Agreed, google "perihelion precession of the planets" and first site. Fitzgerald also gives details of the apsidal method, and this is a good site.

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

ok, thanks, I now understand eq.(10). Since the eccentricities of all planets are given, you could multiply the result with a factor

(1 – epsilon_E) / (1 – epsilon_p)

but this factor is nearly unity because epsilon is quite small, except for Mercury and Pluto. I can set up tables 1 and 2 with the latest data of M&T and the Farside site. Table 8.2 of M&T does not contain more data than table 7.2 of the 3rd edition.

The site farside.ph.utexas.edu is the home page of prof. Fitzpatrick. What is the exact location of the values you found there?

Horst

Am 23.04.2018 um 10:44 schrieb Myron Evans:

This is interesting, does the fourth edition contain the experimental EGR claim for all the planets? It would be interesting to find the most up to date comparisons for all the planets. Since EGR theory has been refuted in so many ways to the satisfaction of essentially all the colleagues, even exact agreement would not prove anything. As argued in note 406(1), the geodetic contribution from the obsolete EGR theory ITSELF has been completely left out of consideration. For Neptune, the Newtonian contribution to the observed precession is over a million times the EGR contribution and would have to have been removed very precisely to one part in a million, if the experiment is to mean anything at all. Newtonian methods are used to remove it, so EGR is not used to remove it. EGR is applied to less than one part in a million of the observed precession, and this is completely absurd. This argument has also been used by Miles Mathis as you know. To answer your points:

Eq. (10) comes from Eq. (6). Define A := 6 pi MG / ( c squared) , assume eps squared about zero. Then delta phi = A / a. In reduced units a sub E = 1, so

delta phi (planet ) = delta phi (earth) / a sub p.

The precession in Eq. (6) is for a rotation of 2 pi. For mercury for example this 2 pi takes 88 days. It must be adjusted to 365 days to give it in terms of the earth year of 365 days. For Mercury this is about 44 arcseconds per EARTH century. This is never made clear in the literature. So the precession per earth year (delta phi sub p) in eq. (10) is the precession per Mercury year multiplied by I / T= 365 / 88 where T is 0.2408. So combining the two adjustments we obtain Eq. (10). This is applied to Mercury in Eq. (12) and to Venus in Eq. (12b), giving the correct results in both cases. Finally, the total observed precessions are taken from the Fitzgerald site www.farside.ph.utexa.edu. For Neptune, the actually observed precession in radians per earth year is 1.76 ten power minus five. Eq. (6) gives 3.76 ten power minus eleven radians per earth year. Essentially all of the precession is explained in standard astronomy with Newtonian methods. In the most up to date research they use computer based perturbation theory and N body theory, Monte Carlo methods and so on. The observed precession of Neptune is more than a million times larger than that given by Eq. (6). This is not exactly "precise agreement" with EGR theory. Nearly all of the experimentally observed precession is attributed to the influence of objects other than the sun, and removed with supercomputers using Newtonian methods, and not by relativistic methods. What is left after that is attributed to the EGR contribution. However, i have not been able to find this experimental EGR contribution. It might be in some astronomy library. I cannot find it using Google.

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Obviously Marion & Thornton used slightly different values for table 7.1 (for Jupiter onwards) which is table 8.1 in the 4th edition.

Where did you get eq.(10)? Did you base this on eq.(6)? And why can you use astronomical units here instead of SI units?

What is Total Delta phi (obs.) in table 2?

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 13:53 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

This note extends the calculations of Note 406(1) and produces Table 1, which shows that the perihelion precessions of Venus and Earth are not described precisely by EGR. This is in fact well known, but covered up. In the standard literature they refer to this as an "anomaly", a polite word for a disaster. I give some planetary data in Table 2, and give the theoretical EGR precessions of all the planets in Table 3. In this table the total observed precessions are given, following farside.ph.utexas.edu. It is seen that the part attributed to EGR is a small fraction of the total. For a planet such as Neptune the part attributed to EGR is six orders of magnitude smaller than the total. In other words, the only observable data give a precession that is a million times larger than what is being sought. In Mercury it is over a hundred times larger as is in fact well known. This inconvenience is removed by a Newtonian theory, essentially still the same method as used in the nineteenth century, but made more precise with computers. So in describing the overwhelming majority of the precession, EGR is not used at all. So the standard physics cannot have much confidence in EGR after all. MIles Mathis in his book tears the procedure to shreds. By now, no one has any confidence in standard physics, and everyone avidly reads ECE2 in the safety of their homes, or secretly in the offices of all major universities of note. In the obsolete physics the overwhelming majority of the precession is extracted with Newtonian physics. This is a farcical way of testing a theory whose geometry is completely wrong. In addition the geodetic precession of the planets is not even considered. Despite the double dippy data reduction about $70 million dollars was spent on Gravity Probe B, which entirely neglected the EGR contribution, reporting only the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions in a very mysterious way. They seemed to have assumed that EGR or Newtonian gravitation in the limit of EGR have no effect on their gyroscopes. In the old theory the EGR contribution is essentially the obsolete Schwarzschild line element and the geodetic contribution is the rotated Schwarzschild line element. The Thomas precession is the rotated Minkowski line element in the old theory. In ECE2 all these ancient mariners are discarded, the whole lot, and replaced by a theory based on vacuum fluctuations. I have not been able to find the experimental claims for EGR for Mars to Pluto, because I have no easy access to a library. However they may exist in the astronomy data and the ephemeris libraries, or they may never have been worked out. A reader with access to a library could maybe find them, but even if found, are meaningless. In UFT344 an entirely new explanation of the geodetic precession was given using ECE2 gravitomagnetic theory, and in UFT119 the gravitomagnetic theory was used to explain the equinoctial precession in a much simpler way that than the standard model.. So in the next note I will apply UFT345, then proceed to the equinoctial precession. More or less all the seven hundred ECE papers and books are classics, so we have an intellectual right to dissolve Parliament as did Cromwell in 1653. Cromwell used force, we use Baconian logic. We will not imprison the Levellers, but encourage them to learn, I advise people to enjoy reading the theory. If they see something wrong please do not hesitate to send an e mail. Our checking procedures are rigorous but something may have slipped through.