You're welcome Horace. Your calculation of the torque effect seemed sound to me, I can't remember how I had done it at the time.
Regards, Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly > > On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Hi Horace, >> >> I don't deny that gravimagnetism exists (it's an obvious >> consequence of gravity propagating at a finite speed, if the term >> means what I think it means i.e. the gravitational Lorentz force) >> but when you say "the ambient gravimagnetic field in the vicinity >> of Earth required to account for the precession of the Earth", are >> you suggesting the observed precession rate is not, or not >> entirely, accounted for by the official explanation that this >> precession is due to the gravitational torque exerted by the Sun on >> the Earth's equatorial bulge? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes#Explanation >> >> The official theory works nicely though, I remember I had to derive >> the precession rate as a physics exercise when I was a student many >> years ago, assuming the Earth was an homogeneous ellipsoid of the >> right dimensions, and it came out strikingly close to observations. >> >> Regards, >> Michel > > Michel, > > I very much appreciate your comments. I decided to pull all the > ambient field stuff from the article at: > > http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf > > If I can find any other basis for calculating an ambient field value > I'll take a crack at it. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner >
