Mercury anomalous preccession: A classical explanation

Mercury anomalous preccession and the Flyby anomaly.

Newton assumes we use the center of mass to calculate F=G*(mM/r^2)

This is true in the sense that yes, with the mass of volume being considered as homogenous, the pull of gravity is definitely towards the Center of mass. But it doesn’t take into account the fact that mass is not all concentrated at a hypothetical center of volume. It, the mass, is spread across the volume. So how does this affect Newton’s orbital calculations when trying to model both planets orbital preccession and the flyby anomaly?

We already know Newtonian calculations can not account for the observed anomalous preccession, first noticed by Le Verrier, unless an additional gravitational force is added. Le Verrier assumed an additional mass inside its orbital path. Others including Einstein provided their own explanations. (Einstein invoked an additional 1/r^4 gravitational force as the source of the anomalous advance of preccession.) All supplied mathematical proofs. 

I believe a non relativistic solution is still needed. And have found a simpler explanation based on the assumption that if the suns mass is spread across its volume, rather than concentrated at its center, this effects an outcome on perehilion that is slightly different from F=G(mM/r^2)

And this effect is related to the fact that an orbiting body will experience an additional gravitational pull from what Newtons formula predicts, the closer it is to the suns volume. Based on the assumption that some of the suns mass is closer to the orbitting body than the center of the sun is to the orbiting body at perehilion. And therefore must exert an additional increase in gravitational pull as defined by F in the Newtonian formula above.

But how can this be quantified without resorting to Le Verrier or General Relativity?

I believe I can supply not only the theoretical explanation but also the mathematical calculation to explain not only the anomalous preccession of the planets. But also the flyby anomaly.

The theoretical explanation is outlined above by assuming the suns mass is distributed across its volume. Not at its center. I call this the classical model seeing as it is a non relativistic explanation.

The calculations are as follows: Assuming this effect is greatest at perehilion than this neccessitates calculating the additional gravitational force at the perehilion. Not at the semi major axis as Newton, Einstein and others assume.

I have found that a simple 1/r^2 formula using r at perehilion instead of at semi major axis gives a reliable outcome that quantifies the additional preccession at least as well if not better than  Le Verrier, Gerber or Einstein. Without needing to resort to fantasies about Vulcan or imaginary Spacetime. Altering distance r at perehilion slightly, by adding an additional distance R, gives an even more accurate formula that can be consistently applied to model all the planets anomalous preccessions.

Notice that in my version of the classic r^2 relationship between gravity and radius, the radius is not the radius of the sun. But the radius of the orbit at perehilion. The explanation for this is that the effect is based on the assumption that the anomalous preccession is directly related to the diameter of the sun vs the distance of the orbitting body from the suns center. Notice that the diameter of the sun as seen from the orbitting body is determined by r^2. (Its size in the sky as seen from the orbitting body gets smaller with distance using 1/r^2)

Where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of the sun, are the following “classical” formulae:

A)Preccessional advance in arc seconds=1/(r+R)^2

B)Preccessional advance in arcseconds= 1/(r+3R)^2

The following table shows column 1 planet, column 2 observed, column 3 predicted GRT (relativity), columns  4&5 predicted  classical model. 

Notice classical version B is more accurate even than GRT for predicting all the planets observed preccessions.

                 Observed.    GRT.           A         B

Mercury.     43.1          43.5          45.85    43.24

Venus.          8.0            8.6            8.54       8.33

Earth.            5.0           3.87          4.5         4.49

Mars.           *2.5           1.3            2.3         2.29

( Errors on Venus observed are 8.0 +-5.0)

(Source: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1381–1391 (2010) 

[Table 1, column 9])

It is also worth pointing out that usually reference say Mars’ “observed” is 1.3. This is actually a theoretical assumption. Erroneously assumed to be consistent with the prediction made by GRT. 

In fact it is commonly accepted that only Mercury, Earth and Venus orbits can be measured to a any sufficient degree of accuracy. Not Mars or any of the other planets.

What relativist revisionists fail to mention is that total of the best measured preccession of Mars which includes any anomalous contribution is 9.0arcseconds/Century.

Of which *2.5* is an unattributable  “uncertainty”. Not 1.3

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4722-z)

                

.

Waves and particles

 

Coffee grounds in bucket of water. Shake bucket back and forth to create waves. Coffee settles out in wave pattern. No need for QT to explain how atoms subjected to an external resonance can create interference patterns.

Big Bang, Acceleration and the cosmological constant.

 Big Bang, Acceleration and the cosmological constant.

In the 1998 the Supernova Cosmolgy Project and the Reiss et al paper (1) claims hi redshifted SN1a data shows not only expansion but acceleration in the expansion of the Big Bang. Yet an analysis of the data in the paper seems to indicate the opposite: ie no acceleration and no expansion. (Notice that an independent peer reviewed analysis (2) of similar hi redshifted SN1a shows no expansion in hi redshifted SN1a data).

The main point in the Reiss paper, hilited in italics in the paper, is that SN1a appear fainter or dimmer than expected by between 10-15% at higher redshifts. This is an odd claim considering that the Big Bang theory predicts that for the hi redshifted sample in the paper at z>1, time dilation of about 10-15% in lightcurve decays are expected. (In figure 13 of the paper it explains that ‘dimmer’ also equates to a faster decay than expected in a supernovae lightcurve.) In other words the 10-15% increase in lightcurve decays for the hi redshifted sample that the Big Bang theory predicts ...is not actually observed!

Of course it all depends on what exactly Reiss was referring to in figure 13 when it says that fainter or dimmer supernovae are those which are also decaying faster.

Yet not only does the paper and the Big Bang theory predict that SN1a data will show time dilation due to expansion, which it doesn’t, it also pretends that the reason why this predicted time dilation was not observed...was because a previous un predicted and anomalous acceleration of expansion is occurring in the universe from about 7 billion years to present. Due to a change in the cosmological constant. 

 A Sneaky way to make no time dilation observed in hi and low redshifted SN1a data...look like it was still predicted by the Big Bang theory.

1)Reiss et al 1998. “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and cosmological constant”

2)http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html

James Webb observations contradict Big Bang Theory predictions

 Getting closer now to the JWST observing galaxies in a new deep field survey that were not predicted explained or even expected from the Big Bang Theory.

But how will the BB theorists get out of admitting their theory and its predictions screwed up (again)?

Brian Cox has led the way for the new revisionist version of BBT and has explained on his BBC religious program “Universe” exactly how the new upcoming JWST data and current data on large scale structures that until now cannot be explained by the BBT, can be made consistent with current dogma.

Apparently Brian and his fellow BBT fantasists are going to pretend the galaxies and large scale structures  that shouldn’t be there in the so called “early universe” predicted by these BBT nutters (and soon to be observed by the JWST) are “echoes” of the previous Big Bang.

And in an extra footnote to the whole BBT hoax here is a quote below from the historical record showing Hubble himself didn’t think redshift was due to expansion. Because in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge having just won the Nobel prize for pretending photons could not lose energy over distance. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

3D freestanding viewer using birefringement .

Use the properties of birefringement to create a free standard stereoscope viewer. Calcite Crystal split incoming circular polarised beam or a beam that consists of vertical and horizontal polarisation states.

Notice the delayed quantum eraser experiment uses this property of birefringement to create overlapping alternating out of phase interference patterns at the signal detector as described at the following link@:

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Encode two data streams into the circular polarised beam so that one data stream is preserved in the horizontal part of the cycle and a seperate channel encoded in the vertical part of the cycle. Then this data could be extracted into two seperate beams again by simply putting the encoded circular polarised beam through a calcite crystal. 

In particular if two stereoscopic images were encoded into a circular polarised beam. The right hand image  on the horizontal part of the cycle, the left hand image on the vertical part of the cycle. Then this could be sent through a fibre optical network and at the other end the beam would be sent through a calcite crystal, the two stereoscopic images extracted and seperated by the crystal into two images, right and left. At which point the viewer could look at the crystal, change their eye focus so stereo images merge...and a true freestanding stereoscopic image could produced. Without need for special eyeglasses. Possibly the viewer side of the crystal surface could be made slightly convex to separate the two images so that one image at a time only would be seen by each eye. 

Earths Magnetic field revisited

Nice to see Phil Livermore admitting in a tweet that my prediction the Magnetic North Pole would cross over the international date line was now fact. A prediction which he dismissed in 2017 as being unverifiable and not worth considering as even possible in an email correspondence to me. Typical of an ‘expert’ to ignore any model or it’s predictions not published in a peer reviewed paper regardless of how subsequently successful that model is. 

CERN particle Myth

Since the early part of the 20th C theoretical physics has using the standard model, attempted to describe the nature of atoms and light as being particulate. Ignoring the fact that almost all other scientific observations point to radiation being wave only and atoms as being only wave like resonating points in space. The only observation supporting the particle model are the observed "particle like" paths seen in cloud and bubble chambers and particle accelerator collisions. This video shows how the traditional explanation that these paths can only be caused by particles, to be a false assumption. By overlapping only 3 expanding wavefronts in 3 dimensions, all straight,curved, split,spiral,positive and negative paths observed in cloud chambers can be succesfully modeled using overlapping wavefronts only. I have produced a video of my own theoretical model of how particles are “created” in cloud chambers showing digital simulations of 3 expanding wavefronts and how they can recreate most if not all the observed "particle paths" seen in colliders.

  https://youtu.be/uU6VMPeuxRo 

I challenge anyone in the particle physics community: Give me a “particle path” and I’ll show you how it can be made by three overlapping wavefronts. No need for particles. Just as there was no need for an earth centered universe.