Advance of 4.2 degree per year

You are almost certainly right, the way these journalists write is not the model of pristine clarity. I have been doing an extensive literature search. As I plough through all the assumptions, the claims of Einstein always being very precise look like an “eemis stane” that “wags i the lift” as they say in border Scots, a very shaky edifice in a dense fogma (Hugh MacDiarmaid, Civil List 1950, the greatest Scottish poet of the twentieth century). The data are vague, for example the solar mass is not known with great accuracy, What is known with precision is MG. The solar radius is ill defined. So how can Einstein be always very precise? As we say in chemistry, there’s a lot of cookery going on, edging on crookery. In UFT150 the Einsteinian assumptions were found to be very questionable, and as ECE developed his methods disintegrated. UFT88 destroyed the credibility of his geometry. His theory fails completely in whirlpool galaxies, yet every single experiment finds Einstein to be very precise. This is Orwellian newspeak, or post factualism run riot, or paranoid schizophrenia, chose your own metaphor.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 12/04/2017 15:29:36 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Data on the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar PSR 1913 + 16

PS: I think that the orbital advance of 4.2 degrees “per year” relates to a terrestial year, not an orbital interval. This gives a quite small value per orbital interval. I will see if it is handable numerically.

Horst

Am 12.04.2017 um 13:00 schrieb EMyrone:

These were first analysed in UFT106. Google “perihelion binary pulsar” to find that in this pulsar, two heavy stars of almost equal mass orbit a common centre of mass in 7.75 hours. They weigh 1.4 solar masses. The minimum separation is called the periastron, and is 1.1 solar radii. The maximum separation or apastron is 4.8 solar radii. Google “perihelion of binary star systems” to find that the orbital eccentricity is 0.62. The observed periastron advance of the binary pulsar is 4.2 degrees per year. The non relativistic lagrangian is described in Marion and Thornton, chapter 7, p. 245, third edition, Eq. (7.4)

Lagrangian = (1/2) mu v bold dot v bold – U(r)

where the reduced mass is

mu = m1 m2 / (m1 + m2)

where m1 is about the same as m2. Here:

U(r) = – m1 m2 G / r

where:

r = modulus ( r1 bold – r2 bold)

and r1 bold is the vector from the center of mass to m1, r2 bold is the vector from the centre of mass to m2. The perisatron is defined by the minimum value of modulus r1 bold minus r2 bold. So I suggest setting up the initial condition at the periastron, where r is known and proceed to compute X dot and Y dot and calculate the initial relativistic orbital velocity. The orbit should look like a rosette and should advance by 4.2 degrees a year. By “year” I assume that is meant is the orbital interval of 7.75 hours. The orbit also shrinks, and in UFT106 – UFT108 extensive calculations and computations were made.

Advertisements
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: