Both sites refer to the semi major axis a, and come up with very different values. So as far as I am concerned the Einstein theory is completely obsolete. As soon as it is tested outside the solar system it collapses. This had to happen because its geometry is so wrong. It will be very difficult for the standard physicists to wriggle out of this one. They could argue that the semi major axis is measured with respect to the distance between the humps of a Bactrian camel on the steppes of central Asia, and that they chose the wrong camel. In any case no Baconian science is going to believe them ever again.
Sent: 15/04/2017 14:22:06 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Large Discrepancies in the Astronomy Literature
I guess that the discrepance could come from different definitions of coordinates one site may use relative coordinates
bold r = (bold r2 – bold r1)
and the other site may use coordinates r1 and r2 of the 2-body system directly. This could also explain that I obtained a consistent orbit but twice the orbital period.
Am 15.04.2017 um 09:20 schrieb EMyrone:
Many thanks for these data. I will calculate the periastron advance using them and the eccentricity from the Stanford site, because Wikipedia apparently does not give it. It is cited with great precision on the Stanford site. I can see that these data will not make much difference because the periastron advance from the Einstein theory will still be far too large. This is what was needed to dispel the Einstein mythology, sets of data that completely refute the theory.
Sent: 14/04/2017 22:54:00 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 375(5) : Refutation of the Einstein Theory with the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar
The values cited in the Wikipedia article are quite different to them of Stanford:
- Mass of companion: 1.387 M☉
- Total mass of the system: 2.828378(7) M☉ => mass of pulsar = 1.44 M☉
- Semi-major axis: 1,950,100 km
- Periastron separation: 746,600 km
- Apastron separation: 3,153,600 km
The semi major axis
in the Stanford article for example is much larger than the value you obtained from the light seconds value (702 234 km). I used the values of the Wikipedia article for the orbit calculation. When using the initial value pairs
(r0=periastron, v0=450 750 m/s)
(r0=apastron, v0=106 718 m/s)
one arrives at the other value each after half an orbit. This is correct, however the orbit period is about 55 000 sec which is wildly wrong, compared to experimental 7.75 h = 7.75*3600 s = 27910 s. Or is there a factor of 1/2 missing anywhere?
Am 14.04.2017 um 13:32 schrieb EMyrone:
Using data from the site:
at Stanford it is shown straightforwardly that the Enstein theory is wildly wrong, it gives a precession of 17,891 degrees per earth year, compared with an observed precession of 4.2 degrees per year. The Einstein precession is calculated using the mass of the companion star and the half right latitude of the pulsar’s orbit. This can be calculated from the semi major axis and eccentricity given on the Stanford site. The initial conditions for the solution of the new lagrangian approach (Eq. (29)) are:
r(0) = periastron = 2.6885 ten power eight metres
and the orbital velocity at the periastron:
v(0) = 1.061 ten power five metres per second
calculated from the Stanford data using Eq. (4). There is a huge discrepancy between the Stanford and Cornell data on orbital velocity at the periastron, a factor of three. So I advise using data from the Stanford site. So there can be no confidence whatsoever in claims that the Einstein theory is always precise, and it should be replaced by ECE2 theory.