Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:43:53 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <64D55A19.2A55@ix.netcom.com> References: <499940b9-4a63-4179-a419-483ebe0c796fn@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1694101"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; Cancel-Lock: sha256:MRhFC3reqODiZxgqnArOc03OkHXSWd9Z+mmn6nF8C00= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 230810-4, 08/10/2023), Outbound message X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:617308 JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:07:34 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > For more than 170 years, the influence of planets on the advance of Mercury's > > > perihelion has been computed using, most of the time, Gauss torus gravity > > > formulae. Only since the '60s, with the advent of computers powerful enough, > > > new algorithms and direct numerical calculations have been used. > > > > > > Yet, the most known tables: Le Verrier (1854), Newcomb (1895), Clemence > > > (1947) and Park (2017) share a common hypocrisy: > > > > > > All of them use infinite speed of gravity to compute the influence of planets > > > on Mercury's perihelion advance, except for the 300,000 Km/s speed for the > > > influence of the Sun over Mercury (spacetime), since Einstein's 1915. > > > > > > And all the tables, since 1895, assign 532"/cy to Newtonian influence, using > > > INFINITE speed of gravity, and 43"/cy to GR spacetime twisted and bent at > > > c speed. > > > > > > All the popularized tables, averaging 575"/cy, have similar values since 1895: > > > > > > 1) Merc-Venus pull, arcsec/orbit): 3.15E-02 ; Distance (light-sec): 167.7 > > > 2) Merc-Earth pull, arcsec/orbit): 1.03E-02 ; Distance (light-sec): 305.6 > > > 3) Merc-Mars pull, arcsec/orbit): 2.82E-04 ; Distance (light-sec): 566.8 > > > 4) Merc-Jupiter pull, arcsec/orbit): 1.75E-02 ; Distance (light-sec): 2,401.3 > > > 5) Merc-Saturn pull, arcsec/orbit): 8.32E-04 ; Distance (light-sec): 4,571.6 > > > 6) Merc-Uranus pull, arcsec/orbit): 1.62E-05 ; Distance (light-sec): 9,390.4 > > > 7) Merc-Neptune pull, arcsec/orbit): 4.82E-06 ; Distance (light-sec): 14,821.8 > > > 8) GR influence, arcsec/orbit): 4.89E-03, ; Distance (light-sec): 0 > > > > > > > > > Now, have relativists no shame? > > > > > > They mix Newton's influence of about 532"/cy, with gravity acting at > > > INFINITE speed plus an additional 8% (43"/cy) acting at c speed, with > > > no remorse. Pure hypocrisy. > > > > > > The real problems are: > > > > > > 1) GR is an HOAX, and the 43"/cy (even disputed by old and modern > > > scholars), remain written in stone since the 1915 paper. > > > > > > 2) No matter which adjustment is made on the total gravitational pull, > > > it's fixed that work in this way: > > > > > > Newton's influence/cy + UNKNOWNS + 43"/cy = 575.3"/cy > > > > > > The last publicized table (2017, Park et all) made UNKNOWNS = 0, > > > assigning errors to computes in solar oblateness. > > > > > > And the INFINITE speed of gravity is not questioned at all in the result > > > of 5.3231 arcsec/year. > > > > > > Any comment, indoctrinated relativists? > > As I thought, not a single idea come out to refute anything on the OP. > > That's because your post is nonsense, as usual, and people who know > this stuff simply get bored of posting the obvious sometimes. We also > have other, frequently much more interesting, things to do. > > > Relativity is an HOAX, > > Again, nonsense. Meaning that it's not even wrong, it's just complete > meaningless conceptual chaos. Relativity CAN be critiques, just like > any other theory (not only in physics) but it takes knowledge and > brains to do it. It cannot be done by pretending a monomania refers > to a real thing. > > One more time: see a doctor. There is something odd going on with > your emotional responses to certain facets of everyday life. > > -- > Jan i don't don't if you are 'self-aware' Jan, but you beginning to sound like you're always talking about yourself... maybe...YOU...are the one who is searching for a new hobby, or whish you had one many moons ago. in other words, your whole life is a mistake. doctors cannot help you...it's too late, isn't it? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.