Timeline for Details of Newtonian Prediction for Mercury's Precession
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2017 at 5:01 | comment | added | NickD | ... a factor of $\dot{\phi}$ missing... There's some kind of irony here :-) | |
| Apr 11, 2017 at 3:18 | comment | added | NickD | BTW, I think there is a factor of $\dot{\phi}$ after the first equals sign in the last equation for $\Delta\phi$ in the "General Result" section. But everything is fine after the second equals sign. | |
| Feb 27, 2017 at 20:47 | comment | added | NickD | Very nice indeed! | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 15:38 | history | edited | Diracology | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 67 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2016 at 15:36 | comment | added | Diracology | @WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance IMHO the beauty of the general result is that it does not specify the nature of the perturbation $F_p$. If one uses $F_p=\beta/r^ 3$ one gets the 43 arcsec per century of GTR. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 15:17 | comment | added | Selene Routley | +1, I really learnt something from the second section - how elegant. Like the OP I probably wouldn't know where to begin, and imagined it would be a detailed tallying up of forces from planets separately over long time periods. That fast-compared-with-precession insight to replace the planets with rings is wonderful. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 14:58 | history | edited | Diracology | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
equation fixed
|
| S Jun 24, 2016 at 18:29 | history | answered | Diracology | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Jun 24, 2016 at 18:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Diracology |