Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617247 > unrolled thread

Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Mercury mystery:  Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 21:07 -0700
    Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:57 -0700
      Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 12:18 -0700
        Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-10 14:43 -0700
          Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:04 -0700
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-10 16:00 -0700
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 13:35 -0700
        Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 14:50 -0700
          Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:05 -0700
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:15 -0700
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 21:54 -0700
          Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:23 -0700
          Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:28 -0700
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:37 -0700
              Ceank Richard Hertz admits he's retarded "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:44 -0700
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-10 17:46 -0500
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:16 -0700
              Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:35 -0700
                Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:53 -0700
                  Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:21 -0700
                    Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 11:44 -0700
                Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 11:34 -0700
                  Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 12:22 -0700
              Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-10 19:38 -0500
            Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:19 -0700
    Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 15:15 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#617247 — Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617274 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

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.

Relativity is an HOAX, and hypocrisy is the main weapon (along with silence over contradictions) to sustain such fucking narrative.

Ignorant imbeciles, each one of the relativists here, there or everywhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617298 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617308 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617311 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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... 

Repeating what I say is a cheap shot. Anybody can do it.

> maybe...YOU...are the one who is searching for a new hobby, or whish you 
> had one many moons ago. 

No. It's very simple: I know this stuff. That's all there is to it.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617325 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 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...
> 
> Repeating what I say is a cheap shot. Anybody can do it.
> 
> > maybe...YOU...are the one who is searching for a new hobby, or whish you
> > had one many moons ago.
> 
> No. It's very simple: I know this stuff. That's all there is to it.
> 
> --
> Jan

Well then, you have reached the end of the stuff you know.  No more
questions?


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617407 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:04:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 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...
> Repeating what I say is a cheap shot. Anybody can do it.
> > maybe...YOU...are the one who is searching for a new hobby, or whish you 
> > had one many moons ago.
> No. It's very simple: I know this stuff. That's all there is to it. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
YOU KNOW THIS STUFF????  You were the first chump to turn tail and run from the BBP.  

Part of knowing stuff is also knowing what you don't know.  Do you know the resolution of the BBP?  Yes?  Then tell us!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617310 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:18:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 

<snip>

> > 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. 

You write from your ignorance and indoctrination.

A formula created by Gauss, and refined over the last 180 years has been the MAIN mechanism to compute planet's influence,
until the use of numerical calculations using computers, which requires millions of calculations with time lapses of minutes. Yet,
the available literature keep using THIS analytical expression, for EACH planet:

Δθ(per orbit) = π (m/M) [3/2  (r₀/R)³ + 45/16 (r₀/R)⁵ +525/128 (r₀/R)⁷  + 11025/2048 (r₀/R)⁹ + ... ]

Newtonian influence of a planet of mass M, at a mean distance R from the Sun, over Mercury's precession per orbit, with:
M: Mass of the Sun, and r₀ = Average distance Mercury-Sun

To obtain the average contribution to Mercury's perihelion advance per century, and in arcseconds, Δθ has to be multiplied by

414.9 x 360 x 3600/2π

As an example, applied over Venus influence over Mercury, parameters are:

m = 5.9742E+24 Kg (Venus)
M = 1.98891691E+30 Kg (Sun)
r₀ = 57909083 Km  (avg. distance of Mercury to the Sun)
R = 108208600 Km (avg. distance of Venus to the Sun)

For the contribution of Venus over Mercury's precession, the formula gives 279.3"/century.

Different results:

Le Verrier (1859):  280.6"/century
Park (2017):  277.4"/century

The total analytical value of the precession of Mercury's perihelion has been maintained almost around the same value, as well
as the OBSERVED ADVANCE of about 575"/century

Le Verrier (1859):  526.7"/century
Newcomb (1898): 531.46"/century
Doolittle (1912): 529.7"/century
Clemence (1949): 531.52"/century
Rana (1987): 528.93"/century
Roy (2014): 528.9"/century
Park (2017): 532.2"/century

IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE.

The main problem behind these values is that the "torus model" has been used in ALL CASES, with different refinements.

Numerical solutions, using high resolution orbital steps and increasingly powerful computers, CAN'T present an analytical solution,
which seems to be the only desire of the scientists in the above list. Also, additional influences like galactic gravity pull and others
have been ignored by all the known defenders of GR and Einstein.

IF these calculations are correctly published and made known, GR would COLLAPSE instantaneously.

But that collapse has been prevented to happen, by banning the wide diffusion of computer based solutions to this problem.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338368894_Diffusion_Gravity_5_Perihelion_Precessions_as_Indicators_of_Galactic_Gravity/link/5e0f46c54585159aa4af349a/download

EXCERPT:

Mass-ring models are elaborated and detailed in the references given. Consensus of the recent mainstream literature on Mercury’s 
perihelion precession stubbornly remains on the 532 arcseconds per century model estimates, as in the work cited by Park et al.[8], 
which essentially re-states the Clemence table from 1947, adding decimal places to the same values, but with almost no revision or 
change of the modeled estimates for planetary effects. 

However, the trend in modeling the Newtonian precession has been to revise planetary influence upward. According to Brown, “when the
mass-ring model is calculated exactly, with no simplifying approximations, the result is precession of 549.61 arcseconds per century”. 

The observed and measured precession is 575.31, so this recent modeling does validate that Mercury has greater Newtonian solar system
(“local”) precession by about 24 arcseconds per century over the original 526 arcseconds of LeVerrier. This would follow logically as the 
refinement and accuracy of the modeling. 

There appears to be a contradiction between the evolving estimates for planetary influences, and particularly the Venus, Earth, Jupiter 
contributions. In addition to this discrepancy between the mass-ring model evolution and the current estimates for precession advance, this report will also suggest, and demonstrate previously not-included galactic influence.


Conclusion
The consequence of the results presented here is that a prevailing assumed model of Mercury’s precession as inclusive of all the gravitational influences involved up to the galactic level may not be complete or accurate. The findings herein show that when the 
mass-ring model is refined to include more correct solar system influences, and when galactic gravitational influence is included,
 the Mercury perihelion precession model will finally accurately account for the observed and measured precession of 
575.31 arcseconds per century.


AND NO GR, WHICH IS AN HOAX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617313 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:18:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > 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.
> You write from your ignorance and indoctrination. 

I talk from facts. You talk from infantile fantasies. This is not
normal in an adult.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617327 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:05:20 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:18:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > > > 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. 
> > You write from your ignorance and indoctrination.
> I talk from facts. You talk from infantile fantasies. This is not 
> normal in an adult. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
All you can do is pooh pooh his ideas without giving any facts worthwhile. Why don't you explain how using c for the speed of gravity improves the calculation of Earth's orbit?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617345 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 00:05:20 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:18:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > > > 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. 
> > You write from your ignorance and indoctrination.
> I talk from facts.

No, poor halfbrain, you talk from your ignorance, indoctrination
and narcism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617315 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:18:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > 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.
> You write from your ignorance and indoctrination. 
> 
> A formula created by Gauss, and refined over the last 180 years has been the MAIN mechanism to compute planet's influence, 
> until the use of numerical calculations using computers, which requires millions of calculations with time lapses of minutes. Yet, 
> the available literature keep using THIS analytical expression, for EACH planet: 
> 
> Δθ(per orbit) = π (m/M) [3/2 (r₀/R)³ + 45/16 (r₀/R)⁵ +525/128 (r₀/R)⁷ + 11025/2048 (r₀/R)⁹ + ... ] 
> 
> Newtonian influence of a planet of mass M, at a mean distance R from the Sun, over Mercury's precession per orbit, with: 
> M: Mass of the Sun, and r₀ = Average distance Mercury-Sun 
> 
> To obtain the average contribution to Mercury's perihelion advance per century, and in arcseconds, Δθ has to be multiplied by 
> 
> 414.9 x 360 x 3600/2π 
> 
> As an example, applied over Venus influence over Mercury, parameters are: 
> 
> m = 5.9742E+24 Kg (Venus) 
> M = 1.98891691E+30 Kg (Sun) 
> r₀ = 57909083 Km (avg. distance of Mercury to the Sun) 
> R = 108208600 Km (avg. distance of Venus to the Sun) 
> 
> For the contribution of Venus over Mercury's precession, the formula gives 279.3"/century. 
> 
> Different results: 
> 
> Le Verrier (1859): 280.6"/century 
> Park (2017): 277.4"/century 
> 
> The total analytical value of the precession of Mercury's perihelion has been maintained almost around the same value, as well 
> as the OBSERVED ADVANCE of about 575"/century 
> 
> Le Verrier (1859): 526.7"/century 
> Newcomb (1898): 531.46"/century 
> Doolittle (1912): 529.7"/century 
> Clemence (1949): 531.52"/century 
> Rana (1987): 528.93"/century 
> Roy (2014): 528.9"/century 
> Park (2017): 532.2"/century 
> 
> IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE. 
> 
> The main problem behind these values is that the "torus model" has been used in ALL CASES, with different refinements. 
> 
> Numerical solutions, using high resolution orbital steps and increasingly powerful computers, CAN'T present an analytical solution, 
> which seems to be the only desire of the scientists in the above list. Also, additional influences like galactic gravity pull and others 
> have been ignored by all the known defenders of GR and Einstein. 
> 
> IF these calculations are correctly published and made known, GR would COLLAPSE instantaneously. 
> 
> But that collapse has been prevented to happen, by banning the wide diffusion of computer based solutions to this problem. 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338368894_Diffusion_Gravity_5_Perihelion_Precessions_as_Indicators_of_Galactic_Gravity/link/5e0f46c54585159aa4af349a/download 
> 
> EXCERPT: 
> 
> Mass-ring models are elaborated and detailed in the references given. Consensus of the recent mainstream literature on Mercury’s 
> perihelion precession stubbornly remains on the 532 arcseconds per century model estimates, as in the work cited by Park et al.[8], 
> which essentially re-states the Clemence table from 1947, adding decimal places to the same values, but with almost no revision or 
> change of the modeled estimates for planetary effects. 
> 
> However, the trend in modeling the Newtonian precession has been to revise planetary influence upward. According to Brown, “when the 
> mass-ring model is calculated exactly, with no simplifying approximations, the result is precession of 549.61 arcseconds per century”. 
> 
> The observed and measured precession is 575.31, so this recent modeling does validate that Mercury has greater Newtonian solar system 
> (“local”) precession by about 24 arcseconds per century over the original 526 arcseconds of LeVerrier. This would follow logically as the 
> refinement and accuracy of the modeling. 
> 
> There appears to be a contradiction between the evolving estimates for planetary influences, and particularly the Venus, Earth, Jupiter 
> contributions. In addition to this discrepancy between the mass-ring model evolution and the current estimates for precession advance, this report will also suggest, and demonstrate previously not-included galactic influence. 
> 
> 
> Conclusion 
> The consequence of the results presented here is that a prevailing assumed model of Mercury’s precession as inclusive of all the gravitational influences involved up to the galactic level may not be complete or accurate. The findings herein show that when the 
> mass-ring model is refined to include more correct solar system influences, and when galactic gravitational influence is included, 
> the Mercury perihelion precession model will finally accurately account for the observed and measured precession of 
> 575.31 arcseconds per century. 
> 
> 
> AND NO GR, WHICH IS AN HOAX.
Your opponents refuse to lay their cards on the table so they lose. They always fold. When other planets perihelion advances are calculated using c for gravity they are thrown way off more than Mercury is corrected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617316 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE. 

Dummbestfuck

The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617318 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:28:50 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE.
> Dummbestfuck 
> 
> The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations.

You CAN'T USE INFINITY in any analytical expression, fucking retarded!

Newtonian mechanics rely on "action at a distance", which is the same as having INFINITE SPEED for the propagation 
of gravitational forces. Got it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617319 — Ceank Richard Hertz admits he's retarded

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:28:50 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE. 
> > Dummbestfuck 
> > 
> > The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations.
> You CAN'T USE INFINITY in any analytical expression, fucking retarded! 
> 


I agree, you are retarded. You've always been. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617320 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On 8/10/2023 5:28 PM, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 
>> IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE.
> 
> Dummbestfuck
> 
> The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations.

He doesn't know what he doesn't know, and he doesn't even know that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617328 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:28:50 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE.
> Dummbestfuck 
> 
> The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations.
The Gerber equation Einstein borrowed uses c for the speed of gravity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617331 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:16:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:28:50 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE. 
> > Dummbestfuck 
> > 
> > The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations.
> The Gerber equation Einstein borrowed uses c for the speed of gravity.


Einstein didn't use any of the Gerber stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617341 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:16:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:28:50 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE. 
> > > Dummbestfuck 
> > > 
> > > The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations. 
> > The Gerber equation Einstein borrowed uses c for the speed of gravity.

> Einstein didn't use any of the Gerber stuff.

No, only Gerber's formula, which was TAUGHT TO HIM by his "intellectual slave", Erwin Freundlich, who was 
acknowledged and given credits at the end of his Nov.18. 1915 paper (Explanation of the Perihelion Motion 
of Mercury from General Relativity Theory).

QUOTE: 
"One considers for these the magnitudes of the Newcomb given values, which I thank Dr. Freundlich for supplying, so one gains 
the impression that only the forward movement of the perihelion of Mercury will ever be truly proven. I will however gladly allow 
professional astronomers a final say."
***********************************  End of the paper ***********************************

The same Freundlich that Einstein sent (August 21, 1914, WWI already began) to measure the eclipse at Crimea, where he was 
made prisoner by the Russians for two weeks. Einstein PUT SOME OF HIS MONEY to fund this expedition.

The same Freundlich that was more than an acquaintance to Schwarzschild and Klein, in Göttingen, and got the secret data from
the desk of Hilbert in Nov. 1915. (Jew network).

The same Freundlich that taught Einstein HOW TO properly write the Keplerian/Newtonian equation 11 on the paper, that taught
the imbecile to use x = 1/r to simplify the equations, and that was a nexus between the SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE of Schwarzschild 
and Einstein's gobbledygook.

Erwin Freundlich, the young Berlin astronomer who had read the light-bending predictions in Einstein’s 1911 paper and become 
eager to prove him correct, was ready to take the lead. “I am extremely pleased that you have taken up the question of the bending 
of light with so much zeal,” Einstein wrote him in early 1912. In August 1913, he was still bombarding the astronomer with 
encouragement.“Nothing more can be done by the theorists,” he wrote. “In this matter it is only you, the astronomers, who can 
next year perform a simply invaluable service to theoretical physics.”

On the very day that Einstein formally accepted the Berlin post and election to the Academy—December 7, 1913—he wrote Freundlich with the offer to reach into his own pocket. “If the Academy shies away from it, then we will get that little bit of mammon from private individuals,” said Einstein. “Should everything fail, then I will pay for the thing myself out of the little bit that I have saved, at least the first 2,000 marks.” The main thing, Einstein stressed, was that Freundlich should proceed with his preparations. “Just go ahead and order the photographic plates, and do not let the time be squandered because of the money problem.”36

Finally, the Krupp Foundation put the money. A number of observatories sent expeditions to Russia to observe the eclipse including those from Argentina, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Only Argentinians (C. D. Perrine, US astronomer working
as Director of the Argentine National Observatory (1909-1936)) and other US citizens were let to walk away free.

In early October 1915 Einstein found that the Entwurf equations did not actually account for rotation as he had thought. Now, upon 
redoing his calculations, he was dismayed to see this pillar knocked away. “This is a blatant contradiction,” he lamented to the 
astronomer Freundlich.

After the hot war between Hilbert, Schwarzschild and Einstein, by Feb. 1916 Einstein resumed his "friendship" with Hilbert, when he
visited Göttingen again and stayed at Hilbert’s home. He plotted to get a job for the astronomer Freundlich at Göttingen. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617358 — Re: Mercury mystery: Explain this, relativists. I bet you can't.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:16:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:28:50 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > > IN ALL CASES, THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS CONSIDERED INFINITE. 
> > > > Dummbestfuck 
> > > > 
> > > > The "speed of gravity" doesn't factor in the calculations. 
> > > The Gerber equation Einstein borrowed uses c for the speed of gravity. 
> 
> > Einstein didn't use any of the Gerber stuff.
> No, only Gerber's formula,

"Gerber formula" is pure rubbish, despicable kapo. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web