The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Astrophysics on May 03, 2018, 04:36:45 PM
-
There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or is incompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.
The classical reasoning (in words), is presented in the publication (click on the public link) below. Steps to write math to it: 1. using the Newton Gravity to show, that ship's hull, which moves along the orbit has weightlessness. It is obviously true. Thus, from definition of inertial system we conclude, that ship is such system. 2. To recall the Law in Nature: the angular momentum does conserve in inertial system. 3. To make conclusion: rotating body does conserve the angle to its orbit.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324950713_Can_someone_show_in_detail_the_derivation_of_Celestial_Pole_precession_within_General_Relativity_formalism (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324950713_Can_someone_show_in_detail_the_derivation_of_Celestial_Pole_precession_within_General_Relativity_formalism)
This might be more up to date:
http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0048 (http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0048)
-
There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.
I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.
-
There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.
I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.
It is obvious only after reading my research in the link.
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
-
There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.
I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.
It is obvious only after reading my research in the link.
You seem to use this analogy as proof:
The axis of the revolving bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet.
But… it isn't, though, unless it's fired in a perfectly straight line. Earth does not move in a straight line.
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct? Yes.
2. There is weightlessness inside rocket. Correct? Yes.
3. So, the laws of inertial systems apply. Including angular momentum (of the apple inside the rocket) conservation. Correct? Yes.
4. The Axis of apple rotation is always directed constantly in the rocket, thus, with the same angle to the orbit. Correct? Yes.
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?
The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
Tidal locking can happen, but it fixes the day length to the year length, and Earth isn't tidally locked.
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?
The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......
O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?
The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......
O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?
If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1pXf_zsa7g)
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?
The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......
O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?
If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1pXf_zsa7g)
I do not see your problem here. You are in ignorance.
-
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.
1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?
The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......
O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?
If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1pXf_zsa7g)
I do not see your problem here. You are in ignorance.
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.
Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?
-
.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.
Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?
Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.
-
.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.
Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?
Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.
I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?
-
From your paper:
The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directedalong the flight of the bullet.
False. Bullets that are spin stabilized will not necessarily be aligned with their flight path.
From an article on bullet trajectories (https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/long-range-shooting-external-ballistics-bullet-shape):
As soon as it exits the barrel, the bullet starts its descending trajectory. As we have seen before, only the center of mass follows the trajectory. The tip of the bullet doesn’t follow the trajectory. In other words, the bullet axis is not pointed in the same direction as the axis of movement. In fact, the bullet longitudinal axis tends to remain pointed in the direction of the line of departure. Therefore, because of the bullet shape, the projectile will always fly at an angle, called angle of attack, relative to the trajectory.
You draw some interesting conclusions from this incorrect assumption. Again, quoting your paper:
Therefore, the Earth’s axis in orbit aroundthe Sun should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year.
Why should the earth make a full circle, and what is an angular radius? I know what an angle is, I know what a radius is, but I don't know what an angular radius is.
-
From your paper:
The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directedalong the flight of the bullet.
False. Bullets that are spin stabilized will not necessarily be aligned with their flight path.
From an article on bullet trajectories (https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/long-range-shooting-external-ballistics-bullet-shape):
As soon as it exits the barrel, the bullet starts its descending trajectory. As we have seen before, only the center of mass follows the trajectory. The tip of the bullet doesn’t follow the trajectory. In other words, the bullet axis is not pointed in the same direction as the axis of movement. In fact, the bullet longitudinal axis tends to remain pointed in the direction of the line of departure. Therefore, because of the bullet shape, the projectile will always fly at an angle, called angle of attack, relative to the trajectory.
You draw some interesting conclusions from this incorrect assumption. Again, quoting your paper:
Therefore, the Earth’s axis in orbit aroundthe Sun should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year.
Why should the earth make a full circle, and what is an angular radius? I know what an angle is, I know what a radius is, but I don't know what an angular radius is.
1. Bullet flies inside the air, thus it can violate my math, because I have bullet in vacuum.
2. I should see the bullet test for myself. What ever they will do, to protect the atheism!
3. If the bullet-test in vacuum of space would show, that my math is violated, then I will say, that there is Light Force K{\nu}, which has rotated the axis of the bullet.
There is article "celestial sphere" in Wikipedia. The distances on this sphere are measured in angle degrees, not in meters. There one can draw circle with radius (radius is distance from the center to the circle perimeter) 23 degrees.
-
Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.
Can you now help me understand why you say that the axis should be aligned with the direction of travel, but now say that the axis will only rotate through 23 degrees radius of the celestial sphere? Because when you said the axis should be aligned, I thought you were saying that the north pole should be aligned with the ecliptic and the orbital velocity vector of the earth with respect to the sun, and that therefore it would describe a circle of radius 90 degrees on the celestial sphere.
OK, so you're saying the earth's axis should precess around the north pole of the ecliptic in a 23 degree circle?
Because it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
-
...........
OK, so you're saying the earth's axis should precess around the north pole of the ecliptic in a 23 degree circle?
Because it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
In my paper in case of zero Light Force the period of Earth axis precession (it means the full cycle of motion of the Celestial Pole on the Celestial Sphere) is not ~26000 years, but only one year.
-
.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.
Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?
Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.
I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?
My result is falsifiable: just show me credible mathematics, which shows why Earth axis (not the axis itself, but the Celestial Pole) is practically motionless during one year of orbiting the Sun.
-
Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.
I've noticed that a lot of flat Earth "research" involves poor English from people who clearly don't have English as their first language. One tends to be sympathetic to this - if I were to write a scientific paper in a foreign language, it would read terribly. One tends to assume that the ideas are sound, but the way that they are expressed is affected by having to express them with words that aren't familiar.
So if this terrible, confused "academic article" were written in clear, unambiguous English, it would be a lot easier to see what a mess it is. It's all over the place, with discussions of angular momentum scattered among religious references and claims that a bunch of flat Earth researchers were murdered.
-
Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.
I've noticed that a lot of flat Earth "research" involves poor English from people who clearly don't have English as their first language. One tends to be sympathetic to this - if I were to write a scientific paper in a foreign language, it would read terribly. One tends to assume that the ideas are sound, but the way that they are expressed is affected by having to express them with words that aren't familiar.
So if this terrible, confused "academic article" were written in clear, unambiguous English, it would be a lot easier to see what a mess it is. It's all over the place, with discussions of angular momentum scattered among religious references and claims that a bunch of flat Earth researchers were murdered.
Yet, we have the perfect understanding. Ask if something is unclear. I am adding improved file.
-
Looks like some failed scientist are trying to misuse ResearchGate to spread their weird ideas...
-
Looks like some failed scientist are trying to misuse ResearchGate to spread their weird ideas...
I would fail only, if I will arrive at hell. Russians never surrender. Without extensive support of Flat Earth Community (I would turn for support to the Creation Science Society and the UFO--Alien Research Society with my Light Force as well, I would never stop) I can not make the paper fairly peer-reviewed. Without such review it fails the Scientific Method.
Opponent: ``So basically what you are trying to say is it’s all just pie in the sky wishful thinking, or nonsense, take your pick.''
It is if you prefer negativism. I prefer positivism, thus I am saying: it is output of my brain, and my conscience is in piece with it. I think, that on this dirty world the results will not be (fairly) peer-reviewed. But I hope for the investigation in afterlife.
-
I looked through your ResearcheGate profile. Nothing of the stuff you and your friends uploaded there has any chance to be published in a regular journal. Go back to university a try again to understand the stuff they tried to teach you the first time.
-
I looked through your ResearcheGate profile. Nothing of the stuff you and your friends uploaded there has any chance to be published in a regular journal. Go back to university a try again to understand the stuff they tried to teach you the first time.
No problem yet! Russians never surrender:
https://youtu.be/ofb_xRG8k3E
-
Believe me, I know some real Russian scientists. Also they would never let your pseudoscience go through a peer review... And I really admire the great physicist from Russia or the former Soviet Union. In almost all of our projects we make use of the work of great people like Landau (one of the brightest physicist of the last century), Lifschitz, Ginsburg, Dzyaloshinskii, Astrov, and so on and so on. But what you are "publishing" is just nonsense, Russian or not...
-
Believe me, I know some real Russian scientists. Also they would never let your pseudoscience go through a peer review... And I really admire the great physicist from Russia or the former Soviet Union. In almost all of our projects we make use of the work of great people like Landau (one of the brightest physicist of the last century), Lifschitz, Ginsburg, Dzyaloshinskii, Astrov, and so on and so on. But what you are "publishing" is just nonsense, Russian or not...
Do not be rude. I am a respectful one with papers in Physical Review E, European Journal of Physics B, etc.
Opponent: ``if you make a claim how about putting something up that can be tested?''. So, you argue now suddenly, that observational astronomy is not in fact the Scientific Method??? How come? Astronomers are seeing the Celestial Pole practically not moving during one year cycle. I am asking to back it up with formulas of General Relativity.
-
Your last regular paper is from 2006, the others are from 2001-2003. Everything after that is going more and more into the direction of complete nonsense. I'm not rude, whatever reputation you once had, you destroyed it by yourself...
-
Your last regular paper is from 2006, the others are from 2001-2003. Everything after that is going more and more into the direction of complete nonsense. I'm not rude, whatever reputation you once had, you destroyed it by yourself...
Because in General Relativity the Universe is 4 dimensional, one can not destroy anything inside the Universe. My top academic activity (the glorious activity!) is in the 2006, 2001-2003.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk
-
.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.
Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?
Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.
I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?
My result is falsifiable: just show me credible mathematics, which shows why Earth axis (not the axis itself, but the Celestial Pole) is practically motionless during one year of orbiting the Sun.
I don't need math. Inertia is an axiom of modern physics.
Angular momentum does not change within an orbit. I'll make a video with Kerbal Space Program if I need to.
-
Your bullet or rocket analogy might make some sense, in that if you think of the front and the back of the bullet as orbiting and they keep the same distance, then yeah the bullet rotates and stays perpendicular as it orbits... This is essentially what you took 20 pages to say right?
I'm not entirely sure that's correct to start with... But assuming it is, when you apply that same logic to a sphere, it's a big jump to say it makes the sphere rotate... Even though I guess effectively certain spots (I.e. front of the axis vs back of the axis) are moving inside and outside from the orbit they would naturally take if they were single points, as a whole spherical object, gravity doesn't give a crap if the sphere is spinning or not: it's just a sphere. It's acting on the entire sphere. If it rotates or doesn't rotate there's no force pulling one side greater than the other in order to make it turn as it orbits.
I suggest you draw some force vectors to prove your point
-
1. Bullet flies inside the air, thus it can violate my math, because I have bullet in vacuum.
Most bullets are streamlined to minimize the impact of the atmosphere, and are usually made of dense materials so that also reduces it. Not to mention, the idealization of inertia is, wow would you look at that, a vacuum!
2. I should see the bullet test for myself. What ever they will do, to protect the atheism!
Believe whatever you want. I'm not here to doubt your gods, I'm here to doubt your logic.
3. If the bullet-test in vacuum of space would show, that my math is violated, then I will say, that there is Light Force K{\nu}, which has rotated the axis of the bullet.
I really must ask, how does your Light Force work?
-
You should spend any effort in this discussion. This tried it already on ResearchGate and got the only answer scientific community can give to this ideas: Silence...
-
You should spend any effort in this discussion. This tried it already on ResearchGate and got the only answer scientific community can give to this ideas: Silence...
Last warning.
-
Your bullet or rocket analogy might make some sense, in that if you think of the front and the back of the bullet as orbiting and they keep the same distance, then yeah the bullet rotates and stays perpendicular as it orbits... This is essentially what you took 20 pages to say right?
I'm not entirely sure that's correct to start with... But assuming it is, when you apply that same logic to a sphere, it's a big jump to say it makes the sphere rotate... Even though I guess effectively certain spots (I.e. front of the axis vs back of the axis) are moving inside and outside from the orbit they would naturally take if they were single points, as a whole spherical object, gravity doesn't give a crap if the sphere is spinning or not: it's just a sphere. It's acting on the entire sphere. If it rotates or doesn't rotate there's no force pulling one side greater than the other in order to make it turn as it orbits.
I suggest you draw some force vectors to prove your point
Yes, I see my friends start to accept my talk. Please reread the link in the thread: using our helpful discussion I have modified the manuscript. SiDawg, it makes no special sense to draw some force vectors, because all the vectors from gravity are the tidal forces, which are minimized by taking a small test-body.
-
My result is falsifiable: just show me credible mathematics, which shows why Earth axis (not the axis itself, but the Celestial Pole) is practically motionless during one year of orbiting the Sun.
Newton's Principia Mathematica, Book III, Proposition XXXIX (https://books.google.com/books?id=5x4wAAAAYAAJ&dq=The%20Mathematical%20Principles%20of%20Natural%20Philosophy%2C%20Volume%202&pg=PA252#v=onepage&q=The%20Mathematical%20Principles%20of%20Natural%20Philosophy,%20Volume%202&f=false)
"To find the precession of the equinoxes".
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Equations
-
Yet, we have the perfect understanding. Ask if something is unclear. I am adding improved file.
Hi Astrophysics, great post, can I please ask 2 questions?
1) What do you mean "legal" science?
2) Are you coming from a religious stance?
Much obliged
-
I like the subject matter, but the commentary can be a bit off putting. For your next version I would recommend rewriting/rearranging the paper to just show the problem, very dryly and matter-of-fact. If there is a problem, and the paper clearly lays out the facts, then no commentary is necessary. Think about it.
-
I like the subject matter, but the commentary can be a bit off putting. For your next version I would recommend rewriting/rearranging the paper to just show the problem, very dryly and matter-of-fact. If there is a problem, and the paper clearly lays out the facts, then no commentary is necessary. Think about it.
Thank You, Council. Please, do not loose the interest solely because of poor style of the manuscript.
Yet, we have the perfect understanding. Ask if something is unclear. I am adding improved file.
Hi Astrophysics, great post, can I please ask 2 questions?
1) What do you mean "legal" science?
2) Are you coming from a religious stance?
Much obliged
The legal Science is the ordinary Science, but is conducted by a sincere human: no fake news here.
I have several proofs of Creator, including my current one: the Light Force Operator.
-
... Even though I guess effectively certain spots (I.e. front of the axis vs back of the axis) are moving inside and outside from the orbit they would naturally take if they were single points, as a whole spherical object, gravity doesn't give a crap if the sphere is spinning or not: it's just a sphere. It's acting on the entire sphere. If it rotates or doesn't rotate there's no force pulling one side greater than the other in order to make it turn as it orbits.
I suggest you draw some force vectors to prove your point
Yes, I see my friends start to accept my talk. Please reread the link in the thread: using our helpful discussion I have modified the manuscript. SiDawg, it makes no special sense to draw some force vectors, because all the vectors from gravity are the tidal forces, which are minimized by taking a small test-body.
Tidal forces can be drawn with vectors (see below)... I'm not sure i understand where you say they're "minimized": even if the forces are small, it's your choice how large or small you draw the vectors... Or if you want to show a mix of hugely different forces, just write "not to scale". I think the important part is that you describe an origin and direction of the forces you're talking about. I don't think the earth is a small test-body :D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Tidal_force_as_appearance_of_Gravity_force_3.jpg)
To add to my previous post, the way i'm conceptualising your argument: if you have two bodies in orbit (around the sun) at the same speed and the same mass, then they will orbit at the same distance. If they moved to a bigger orbit (say they were hit by an object) then assuming it doesn't escape orbit or change speed, it will naturally return to the same orbit equilibrium. Same if it goes to a smaller orbit: the speed will "push" it back to it's original orbit. In other words, if the speed stays constant, the objects will maintain their orbital distance (in reality orbits are usually elliptical, but lets just use a perfect circular orbit for arguments sake)
So if you then connect those two objects together, say with a solid magic rod, then those rules still apply right: it's now one mass, but the forces of gravity combined with the imaginary centrifugal force from it's speed, will result in a force differential if one end of the mass is outside its normal orbit compared to the other side. So the object will effectively "rotate": the rod connecting the two will stay perpendicular to the sun, or point in the direction of travel, as both ends will be pushed or pulled back to their normal orbit.
But then you're trying to apply that logic to a sphere: although it has an axis of rotation, it has an essentially even distribution of mass... For the sake of this argument let's consider it a perfect sphere with density increasing consistently towards the centre. If the mass in a small area at the north and south pole was drastically bigger than the rest of the sphere, then yeah, your theory might hold, but it's not. But you're not saying that: you're just saying that because my first example of a rod object stays perpendicular, then the sphere must also be perpendicular.
Because the only difference in density in the sphere is in relation to distance to the centre, then there is no "special" force applied that would cause a differential. i.e. if it rotates due the orbit as you say, then it would need an area of increased density offset from the centre in order for the centrifugal and gravity forces to be different at that point, and thus rotate the sphere.
Now, we know the earth DOES have variations in density... but we also know that it spins on it's axis 365.15 faster than it orbits, so any orbital forces acting on different areas of density would surely be balanced as it rotates. Probably contributes to a slight "wobble"? I guess that's further homework!
-
........
Because the only difference in density in the sphere is in relation to distance to the centre, then there is no "special" force applied that would cause a differential. i.e. if it rotates due the orbit as you say, then it would need an area of increased density offset from the centre in order for the centrifugal and gravity forces to be different at that point, and thus rotate the sphere.
Now, we know the earth DOES have variations in density... but we also know that it spins on it's axis 365.15 faster than it orbits, so any orbital forces acting on different areas of density would surely be balanced as it rotates. Probably contributes to a slight "wobble"? I guess that's further homework!
I can conclude, that no theoretical derivation of the observable slow precession is made yet (in exception of mine) within the General Relativity formalism. My arguments are in the Researchgate link. You can accept or reject. But I am right. I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.
-
I did read your research. Skimmed the religious and the mathematical sections. No one can accept or reject your idea if they don't understand it. Again, draw some force vectors or at least explain WHY the earth would rotate other than "because a rocket or a bullet does".... If you were right, it would be a simple fundamental aspect of physics, much simpler than general relativity. It would be a fundamental change to Newton's law of gravity. I doubt the large amount of maths you've used is really necessary to describe the force you're proposing, it seems to just be maths for the sake of maths. If you can draw a diagram or at least describe something that gives people a reason to analyse your maths, that would help. Start simple.
-
I did read your research. Skimmed the religious and the mathematical sections. No one can accept or reject your idea if they don't understand it. Again, draw some force vectors or at least explain WHY the earth would rotate other than "because a rocket or a bullet does".... If you were right, it would be a simple fundamental aspect of physics, much simpler than general relativity. It would be a fundamental change to Newton's law of gravity. I doubt the large amount of maths you've used is really necessary to describe the force you're proposing, it seems to just be maths for the sake of maths. If you can draw a diagram or at least describe something that gives people a reason to analyse your maths, that would help. Start simple.
Thank You, Sir. Yes, I am improving the style of the paper.
-
I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.
That's because it's outside the scope of relativity. The people to ask about this would be geologists.
-
I can conclude, that no theoretical derivation of the observable slow precession is made yet (in exception of mine) within the General Relativity formalism. My arguments are in the Researchgate link. You can accept or reject. But I am right. I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.
Did you miss my post with the links to Newton and Wikipedia? Because Newtonian physics
a) is what Relativity tends towards when velocities and gravitational fields are low enough
b) has a derivation of the 26000 year precession.
But, if you insist on a full General Relativity treatment, how about this?
See section 2.2 for the specific bits you're looking for (I think.)
http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/RAA_papers/Published_finalvesion_2015_04/000_1504/ms1851_tangkai/03ms1851.pdf
-
I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.
That's because it's outside the scope of relativity. The people to ask about this would be geologists.
That's --- not at all right. Geologists study rocks, physicists and astrophysicists study how those rocks move through space.
Relativity does have a place in computing the equinox precession, but that place is generally "it's a tiny effect and why bother" unless you're trying to publish something.
-
........
But, if you insist on a full General Relativity treatment, how about this?
See section 2.2 for the specific bits you're looking for (I think.)
http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/RAA_papers/Published_finalvesion_2015_04/000_1504/ms1851_tangkai/03ms1851.pdf
Thank You, but it is useful only for list of links in it. Because paper itself is just technical calculation using formula, which is derived elsewhere. I would like to check validity of theoretical derivation.
-
Friends, I have greatly improved file in researchgate, please click on the link in the thread.