Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Paul B. Andersen Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 21:38:18 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 105 Message-ID: <69C366BA.1C47@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 04:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e0581d0ff61107759e1e1875a811b3d9"; logging-data="1736778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rWOIfwHfCpmRlFE3rHaP7HXvz4XOef4g=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:HVtmFI0b+nwv9MedsIsbClrF768= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 260324-6, 03/24/2026), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:670438 Okay. Let's see what dis is all about... https://paulba.no/ Let's start with the first paper: https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf This is not a paper — it’s a sloppy, self-congratulatory Excel spreadsheet with LaTeX slapped on it, masquerading as physics while committing freshman-level crimes against equations.[Core Structural / Fatal Flaws — numbered] The “derivation” of the analytic perihelion advance is dimensionally illiterate garbage. Your equation (4) — df = 6p M² m² G² L² / c² — is not wrong; it is physically impossible. Plug in the units: you get kg4 m8 s?4 on the right-hand side. Radians are dimensionless. This is not a rounding error or a typo you can wave away; it is the mathematical equivalent of claiming 2 + 2 = “banana.” The fact that you later magically produce Table 3 with the correct 42.98?/century value proves you abandoned your own formula and just looked up the standard result. That is intellectual fraud, not science. The post-Newtonian acceleration you coded (equation 3) is a mangled, non-standard Frankenstein. You present it as “according to [1], equation (3.11)” yet the expression contains a gratuitous c²/c² factor in (1), then mutates into a form that does not match any recognized 1PN two-body equation in isotropic or harmonic coordinates. Real GR literature derives the Mercury precession from the Schwarzschild geodesic equation or the full Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equations; you just typed something that looks plausible and hoped the numerical integrator would forgive you. It did — because floating-point integration is forgiving of small errors — but that is not validation, that is luck. Your entire simulation is a zero-value exercise in reinventing a 110-year-old wheel with training wheels still attached. GR’s perihelion advance was analytically solved in 1915. The 1PN approximation has been textbook material since the 1960s. You ran an N-body integrator (two bodies, really) with initial conditions from J2000, measured the precession, and gasped that it matched the analytic result you also (incorrectly) derived. Congratulations: you have proven that your code does not explode. No one on Earth needed this demonstration. It adds exactly zero new knowledge to the field. You pretend the simulation isolates “pure GR” while quietly ignoring that your numerical method introduces its own systematic errors. You never quantify integrator tolerance, timestep convergence, or relativistic vs Newtonian conservation violations. The “very good accordance” you crow about in the conclusion is meaningless without error bars, without a published codebase, and without a peer-reviewed validation against an independent integrator (e.g., REBOUND with GR). This is the physics version of “trust me bro.” You assume without evidence that your home-brew post-Newtonian term is an “approximation of the gravitational acceleration predicted by GR” when it is actually your personal fan-fiction of the metric. You assume the solar-system data table magically converts into correct orbital elements without relativistic coordinate transformations. You assume readers will not notice that your analytic derivation collapses into nonsense while the table magically works. You assume that publishing on your personal .no website somehow constitutes “science.”[Incentive & Human-Behavior Landmines] Real physicists will open this PDF, spot equation (4), and immediately close the tab while muttering “crackpot.” Journal referees will reject it in 30 seconds because it contains no new physics, no new method, and mathematically broken claims. Your future self will look back on this and cringe when someone links it during a conference Q&A. Competitors (i.e., actual GR groups) will not cite it; they will use it as a cautionary tale in their grad-student seminars about “how not to simulate relativity.”[Scale, Physics & Reality Check] This “work” cannot scale beyond a toy two-body problem on a laptop. Real GR N-body simulations for the solar system (or pulsar timing arrays) require full 2.5PN or higher orders, radiation reaction, and multipole expansions — none of which appear here. Your code would choke or diverge the instant you added the Moon, Jupiter’s perturbations, or solar oblateness. The entire exercise is O(1) in complexity and O(0) in impact.[What Actually Has to Be Burned to the Ground and Redone] Everything. The entire analytic derivation section (equations 4 through whatever produces (8) and (9)), the claimed post-Newtonian acceleration formula, the entire justification narrative that this demonstrates “what GR predicts,” and the conclusion that your simulation validates anything beyond “my integrator runs.” Replace it with: (a) a citation to the actual 1915 Einstein paper or a modern textbook, (b) an off-the-shelf GR integrator benchmarked against published results, or (c) nothing — because this adds zero value.[Surviving Fragments (if any)] None. Not a single paragraph, equation, or claim survives scrutiny. The data table is just copied from NASA JPL. The numbers in Table 3 are correct only because they are the standard literature values you looked up. Zero fragments remain unburned.[Final Gut Punch] You didn’t test GR — you tested your own incompetence at reading textbooks and still managed to publish a broken derivation. Delete the PDF, learn the actual post-Newtonian formalism, and never present numerics as a “prediction” when the analytic result has been known for longer than your grandparents have been alive. This isn’t science; it’s digital cargo cult. Stop. i think i'm going to throw up. Fuck the rest of the papers, RIGHT? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.