The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession

  • 25 Replies
  • 15575 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ZHUYH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« Reply #20 on: 04/11/2008 01:37:22 »
Google:The Complement of Newton Gravitation Law
Logged
 



lyner

  • Guest
The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« Reply #21 on: 13/11/2008 12:39:13 »
Give me the bottom line on this.
How big is this new force, compared with the force due to 'normal' Gravity?
It would need to be less than the spread of errors involved in all the established measurements or it would already have been revealed as a constant error, wouldn't it?
Logged
 

Offline ZHUYH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« Reply #22 on: 14/11/2008 03:27:54 »
F = Fn + Ft
To the weight of Fn = GMm / r ^ 2  -
Tangential component [vortex force] Ft = kGMm ω Cos α / r ^ 2
K = 0.4 for one factor,the unit:  sec/cycle  ; ω is the angular velocity rotating ball, the unit: cycle / sec; α to the orbital inclination.

By the formula, we can see that:[earth]
      Fn =216000 Ft

Logged
 

lyner

  • Guest
The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« Reply #23 on: 14/11/2008 11:09:28 »
One point: angular velocity has the units of Radians per second (as opposed to frequency). Is your expression out by a factor of Pi?
Have you any measurements which reveal and confirm this factor of 1/2000,000? It's a tiny factor. If you obtained your value from the Moon's behaviour, is there any other data to support it?
As you know, there is an alternative mechanism which needs to be included. This is a real effect and needs to be factored into your sums.
Logged
 

Offline ZHUYH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« Reply #24 on: 17/11/2008 06:48:07 »
Fn = GMm / r ^ 2 
Tangential component [vortex force] Ft = kGMm ω Cos α / r ^ 2
 By the formula, we can see that:[earth]

 Ft = k ω Cos α Fn
Cos α=1,ω = 1/ 24×3600[cycle / sec] , K = 0.4 for one factor,the unit:  sec/cycle 
Ft = [0.4/ 24×3600]Fn

   =Fn/216,000
  is  not:            1/2000,000
Logged
 



lyner

  • Guest
The most simple and reasonable solution about mercury precession
« Reply #25 on: 17/11/2008 10:33:26 »
Same comment as in the other thread - I slipped another zero into my post.
You still really need to put this force in context with the other forces in operation. Is it greater? Is it less? Is it a major factor or a tiny modification?
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 45 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.