1. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202

There is a problem with the validation of the concept which accounts for the 43 " per century in the motion of Mercury.The table of figures given below by Ohanian and Ruffini goes on to support the validation but a major problem in principle emerges as the 'observed' precessions of the Earth and Mercury are matched.

In basic terms it would be required to subtract the value given for Earth from the value given to Mercury to get the true value of the advance of Mercury but the table of figures, while adopting the principle that both Earth and Mercury are partaking in the same system of rotation around the Sun and the gravitational solution is dictated locally by the Sun,manage to treat the figures seperately as though the 3.85 minutes given for Earth had nothing to do with the 43 " given for Mercury.

The values given in Ohanian &amp; Ruffini are:

PLANET OBSERVED PRECESSION PREDICTED PRECESSION

Mercury 43.1 +/- 0.1 arcsec/century 42.98 arcsec/century

Earth 3.85 3.84

The predicted perihelion advance of Mercury as 43 " was taken without knowing what the advance for Earth is,only one other participant in the sci.forums recognised the problem and sought admirably to at least bridge the gap but ultimately it fails, for if you alter the figure for Mercury you are obliged to alter it for Earth,therefore you cannot reduce the value of Earth to 0 and thereby isolate the advance of Mercury and certainly not as 43".

The other participant,Nicolaas Vroom,tried to simulate the motion of Mercury while including a value for Earth but again,this method generates a paradox rather than a validation insofar as it is impossible to derive a figure for Mercury where the initial figure for Earth is not known.For you headache inducing benefit ,here is the original attempt by Mr Vroom to resolve the issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am not behind everything what "Oriel36" is claiming
but let me try to explain why I think that everything is more
complicated as someone might think.

Consider a three body system consisting
of the Sun, the planet Mercury and our Earth.
With a computer simulation program based on Newton's
Law I calculate the observed positions of the Sun and
Mercury over a period of 100 years at random moments t.
This computer simulation is based around the following
parameters : Initial positions and velocities of Sun, Mercury
and Earth at t0. The masses of Sun, Mercury and Earth.
t0 is not part of the set of observations at t.

My first question is:
is it possible to calculate the parameters based
on the observations ?
You can use the same simulation program as part of
this exercise.
IMO what you have to do is to guess those parameters
and calculate an error value with the observations.
Try n other guesses and calculate n error values.
You continue etc etc until error becomes "zero".

can not be calculated based on lack of information.
If that is the case "You" should indicate which information
is missing in order to solve this exercise.

It is important to remark that Mercury in this 3 body example
also shows a perihelion shift which is explained as
as influenced by Newtonian gravitation.
However this shift is not eqaul to 531"
but only equal to 93" in one century.

This finishes exercise one..
Exercise one is not subject of the 43" angle explained by Einsteins
theory of Relativity.

Exercise two is almost identical as exercise one
Starting point are the same calculated observed positions
of the Sun and Mercury over a period of 100 years at
random moments t as mentioned above.
With one exception that ALL the observed positions of
Mercury are modified with a value as a function
of the famous value 43" and the time since t0 as
of that observation.
That means for an observation at t1 the position of Mercury
is modified with a value: (t1-t0)*43/100

My second question is:
Calculate the same parameters as previous based on
observations using Newton's Law.
i.e. initial positions and velocities at t0 and the masses
of Sun, Mercury and Earth.

Which this quess you should calculate an error value0.
This error value0 should be non zero.
(i.e. larger as final error value of exercise one)
Try n other guesses and calculate n error values.
Search for the smallest error valueX
(In fact you should repeat this process to find THE
smallest error valueX but this value will never be zero)

The real issue is now to answer the question if
error valueX is smaller than error value0
If that is the case than you have find a set of parameters
which better describe the observations as the initial
set of parameters (i.e. the parameters of exercise one)

Which that set of parameters you should also calculate
the perihelion shift of Mercury (in exercise one this value
was the value 93")
In fact that value is the observed perihelion shift.
That value in principle can be any value between
93" and 93+43 = 136"
a. If you find a value very close to 136 than it means
that you can describe the describe the positions solely
based on Newton's law and you do not need Einsteins Theory
b. If you find a value like 120" than you know that Newton's
Law those not fully describe the positions and you need
also something else.
c. If you find a value close to 93 than that is "prove"
that you also need Einstein's theory in order to explain
the missing 43" shift
and to describe the positions of the 3 bodies accurately.

My point is that in case you find someting inbetween (120")
than you should write a new simulation program solely
based on Einsteins Theory and which that theory
you should also calculate positions at random moments t
and find after n tries a final error value
That final error value (after n tries) should be close to zero.
If that is the case than you know that Einsteins theory is better
than Newton's theory.

In short you should not mix the two theories in order to prove
which one is better."

Nicolaas Vroom

2. I see two problems with that. One, the perihelion shift of Mercury is not 43" per century--that is the residual after accounting for Newtonian effects. Two, the shift is relative to to the "fixed stars," and so the shifts of Earth and Mercury can be considered independent.

3. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi

In reviewing the figures for the justification of 43" per century and the local 'warped space' solution which is presented I came across this spectacular mess written by the author of spacetime in 1920.Do you know how many astronomical laws he broke to isolate the motion of Mercury.Even with wiggle room to sell his theory he tethered the motion of the solar system to sidereal motion !(which in itself would send any astronomer into fits of laughter/irritation),after foisting Keplers great planetary laws on Newton he then determines that his concept explains the 43" but probably the fact that this leaves nowhere to put the 3.85 " for Earth makes this particular astronomical performance a crock to say the least.He has already demolished the Equation of Time as phrased by Newton in terms of the difference between absolute time and relative time so all and all how much damage to astronomy can one person do ?.

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars. This deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy, has been confirmed for all the planets save one, with the precision that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the planet which lies nearest the sun. Since the time Leverrier, it has been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury, after it has been corrected for the influences mentioned above, is not stationary with respect to the fixed stars, but that it rotates exceedingly slowly in the plane of the orbit and in the sense of the orbital motion. The value obtained for this rotary movement of the orbital ellipse was 43 seconds of arc per century, an amount ensured to be correct to within a few seconds of arc. This effect can be explained by means of classical mechanics only on the assumption of hypotheses which have little probability, and which were devised solely for this purpose.

On the basis of the general theory of relativity, it is found that the ellipse of every planet round the sun must necessarily rotate in the manner indicated above; that for all the planets, with the exception of Mercury, this rotation is too small to be detected with the delicacy of observation possible at the present time; but that in the case of Mercury it must amount to 43 seconds of arc per century, a result which is strictly in agreement with observation."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html

I have no doubt that not many would want to untangle the mess above but whatever it is,it is'nt astronomy.

4. Originally Posted by oriel36
Kilopi
(which in itself would send any astronomer into fits of laughter/irritation),after foisting Keplers great planetary laws on Newton he then determines that his concept explains the 43" but probably the fact that this leaves nowhere to put the 3.85 " for Earth makes this particular astronomical performance a crock to say the least.He has already demolished the Equation of Time as phrased by Newton in terms of the difference between absolute time and relative time so all and all how much damage to astronomy can one person do ?.
As far as I know, that value was determined by astronomers long before Einstein ever involved himself.

What happened to the principle you expressed in another thread:
Originally Posted by oriel36
Thank you for keeping this civil
I have no doubt that not many would want to untangle the mess above but whatever it is,it is'nt astronomy.
I don't see anything particularly wrong, what is it that you are referring to?

5. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi

Even today I marvel at how Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer came to their insights and especially this week as Mars in its closest approach to Earth in 60 000 years that Kepler spent 8 years intepreting the figures to explain its motion which eventually turned into his great planetary laws,then I see the procedure which isolates the motion of Mercury in 1920 and it is something less than astronomy.

I know from reading your other posts that you are a mathematician but sometimes it requires an intuitive ability along with mathematics to correctly interpret celestial data,in the contemporary atmosphere it seems anything goes and one theory is as good as another as long as the math works but for a true astronomer this cannot be,without the balance between intuitive interpretation and the supporting mathematical data the intuitive will dissolve into guesswork and the mathematics will give you carte blanche to say anything you want or "free creations of the mind" in relativistic terms.In the case of the motion of Mercury,while the mathematics for ' warped space' might work out,there is a catastrophic procedural collapse in terms of astronomy and while a mathematician may not notice an astronomer should be wide-eyed at the reckless procedure to isolate the motion of Mercury.

I am not comfortable with these things so it is perhaps best to allow the great mathematician Pascal express what I mean by an intuitive/mathematical balance,the last time I have seen it in action was between Faraday and Maxwell but because of the balance has fallen out of kilter towards mathematical creations known as theories it is no longer possible today to correspond in their fashion (noting that the intuitive ability of Faraday is not diminished by his deficiency beyond simple aritmetic while the reverse is true for Maxwell).

As a further discussion on the validation of gr via Mercury would generate unavoidable contention perhaps it is best to direct the thread towards the reasons why you may not see a problem where I see it immediately.

'The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind' by
Blaise Pascal.

"In one the principles are obvious,but remote from ordinary usage,so
that from want of practice we have difficulty turning our heads that
way;but once we turn our heads the principles can be fully seen;and it
would take a thoroughly unsound mind to draw false conclusions from
principles so patent that they can hardly be missed.

But with the intuitive mind,the principles are in ordinary usage and
there for all to see.There is no need to turn our heads,or strain
ourselves,it is only a question of good sight,but it must be good;for
the principles are so intricate and numerous that it is almost
impossible to miss some.Now the omission of one principle can lead to
an error,and so one needs very clear sight to see all the principles
as well as an accurate mind to avoid drawing false conclusion from
known principles.

All mathematicians would therefore be intuitive if they had good sight
because they do not draw false conclusions from principles that they
know.And intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could adapt
their sight to the unfamiliar principles of mathematics.

Thus the reason why certain intuitive minds are not mathematical is
that they are quite unable to apply themselves to the principles of
mathematics,but the reason why mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they cannot see what is in front of them;for being accustomed to
the clearcut,obvious principles of mathematics and to draw no
conclusions until they have clearly seen and handled all their
principles,they become lost in matters requiring intuition,whoes
principles cannot be handled in that way.These principles can hardly
be seen,they are perceived instinctively rather than seen and it is
with endless difficulty that they can be communicated to those who do
not perceive it for themselves.These things are so delicate and
numerous that it takes a sense of great delicacy and precision to
perceive them and judge correctly and accurately from this
perception;most often it is not possible to set it out logically as in
mathematics because the necessary principles are not ready at hand and
it would be an endless task to undertake.It must be seen at a glance
rather than a result of progressive thinking,at least up to a
point.Thus it is rare for the mathematicians to be intuitive or the
intuitive to be mathematicians,because mathematicians
try to treat these intuitive matters mathematically and make
themselves ridiculous by trying to begin with definitions followed by
principles,which is not the way to proceed in this kind of
reasoning.It is not that the mind does not do this,but it does so
tacitly,naturally and artlessly,for it is beyond any man to express it
and given to very few to apprehend it.Intuitive minds,on the
contrary,being thus accustomed to judge at a glance are taken aback
when presented with propositions of which they understand nothing (and
of which the necessary preliminaries are definitions and principles so
barren that they are not used to looking at them in such detail) and
consequently feel repelled and disgusted.

But unsound minds are neither intuitive or mathematical.

Mathematicians who are merely mathematicians therefore reason soundly
so long as everything is explained to them by definitions and
principles,otherwise they are unsound and intolerable,because they
reason soundly only from clearly defined principles.

And intuitive minds which are merely intuitive lack the patience to go
right into the first principles of speculative and imaginative matters
which they have never seen in practice and are quite outside ordinary
usage."

6. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Sorry Kilopi,I can't resist.it is just too funny and in truth one line is funnier than the next and only with great reluctance would I trim it for the benefit of astronomers who probably would be shocked if they came across the passage for the first time.

"... a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, ... and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars. .... The sole exception is Mercury, the planet which lies nearest the sun... it has been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury, after it has been corrected for the influences mentioned above,is not stationary with respect to the fixed stars. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

In case you missed it - " we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars... The sole exception is Mercury..... is not stationary with respect to the fixed stars," !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Do you realise what he just said ?,I once thought it was frightening that this constitutes the major validation of the concept in 1919 but over time it has taken on a hilarious nature and again only with great reluctance would I trim the passage.

Just to show you I am not doctoring the text here is the full passage.

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars. This deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy, has been confirmed for all the planets save one, with the precision that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the planet which lies nearest the sun. Since the time Leverrier, it has been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury, after it has been corrected for the influences mentioned above, is not stationary with respect to the fixed stars, but that it rotates exceedingly slowly in the plane of the orbit and in the sense of the orbital motion"

[/b]

7. Originally Posted by oriel36
I know from reading your other posts that you are a mathematician but sometimes it requires an intuitive ability along with mathematics to correctly interpret celestial data,in the contemporary atmosphere it seems anything goes and one theory is as good as another as long as the math works
Well, I have a masters degree in math, but I'm more of an intuitive guy.
As a further discussion on the validation of gr via Mercury would generate unavoidable contention perhaps it is best to direct the thread towards the reasons why you may not see a problem where I see it immediately.
OK, what is the problem with the sidereal day of 23h 56m 4.10s? You seem to advocate for a rotation period of 24h exactly--but there is no day of the year when the time from local noon to local noon is exactly 24h.
Originally Posted by oriel36
In case you missed it - " we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars... The sole exception is Mercury..... is not stationary with respect to the fixed stars," !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
I did miss it, the first time--and even after I read this repeat. I had to go back to your previous posts to see what it was that I was supposed to see.

Is it that Einstein says "The sole exception" when we know that other planets orbits also precess?

If you read Einstein's work in context though, it's obvious that he was aware that the Earth would also precess under his theory. However, the astronomers had detected theanomalous precession of Mercury, but had not done so for the other planets--since those were less by at least an order of magnitude. You can't blame Einstein for that. When he said "sole exception" he was quoting others--but he was aware that his theory would induce precession in all the planets.

8. Originally Posted by oriel36
This deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy, has been confirmed for all the planets save one, with the precision that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the planet which lies nearest the sun.
I wouldn't have figured out what you were referring to without kilopi pointing it out. I think that you're misinterpreting the sentence. Look at the previous sentence. It isn't saying that Mercury is the only planet that should precess under general relativity. It's saying that all the other planets have been checked, and seem to match the Newtonian prediction "with the precision that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation attainable at the present time". The next sentence tells us that Mercury does not match the Newtonian prediction within this precision. This makes no suggestion that none of the other planets might deviate from their predicted orbits, only that they don't do so by more than the precision of the available measurements. So it's not that Mercury is the only planet affected; it's the only planet affected enough to be noticeable with the equipment they were using. Since there is a specific reference to experimental precision, it seems implied that better measurments might lead to different results.

9. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi

I hope someone at least will have a good chuckle at the means by which the author of spacetime tried to isolate the motion of Mercury to get it background free and I'm sorry you and Grey missed it but it is wrapped up in the figure of 23 hours 56 min

Kilopi wrote; "OK, what is the problem with the sidereal day of 23h 56m 4.10s? You seem to advocate for a rotation period of 24h exactly".

As we discussed at lenght that sidereal motion,circumpolar motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars' is actually a property of the axial rotation of the Earth.By all means use the stars as a reference for planetary motion but for the love of Isaac,for goodness sake and under no circumstance say it Abert and then he says it - "if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars".Welcome aboard the geocentric express !.

Do you wish to try again with the whole passage ?,perhaps even you will have a good laugh at the audacity of it all.

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars. This deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy, has been confirmed for all the planets save one, with the precision that is capable of being obtained by the delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the planet which lies nearest the sun. Since the time Leverrier, it has been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury, after it has been corrected for the influences mentioned above, is not stationary with respect to the fixed stars, but that it rotates exceedingly slowly in the plane of the orbit and in the sense of the orbital motion"

10. Originally Posted by oriel36
As we discussed at lenght that sidereal motion,circumpolar motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars' is actually a property of the axial rotation of the Earth.By all means use the stars as a reference for planetary motion but for the love of Isaac,for goodness sake and under no circumstance say it Abert and then he says it - "if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars".Welcome aboard the geocentric express !.
Are you advocating geocentricity? Or, are you making fun of geocentricity, and claiming that "fixed stars" are impossible?

The stars's angular motion, overall, is quite small relative even to the angular motion that we are talking about with regard to the perihelion of Mercury. Or do you think you have evidence to the contrary?
Do you wish to try again with the whole passage ?,perhaps even you will have a good laugh at the audacity of it all.

11. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi
It is fitting that as Mars in its closest approach to Earth to remember what an enormous task it was for Kepler to disentangle the complex motions of Earth from Mars and then isolate elliptical motion and then provide a model that Newton made good use of.

Then you look at this mess -

"According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars."

Albert stuck you with something worse than geocentricity,any novice astronomer will tell you that circumpolar motion of the stars is an axial property of the Earth's rotation but Al here talks about the influence of the "motion of the stars"on heliocentric modelling,funny,funny,funny !.I think the passage is so outrageous that an astronomer on seeing it for the first time would assume he did'nt really fix the ellipse to the 'fixed stars' and then ask his readers to ignore the motion of the 'fixed stars' but there you have it.

This major 'achievement' of the 20th century looks pretty gruesome in contrast to the enormous task of Kepler in sorting and sifting observational data on the motion of Mars but in the absence of any comment what can I do but laugh.There was no revolution at the beginning of the last century,it was just the endpoint of a process which was going on for decades as the great astronomers and their work faded into the past and overlapped with the work of gravity physicists,when Al here says that Newton predicts elliptical motion,I guess the final nail was put into the coffin of astronomy with nobody around to object and so it remains to this day.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...4.x.x.54.x.338

A mathematician can afford to say anything and normally does but

12. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...x.90.553.x.593

1905 was not so much a revolution as it was a slow death to the study of astronomical phenomena.

13. Originally Posted by oriel36
Then you look at this mess -

"According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars."

Albert stuck you with something worse than geocentricity,any novice astronomer will tell you that circumpolar motion of the stars is an axial property of the Earth's rotation but Al here talks about the influence of the "motion of the stars"on heliocentric modelling,funny,funny,funny !.I think the passage is so outrageous that an astronomer on seeing it for the first time would assume he did'nt really fix the ellipse to the 'fixed stars' and then ask his readers to ignore the motion of the 'fixed stars' but there you have it.
So, the problem is that Einstein talked about fixed stars, but also about motion of the fixed stars? I can see how that might strike someone as funny.

However, "Fixed stars" is generally a phrase that represents the (euclidean) frame of reference that is fixed with respect to the points of the universe. Those stars, over the time period of a single orbit of Mercury, do indeed have very little detectable motion. A few of them have a motion that is detectable over the years--it is that motion that I think Einstein is saying we should ignore. That doesn't seem to be unreasonable. Maybe it was a problem of translation.

Not what I would call a "mess."

14. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi

As I said it becomes hilarious with each reading even if it is supposed to have been the major scientific validation of the 20th century,if everyone else wishes to have their intelligence insulted then that is fine but I would recommend a good chuckle instead whether a proponent or opponent of the concept.

You see Kilopi,the true motion of the local Milky Way stars and their rotation around the galactic axis has been with us since 1923 (Hubble) but the information has been left dormant.It gets very interesting when you observe two supernova occuring simultaneously in two different parent galaxies,while difficult to the nth degree,the changing orientation of the local stars (due to galactic rotation) as a reference against the observed occurence and when they actually occured generates a new kind of cosmological modelling.Kepler's task was so difficult in seperating true motion from apparent motion,today,the changing orientation of the local stars to the remaining galaxies is there in principle and staring us straight in the face but with the 'every-point-is-the-valid-center' crowd still prevailing I doubt very much that cosmological modelling off the galactic axis (local reference stars) as a new variation on the old heliocentric modelling will emerge.For goodness sake don't try to infer things that I only outline in the barest sense,if everything was right in astronomy it would be taken as a given but presently it is not and with a complex issue like this perhaps it is best to remain with Albert and "the influence of the motion of fixed stars" on elliptical orbits.

All the same,spacetime is very funny !

15. Originally Posted by oriel36
You see Kilopi,the true motion of the local Milky Way stars and their rotation around the galactic axis has been with us since 1923 (Hubble) but the information has been left dormant.
Wasn't that passage from Einstein written around 1920?
For goodness sake don't try to infer things that I only outline in the barest sense,if everything was right in astronomy it would be taken as a given but presently it is not and with a complex issue like this perhaps it is best to remain with Albert and "the influence of the motion of fixed stars" on elliptical orbits.
We are not that much different, you and I.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2003
Posts
1,247
Originally Posted by kilopi
Originally Posted by oriel36
As we discussed at lenght that sidereal motion,circumpolar motion or the motion of the 'fixed stars' is actually a property of the axial rotation of the Earth.By all means use the stars as a reference for planetary motion but for the love of Isaac,for goodness sake and under no circumstance say it Abert and then he says it - "if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars".Welcome aboard the geocentric express !.
Are you advocating geocentricity? Or, are you making fun of geocentricity, and claiming that "fixed stars" are impossible?
I alluded to this in the other thread but you shot me down, kilopi.

oriel36, may I ask you: What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish with these threads? Are you attacking Einstien? Newton? Advocating Geocentricity?

17. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2002
Posts
2,167
Um ... doesn't this thread belong in the "Against the Mainstream" forum?

18. Originally Posted by tracer
Um ... doesn't this thread belong in the "Against the Mainstream" forum?
Yes. =D>

19. Originally Posted by russ_watters
I alluded to this in the other thread but you shot me down, kilopi.
You mean, you suggested that oriel36's goal was geocentricity? (Sorry, search doesn't find posts where I responded to you.) I am getting impression that it is not.
Originally Posted by tracer
Um ... doesn't this thread belong in the "Against the Mainstream" forum?
I'm not sure. oriel36 may not be advocating non-mainstream physics.

20. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi

Yes,the piece was written in 1920 or about 3 years before Hubble's discovery of galaxies other than our own.

http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/20th_people_hubble.html

If in 1920 you write something like the following sentence with the emphasis on stars and the "center of the Universe" without knowing of the galactic axis,I'm sure that you will be aware that there is an important implication or a big hole in intepreting observational data involved.

"We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of centre."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

It is true that many have the patience with early 20th century thinking and the concepts have snowballed since.The astronomical data of cosmological scale in terms of galaxies emerged should have given fresh impetus to astronomers to self-correct the wayward notions of the theorists but as astronomers went along with the author of spacetime in his ridiculous isolation of the motion of Mercury there is no facility availible today to factor in the how stellar rotation (local reference stars)around the galactic axis affects observation to the remaining galaxies and ultimately to each other.

I respect and enjoy this forum and its rules and I intentionally phrased the sentence in the previous posting that if you wish to remain with spacetime and the incredible statement of the influence of the motion of the stars,fixed or not it is nonsensical on observed elliptical planetary motion then be my guest but ultimately you are stuck with geocentricity at best and egocentricity at worst.

21. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Russ Waters

I can perhaps sum up the whole thing by asking a question which is designed to be productive.In principle,how would you know the local Milky Way stars are rotating around the galactic axis ?,if your answer is the changing orientation of a local reference star (due to rotation around the galactic axis) to the other galaxies you are in new astronomical territory for from simple beginnings the whole thing rapidly becomes complex when you introduce supernova data arriving from other galaxies and much of this has to do with finite light distance and how it affects observation.To get to this it is required that you drop the convenience of the sidereal parameter or the "motion of the fixed stars" which is useful only for heliocentric modelling but is ultimately a property of axial rotation of the Earth,an observer-based parameter in other words.

The parameter by which Roemer determined light distance in the first place is different than the method Bradley used,Roemer applies the Equation of Time and different reasoning while Bradley makes use of the sidereal parameter but both end up with the same conclusion.If you recognise Bradley's reasoning which is more akin to contemporary reasoning you may see why the adoption of the 'addition of velocities' idea is such an awful thing and I am bewildered why this has stood for so long.As an astronomer's business should be to sort and sift how finite light distance alters what we observe,you had better believe that when these distances are on an intergalactic scale they most certainly alter cosmological structure and motion.Only when the rotation of the local reference stars around the galactic axis is factored in will the full implications emerge but as so much effort is given towards the 'fixed stars' models of the early 20th century it may be impossible to draw attension to what astronomers are really missing.

If you wish to see real relativity in action try Bradley,if you wish to see real heliocentric modelling try Roemer and Kepler.

he saw with surprise that it shifted its direction every time that the boat was put about. Remarking to the boatmen that it was very odd that the wind should change just at the same moment that there was a shift in the boat's course, they replied that there was no change in the wind at all, and that the apparent change of the vane was simply due to the change of direction of the motion of the boat.

This supplied Bradley with a key to the solution of the mystery that had troubled him so long. It had been discovered long before this that light does not travel instantaneously from place to place, but takes an appreciable time to pass from one member of the solar system to another. This had been discovered by Romer from observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He had noted that the eclipses of the satellites always fell late of the computed time, when Jupiter was at his greatest distance from the earth; and Bradley's own work in the observation of those satellites had brought the fact most intimately under his own acquaintance. The result of the boating incident taught him, then, that he might look upon light as analogous to the wind blowing on the boat. As the wind, so long as it was steady, would seem to blow from one fixed quarter so long as the boat was also in rest, but as it seemed to shift its direction when the boat was moving and changed its direction, so he saw that the light coming from a particular star must seem to slightly change the direction in which it came, or, in other words, the apparent position of the star, to correspond with the movement of the earth in its orbit round the sun. "

22. Originally Posted by oriel36
The astronomical data of cosmological scale in terms of galaxies emerged should have given fresh impetus to astronomers to self-correct the wayward notions of the theorists but as astronomers went along with the author of spacetime in his ridiculous isolation of the motion of Mercury there is no facility availible today to factor in the how stellar rotation (local reference stars)around the galactic axis affects observation to the remaining galaxies and ultimately to each other.
I think that there are such measurements made--but those are exceedingly slow. Galactic rotation takes a much longer time than the orbit of Mercury. Even much longer than the precession of Mercury's orbit. Besides, it was the other way around. It wasn't Einstein (the author of spacetime?) that isolated the motion of Mercury--he was using data from astronomers, not making it up as he went along.

23. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2003
Posts
1,247
Originally Posted by kilopi
Originally Posted by russ_watters
I alluded to this in the other thread but you shot me down, kilopi.
You mean, you suggested that oriel36's goal was geocentricity? (Sorry, search doesn't find posts where I responded to you.) I am getting impression that it is not.
I didn't specifically say geocentricity. I said it seemed like he was looking for a "nicer" way to express it - implying that the current way is overly complex and/or just plain wrong. Not a big deal anyway.

Oriel, mine was a fairly simple question. I would have appreciated a simple answer, and thats one of my big pet peves. In any case, I've gleaned this from it:
...what astronomers are really missing.
So you DO think astronomers are wrong in their calculation of the equation of time?

24. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Russ

There are two sets of Equation of Time tables out there and the contemporary set is a botch job for it includes an axial component .The Equation of Time is the astronomical correction which smooths out the variation in the alignment of the Earth directly with the Sun,this alignment is called noon and the Equation of Time reduces the axial alignment variation to 24 hours per 360 degrees by the appropriate addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds.The sidereal parameter does not contain this feature.

Because the Equation of Time reflects Newton's distinction between absolute time and relative time,any tampering with the definition will create astronomical havoc.How you will know this is if you go outside tonight and look at the motion of Mars and note its path across the night sky against the local stars.If you decide that the motion of the local stars has an influence on the motion of Mars you belong with the author of spacetime,he realised his mistake towards the end of his life but in an explanation similar to the one Kilopi give, attempted to conceal that his reasoning in isolating the motion of Mercury by factoring in the "motion of the fixed stars" is the worst form of geocentricity imaginable.

So,go out tonight and fix the motion of Mars and its path to the 'fixed stars' and then remove the motion of the 'fixed stars' as the author of spacetime requests you to do and then come back and tell me what you find.

As a parent I have to consider what influence my children will come under in regards to science education,my proffession puts me in contact with most of the material under discussion here and I am well aware of the history and the technical details in the relationship between clocks, geometry and astronomy in historical,astronomical and practical matters.I can afford to lament the destruction of astronomy and the robbing of a rich heritage of its dignity but I assure you that ultimately that my children will not inherit the same catchphrases as current and previous generations have that elevated a misguided kid a century ago to a status reserved for the truly great astronomical minds such as Kepler,Copernicus and Roemer.

I am mindful of a younger group here and if you are not aware of the point by now there would be no purpose in repeating it in stronger language.

25. Originally Posted by oriel36
.I can afford to lament the destruction of astronomy and the robbing of a rich heritage of its dignity but I assure you that ultimately that my children will not inherit the same catchphrases as current and previous generations have that elevated a misguided kid a century ago to a status reserved for the truly great astronomical minds such as Kepler,Copernicus and Roemer.
No, Einstein (the misguided kid?) did not invent the precession of Mercury--that's been fairly common knowledge for a long time, long before Einstein. As you say, just go outside--measure the motions for a few years. If you don't come up with the same answers that the astronomers have, I'll be very surprised. Einstein had nothing to do with it. He just explained part of it.
I am mindful of a younger group here and if you are not aware of the point by now there would be no purpose in repeating it in stronger language.
There is never a purpose in using stronger language, to further a scientific argument, other than to attempt to bully someone.

26. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Kilopi

As astronomically this is a significant week with the closest approach of Mars to the Earth in 60 000 years with an oppurtunity to take a look at the path of Mars against the local stars,it should highlight the work of Kepler and Copernicus and the difficult task they had in sorting and sifting the true motion of the planets (including our own planet) from the apparent observed motions.The observed motion of Mars is mixed up in a complicated way with the Earth's orbital motion as both orbit the Sun and the same is true for the rest of the primary planets.

To use stronger language,the following astronomical description is borderline if not true madness,bad astronomy,inaccurate history and a perversion of the insights of the great astronomers and especially the means by which they interpreted the observed motion of planets and corrected them for the purpose of heliocentric modelling.

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars".

Even for a novice astronomer this should be shocking,a proficient astronomer would recognise it as a complete perversion of the intents and purposes of Newton where he himself says -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent..... Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

A first rank astronomer would recognise that by 1952 the author of spacetime was trapped by his own celebrity,reduced to answering outrageous speculative ideas from people who knew no better like Dr Velikovsky.The author of spacetime knows that the local stars have a rotation around the galactic axis whereas in 1920 this information is absent (the insight came in 1923 via Hubble) but he is still bounded to his geocentricity he introduced in attempting to isolate the motion of Mercury.

If it is not possible for you to recognise spacetime's geocentricity from the 1920 passage then it will matter little what I say,all you have to do is look at the motion of Mars tonight and discover why his procedure to isolate elliptical motion is truly awful turn it which way you will.The following letter is most telling for you have imitated the same response without refering to the motion of the local stars around the galactic axis and unfortunately you would rather retain the geocentricity of spacetime rather than move into new astronomical territory,no offense intended.

A. Einstein
112 Mercer Street
Princeton
New Jersey, U.S.A.

27th August, 1952

Dear Dr. Velikovsky:

The reason for the energetic rejection of the opinions presented by you lies not in the assumption that in the motion of the heavenly bodies only gravitation and inertia are the determining factors. The reason for the rejection lies rather in the fact that on the basis of this assumption it was possible to calculate the temporal changes of star locations in the planetary system with an unimaginably great precision.

Against such precise knowledge, speculations of the kind as were advanced by you do not come into consideration by an expert. Therefore your book must appear to an expert as an attempt to mislead the public. I must admit that I myself had at first this impression, too. Only afterwards it became clear to me that intentional misleading was entirely foreign to you.

With friendly greetings,

Yours,

Albert Einstein

27. After reading and, in some cases, responding to oriel36's posts, a few observations are in order. I was originally not going to post this, with the "Perihelion Advance" and "Error in Calculating Equation of Time" threads dropping out of sight, but since oriel36 has resumed posting I will post these observations.

Oriel36 seems to be of a class of poster that may be termed "savants". They are convinced that somehow they alone have been given a "vision" of the way things really are, and that all of the collected wisdom of the last three or so centuries is invalid. An archetypal example of this sort of poster is Gary Redmond of the infamous "Idle Moon Math" thread. Mr. Redmond was convinced that the retrograde precession of the Moon's nodes was evidence that the Moon was "falling behind" the Earth, spiraling out at such a rate that it must have collided tangentially with the Earth 65 million years ago, conveniently causing the extinction of the dinosaurs by presumably rolling over them. Many of us tried in vain to show him his errors, because despite the name of this BBS, we really do want to see Good Astronomy prevail.

In oriel36's case, his main thesis seems to be that all of our measurements of supernovae in distant galaxies, etc., are incorrect because we are ignoring the revolution (not rotation!) of our Sun and neighboring stars about the galactic center. In a later post I will show how inconsequential these things are. (Of course they are not inconsequential if your field of study is the motion of the nearby stars! More power to you!) At any rate, Solar System astronomy has been carried out quite well without any need to do anything more than take the proper motions of the nearby stars into account for many centuries, thank you.

Unlike Gary Redmond, who did not start the "Idle Moon Math" thread or (I believe) contribute to any other, oriel36 has started two threads. In both threads he shows that his main style of argument is the repeated quotation of old works, such as the Principia and journal articles from 1764 and 1861. In both threads he repeats his "arguments" (such as they are) verbatim, as if by earnest repitition they will ultimately be accepted.

He (and I am reasonably sure that it is he, based on the e-mail address in the profile, although it is possible that oriel36 could be someone else just using that e-mail address) does not seem to be aware of the proper terminology, so he writes of the "rotation" instead of "revolution" of the stars about the galactic "axis" instead of "center". He also writes of something he calls the "sidereal parameter" by which I believe he means either the length of the sidereal day or the difference between the civil day and the sidereal day. "Sidereal parameter" is not a term in general use. I believe that his time might be better spent reading a contemporary elementary astronomy text than trying to sort out the complexities of the Principia. Oh, and also lurking on this BBS and observing some of the other arguments of those dedicated to dispelling Bad Astronomy!

The thing that most disturbs me about oriel36's writings is that he almost always refers to Albert Einstein as "the author of spacetime" rather than by name. I am reminded of the idiots in the Middle East who say "Zionist Entity" instead of Israel. Frankly, oriel36, you will not find your ideas taken seriously as long as you take that attitude to Einstein and his work. It is one thing to disagree with Einstein, it is quite another to try and treat him like an "unperson".

Newtonian Gravity predicts that neither the line of nodes (orbital plane if your prefer) nor the line of apsides (pericenter if you prefer) rotate in the two-body problem. Of course, in our Solar System, we do have more than two bodies all exerting perturbing forces upon one another, however, the mass of the Sun is so much larger than any of the others that the two-body solution is a good first (but only a first!) approximation to the true motion. Under the influence of the other bodies in the Solar System, nodes generally precess in the retrograde direction, and apsides precess in a prograde direction. (The real situation is a little more complicated, but irrelevant to this discussion.)

General Relativity predicts that in the two-body problem the orbital plane does not precess, but the line of apsides does. That is a prediction that ultimately has to be verified by observation.

Precess with respect to what? With respect to a non-rotating coordinate system, such as that determined by "fixed stars" once their proper motions are subtracted or, better yet, distant galaxies and quasars. Remember that in 1915 the galaxies were not yet realized to be truly distant, so the "fixed stars" were the best approximation we had to a reasonably inertial coordinate system.

The most accurate theories of planetary motion in the late 19th century were developed and published by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier. They showed a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century in the perihelion motion of Mercury. There was no apparent discrepancy for the other planets because the statistical errors for the perihelion advance of the other planets were all at least as big if not bigger than the relativistic effect. Only the extra perihelion advance of Mercury stood out above the "noise".

This produced a lot of speculative work in the late 19th century and early part of the 20th. Some (including Le Verrier himself) felt that there was another planet, which was named "Vulcan", orbiting inside of Mercury's orbit (hence no discernable effects on Venus and Earth). Others suggested various alterations of Newtonian gravity, such as the exponent in the force differing slightly from two, or additional terms in the potential. All of these theories had to contend with being just able to account for Mercury's anomalous perihelion motion without doing violence to the motions of the other planets.

In the 1890's Simon Newcomb, in his capacity as director of the US Naval Observatory, prepared new theories of the planetary motions of the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars), while George W. Hill did the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The results were ultimately published in tables as volumes VI and VII of the Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac. Newcomb acknowledged that the cause of Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance was not known, so he chose to adjust the perihelion motions of the inner planets by multiplying them by the factor (1 + (anomalous motion of Mercury) / (mean motion of Mercury)).

Now some of you might take this as justification for heaping all kinds of calumny upon Newcomb just as some posters do with Einstein. But consider: the perihelion advance had been measured, it could not be ignored just because the prevailing theories of the time could not predict it. Newcomb's "fudge factor" was one of several possible ways of resolving the enigma and getting on with the next generation of planetary theories. His guesswork wasn't all that bad, either. These tables were used in the printed ephemerides of the inner planets until 1984.

The point of this post is that Einstein and his General Relativity explained an effect that had been measured years before and which Newtonian Gravity could not explain. Anyone who wishes to supercede Einstein is going to have to explain everything that Newton and Einstein predicted and then predict something that neither of them can. Any of you feeling lucky?

29. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
202
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
After reading and, in some cases, responding to oriel36's posts, a few observations are in order. I was originally not going to post this, with the "Perihelion Advance" and "Error in Calculating Equation of Time" threads dropping out of sight, but since oriel36 has resumed posting I will post these observations.
"Oriel36 seems to be of a class of poster that may be termed "savants". They are convinced that somehow they alone have been given a "vision" of the way things really are, and that all of the collected wisdom of the last three or so centuries is invalid."

No,I am a parent who recognises that at some stage his children will come under the influence of teachers who adhere to concepts which destroy basic intuition.Whether you say the local Milky Way stars revolve or rotate around the galactic axis it means the same thing,everyone knows what time is but they may be less familiar with the evolution of clocks and their relationship between geometry and astronomy.

"An archetypal example of this sort of poster is Gary Redmond of the infamous "Idle Moon Math" thread. Mr. Redmond was convinced that the retrograde precession of the Moon's nodes was evidence that the Moon was "falling behind" the Earth, spiraling out at such a rate that it must have collided tangentially with the Earth 65 million years ago, conveniently causing the extinction of the dinosaurs by presumably rolling over them. Many of us tried in vain to show him his errors, because despite the name of this BBS, we really do want to see Good Astronomy prevail."

Why would you consider ideas such as multiple universes,branes,multiple dimensions and all the other exotic nonsense any less speculative. Reviewing the material presented in this thread you will find that the procedure to isolate the motion of Mercury in the 1920 text is astronomically incompetent leading to the worse case of geocentricity I have ever witnessed.Any person here can go outside tonight and apply the author of spacetime's procedure to the path of Mars and if they are not shocked they certainly should be.

"In oriel36's case, his main thesis seems to be that all of our measurements of supernovae in distant galaxies, etc., are incorrect because we are ignoring the revolution (not rotation!) of our Sun and neighboring stars about the galactic center. "

No, this is incorrect .The local Milky Way stars rotate,revolve,spin around, (take-your-pick) the galactic axis,so how would you know that our Sun with the rest of the local stars are rotating,revolving ect.The simple answer is that over time any star will change its position to a faraway galaxy,a loose analogy is a carousel.As I only briefly outlined how supernovae data makes it more complicated it was only a matter of waiting for correspondence on this new topic but it did'nt happen and this is fine.

"In a later post I will show how inconsequential these things are. (Of course they are not inconsequential if your field of study is the motion of the nearby stars! More power to you!) At any rate, Solar System astronomy has been carried out quite well without any need to do anything more than take the proper motions of the nearby stars into account for many centuries, thank you."

If you are talking about centuries you are talking circumpolar motion which is not healthy,it was great for heliocentric modelling but even then the local stars were only used as reference objects for the motion of the primary planets of the solar system.

"Unlike Gary Redmond, who did not start the "Idle Moon Math" thread or (I believe) contribute to any other, oriel36 has started two threads. In both threads he shows that his main style of argument is the repeated quotation of old works, such as the Principia and journal articles from 1764 and 1861. In both threads he repeats his "arguments" (such as they are) verbatim, as if by earnest repitition they will ultimately be accepted."

Acceptance ?,no,the intents and purpose was to draw attension to how Newton phrased the Equation of Time in terms of the distinction between absolute time and relative time,no small astronomical matter.Again,if there is no discussion on this there is little I can do but I will remark that tampering with the definition had an astronomical domino effect,besides nobody has actually come out and said what the astronomical correction is that Newton was refering to in the passage.I guess you just take the guy's word that there is no absolute time without looking at the original manuscript.

He (and I am reasonably sure that it is he, based on the e-mail address in the profile, although it is possible that oriel36 could be someone else just using that e-mail address)

???????.

does not seem to be aware of the proper terminology, so he writes of the "rotation" instead of "revolution" of the stars about the galactic "axis" instead of "center".

If you wish to say that there is a difference between the rings of Saturn revolving round a center and the rings of Saturn rotating around an axis then be my guest but it is a bad way to play with words so whether you say the local stars are rotating around the galactic center or revolving around the galactic axis it is a bad way to misdirect attension away from the fact that over time galaxies will change their position against the local star rotation.It gets difficult enough without adding unecessary semantic arguments and if you don't want to recognise it,good for you.

"He also writes of something he calls the "sidereal parameter" by which I believe he means either the length of the sidereal day or the difference between the civil day and the sidereal day. "Sidereal parameter" is not a term in general use. I believe that his time might be better spent reading a contemporary elementary astronomy text than trying to sort out the complexities of the Principia. Oh, and also lurking on this BBS and observing some of the other arguments of those dedicated to dispelling Bad Astronomy!"

Here,have a good look at the Principia and the Scholium IV which causes so much trouble.

"Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

You can make a song and dance about the space between planets and their motion but Newton is only refering to the observed geocentric motion of a planet and its true motion for the purpose of heliocentric modelling.The whole Scholium is designed around astronomy and analogies to planetary motion,yes it is difficult ,but given the context and the era in which he wrote it is understandable even where he is wrong due to limited observational data.

The thing that most disturbs me about oriel36's writings is that he almost always refers to Albert Einstein as "the author of spacetime" rather than by name. I am reminded of the idiots in the Middle East who say "Zionist Entity" instead of Israel. Frankly, oriel36, you will not find your ideas taken seriously as long as you take that attitude to Einstein and his work. It is one thing to disagree with Einstein, it is quite another to try and treat him like an "unperson".[/quote]

I guess the answer is in the framework of your response.I assure you that I have little regard for those who adhere to concepts which rely on linguistic or cheap imaging tricks to attain their objective of attaining some form of elitism,all the spacetime guy did was replace Newton's elitism with a worse form,at least Newton directed it to what he knew of astronomy and astronomers while the other guy pumps up the mathematicians against everyone else.

"THE NON-MATHEMATICIAN is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of “four-dimensional” things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

I would say shudder with laughter but then again with nothing but exotic mathematical models of the cosmos on the menu why bother asking people to pay attension.As the recent statements by cosmologists and physicists themselves that they do not know what "reality" is,I guess people have decided that this is exactly correct and they have no reason to listen,pity that they take astronomy down with it.

30. Celestial Mechanic wrote: Oriel36 seems to be of a class of poster that may be termed "savants". They are convinced that somehow they alone have been given a "vision" of the way things really are, and that all of the collected wisdom of the last three or so centuries is invalid.
Hmm ... I wouldn't have known what you are talking about if it wasn't for his comments on the center of the universe thread. He did mention some things about supernova and galaxy rotation and I wasn't clear what his point was. Perhaps I'll get a clear response so that we can continue that discussion.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•