85
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order (view source)
Revision as of 02:17, November 15, 2009
, 02:17, November 15, 2009Mercury anomaly data
:::::Presumably the error range for the observed value is no more than .1. Again, note that Professor Will conspicuously omits this famous claim of evidence for GR from his recent comprehensive summary of the evidence for GR, as cited in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:::::Presumably the error range for the observed value is no more than .1. Again, note that Professor Will conspicuously omits this famous claim of evidence for GR from his recent comprehensive summary of the evidence for GR, as cited in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)
(unindent again because I'm lazy with bullets) We can do a heck of a lot better than "presumably," Andy, and as a person who cares deeply about facts and logic, you darned well know that. I happen to have the Pijpers paper from 94 here; I dug it out when I thought you might have been thinking of helioseismography. In it he cites radar ranging studies from 1976 to 1992. Here's the data, ''with margins of error.'' Note that these numbers are for ''the anomaly,'' and not the precession total, and remember that the figure from the Einstein equation is 42.98 ± 0.04, okay?
*43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro 76)
*42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson 87)
*42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson 91)
*43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson 92)
So the Einstein prediction is within the margin of error of those four radar-ranging measurements of the Mercury anomaly. I'm sure there've been more recent studies, but I don't have them literally sitting in front of my face at the moment, so those are the ones I'm citing. Can I see your numbers that say the Einstein prediction is outside the margin? More recent data than what I have in my hand here maybe? (This Pijpers paper is [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9804258v1 on ARXIV], by the way, if you want to check it out.)--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:17, 14 November 2009 (EST)