I need some information

[CraigD]

However, I know Maudlin, and if he says that the derivation of the precession of Mercury is correct, then it is. (Maudlin is not an anti-relativist, either.)

I’m very curious to Tim Maudlin’s (I think this must be who you’re talking about) derivation. However, attempts to find it on the internet has led me a bewildering hunt though realms of alien (but intriguing!) terminology, finding only citations and references, and to an appreciation of how often the term “maudlin gravity” is used by art, literature, and music critics :D.

 

Are you aware, owl, where on the word wide web a monograph or similar presentation of the derivation of the precession of the orbit of Mercury of which you speak?

 

A search of the catalogs of my nearest public and university libraries (UM College Park) for author Beckman, Peter R. finds only 4 titles involving nuclear weapons and women in politics, not “Einstein Plus Two”. This self-published book appears to be hard-to-find – even’t usually reliable used book sellers (amazon, with “1 used & new available from $150.00”, appears typical, though Vales Lake Publishing Index WELCOME! has it for $40, much less than any other seller I found) aren’t very useful.

 

It’s strange that such seemingly important mathematical physics is so difficult to access.

[Erasmus00]

All of the physics contained in Gerber's paper is a gravitational potential of the form

 

[math] V(r,\dot{r})= \frac{-m}{r}\frac{1}{(1-\frac{\dot{r}}{c})^2} [/math]

 

From this potential you can expand in powers of velocity and use perturbation theory to show the perihelion advance. Many people make the claim that Gerber showed that all we have to assume is Newtonian gravity+finite propagation speed. However, this isn't really the case. The second factor in Gerber's potential (which depends on [math]\dot{r}[/math]) is squared. The most straightforward way to put in a finite speed would result in this term having only one power (like the Lienard-Wiechert EM potential). With just one power, we would get about 14 arcsecond which isn't right.

 

The idea of modifying the potential to include a finite propagation speed wasn't new with Gerber, according to Hartle's GR book a lot of physicists published modified potentials throughout the 1890s.

 

I don't know if its available online, but I do know the reference for the 1917 paper: "Annalen der Physik 52 (4): 415-444."

-Will

[owl]

Thanks, Erasmus.

As to Petr Beckman, I haven't read his book myself. If you want to get a hold of it, you might have to go to your local university library's "Interlibrary Loan" department, assuming they have one. (Btw, "Petr" is the correct spelling.)

 

Here's a page of information about his book that I found:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/beckmann_einstein-dissident-physics-material.pdf