanation of planetary precession using only Newtonian mechanics and SR. NO curved space necessary.It is very difficult to imagine how there can be endless linear "space." Can you explain in simple terms or geometry how you manage such a concept???

[Dr_Strangelove]

It is very difficult to imagine how there can be endless linear "space." Can you explain in simple terms or geometry how you manage such a concept???


I didn't mean to imply that I had a personal affection for endless linear space. I simply show that planetary precession can be explained in a flat space. Of course any planetary orbits we can measure (our own solar system) are in a very tiny region of space compared with the universe so space can be very flat in our region and still curved overall. It just need not be as curved as Einstein suggest.

[Epsilon=One]

I didn't mean to imply that I had a personal affection for endless linear space. I simply show that planetary precession can be explained in a flat space. Of course any planetary orbits we can measure (our own solar system) are in a very tiny region of space compared with the universe so space can be very flat in our region and still curved overall. It just need not be as curved as Einstein suggest.Nice timing. You just interrupted my reading of your .pdf, "A Flat Space Explanation...", per post #1's link. I could not follow all the manipulations (which were well presented, the fault is mine); however, I like your conclusion. I've always been very dubious of Mercury's precession as a proof of relativity. My greatest enjoyment of relativity is with the rationalization rather than the proof.

[OfficeShredder]

I can't read the paper (the link doesn't work), but I suppose the only important question is whether you deal with mercury specifically, or just other planets, which work with Newtonian mechanics and don't even need SR

[Epsilon=One]

I can't read the paper (the link doesn't work), but I suppose the only important question is whether you deal with mercury specifically, or just other planets, which work with Newtonian mechanics and don't even need SRI'm concerned that the margin of error with Mercury's precession is quite large (relatively speaking!); as well as the theory being questionable.

I just tried the link and it was working. Possibly, your computer is having trouble translating it from the forum. Try this link: A Flat Space Explanation... (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Flat)

[Dr_Strangelove]

I can't read the paper (the link doesn't work), but I suppose the only important question is whether you deal with mercury specifically, or just other planets, which work with Newtonian mechanics and don't even need SR

It works for all planets. I can show that my formula is very nearly equal to Einsteins. If you wish, I can email you a copy.

[Dr_Strangelove]

I'm concerned that the margin of error with Mercury's precession is quite large (relatively speaking!); as well as the theory being questionable.



According to everything I have read the precession is known very accurately. The error is only .5 arc seconds per earthe century.

See http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

[Epsilon=One]

According to everything I have read the precession is known very accurately. The error is only .5 arc seconds per earthe century.

See http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htmThanks for info. I will file it for reference.

I was only familiar with Eddington's results in about 1919 when observation wasn't quite so well "tooled."

It will take a bit of time before I can digest it all to see whether it will affect my conclusions to any significant degree.

[OfficeShredder]

It says the page timed out while loading, even from the new link epsilon posted.

If you wish, I can email you a copy.

If you could send it to OfficeShredder@gmail.com that would be awesome

[Epsilon=One]

It says the page timed out while loading, even from the new link epsilon posted.I divided the .pdf. Try the links below:

Pages 1 thru 3. (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Flat/Flat1-3.pdf)
Pages 4 thru 6. (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Flat/Flat4-6.pdf)

[OfficeShredder]

Thanks epsilon, that one worked. I'll read through it when I have more time

[Dr_Strangelove]

Since I first posted a link to my paper I attempted to get it published. As is the case when a lay person trys to publish in a physics journal, it never even got reviewed.

I have just completed a derivation that requires no physical assumptions at all. In essence, all the physics that is necessary is already accepted. It just requires math.

The link is: toe.sytes.net:65333/orbital%20precession.pdf

I also edited the link in the original posting.

[Dr_Strangelove]

The latest version requires only 2 well accepted physical formulas. The rest is math.

[Epsilon=One]

The latest version requires only 2 well accepted physical formulas. The rest is math.I suspect that the "2 well accepted physical formulas" are also just "math."

What are the fundamental derivations of the "well accepted physical formulas"?

Academia has as yet been unable to prove that mathematics is derived from Nature; thus, they are unable to prove that mathematics reflects Nature. Of course, it does; however, it is unproved. And, of course any mathematics, much less the physics dependent upon it, is subject to its beginning axioms, which are generally far from a first postulate. Gödel placed all the fundamentals of current math on a shaky foundation.

With this said, I suspect that your "latest version" is an excellent mathematics exercise with limited physics insight . . . much like general and special relativity, which have assisted in misleading much of academic, theoretical physics for the better part of a century.