Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #613164 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-17 21:32 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-09-07 16:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:32 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 10:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-18 10:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:10 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-18 15:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-19 09:31 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:45 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:51 -0700
Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:56 -0700
Re: Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:01 -0700
Re: Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:55 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 10:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-19 10:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 07:52 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:48 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-20 20:05 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 18:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:19 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 21:08 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 21:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-21 06:23 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-21 17:41 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 10:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-21 13:39 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 02:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-21 12:09 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 10:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-22 11:06 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-23 11:49 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 08:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-23 11:59 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:38 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-23 13:28 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Chaston Kuipers <rsoc@scusseee.ps> - 2023-06-23 21:42 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-24 10:46 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-24 10:46 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 09:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:54 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:04 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 13:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-25 13:48 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-26 11:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 07:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:15 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:06 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:31 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-26 22:53 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:58 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:23 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:26 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-06-20 18:33 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:31 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 19:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 07:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:47 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 08:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-23 13:13 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Epifanio Schoonenburg <urou@sucinora.br> - 2023-06-23 17:28 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:35 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Reginal Langbroek <gorl@gblarllb.ra> - 2023-06-23 17:40 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:01 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:58 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 13:02 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-23 21:28 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 15:49 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:35 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 17:55 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 09:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 10:55 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:50 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-27 13:58 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:32 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-27 21:55 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:41 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-27 23:30 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 21:14 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 13:23 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 07:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 10:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 23:31 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 06:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-08 12:47 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 04:36 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 06:12 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-08 16:11 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 08:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-09 11:28 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 21:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 22:52 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 23:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:36 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 12:08 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 13:31 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 13:23 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 16:44 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:23 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:40 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 19:12 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 23:37 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 16:19 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 19:52 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 22:47 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 09:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 13:07 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 13:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 13:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 15:57 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 14:00 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 18:02 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 15:04 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 18:08 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 16:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 19:35 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 16:18 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 16:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 19:40 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 20:14 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 21:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 00:46 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 22:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 07:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 12:07 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 09:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-02 19:06 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:09 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 01:47 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 13:33 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 12:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 12:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:17 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 01:26 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:12 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:04 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 01:15 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 19:39 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Smith Can <aanh@nnnttcth.ia> - 2023-07-01 22:10 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-01 13:26 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Hillary Oorschot <lara@aocolror.ya> - 2023-06-29 21:29 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 17:04 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Emanuele Heel <manl@eeeeleee.ll> - 2023-06-29 22:31 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-29 20:30 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:53 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:46 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's David Agteren <ainv@gvdideig.aa> - 2023-06-30 09:18 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 09:17 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Woodrow Richard <rwao@rwwrrooo.rw> - 2023-07-01 11:43 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Demonte Achthoven <oado@ennmoaea.ch> - 2023-06-28 16:42 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Braxton Amstel <txmt@asememtm.ra> - 2023-06-28 16:50 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Bob Rumpade <peab@orbmarer.ou> - 2023-06-28 23:04 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 13:23 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-06-28 15:09 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 17:47 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 18:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 20:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 21:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 05:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 21:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-06-29 05:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 07:02 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 12:14 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 12:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:09 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:42 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 17:33 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 13:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 14:16 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 19:44 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 21:08 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 21:49 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 00:25 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's Peter-John Maes <a-he@t-jtrjsm.ee> - 2023-06-30 11:13 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 00:23 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-30 11:45 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 04:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-01 13:26 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Keaton Konstantatos <ktnn@tksatooa.ta> - 2023-07-07 19:16 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-08 11:40 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 02:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 10:23 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 13:20 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:19 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 13:28 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 13:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-10 18:45 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 17:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-10 20:52 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:26 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:36 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:58 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 03:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 06:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-12 15:02 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 18:14 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 21:30 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-12 19:08 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 19:29 -0700
Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 18:48 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:48 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:29 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:52 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:47 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 21:36 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 23:14 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Barton Demakis <erom@akadikmr.no> - 2023-07-11 09:24 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Pasquale Nomikos <osai@qoauqsqm.ka> - 2023-07-08 20:47 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-09 12:35 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 09:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:38 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:00 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:32 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 11:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:47 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 14:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 22:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:01 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 14:10 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:16 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 12:08 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-09 14:25 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 18:43 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 16:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 16:18 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Lee Kanavos <alke@avvvvekn.ll> - 2023-07-09 19:21 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 19:54 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 21:25 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 21:58 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 13:31 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Jeiker Paraskos <okas@ppkiesre.rr> - 2023-07-10 22:20 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 16:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 23:27 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Eugene Antimisiaris <anse@neanenae.ir> - 2023-07-11 09:07 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Wyouman Petrakis <iawp@eyapkrsk.or> - 2023-07-10 11:39 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 14:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 15:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-08 17:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:12 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Fraga Kalakos <akol@fgkkakar.gk> - 2023-07-09 15:11 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-08 19:00 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 17:06 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz refuses to concede, "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 06:16 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 08:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 09:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 11:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 13:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 13:09 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 16:44 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 16:56 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 18:43 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 19:30 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 19:46 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 20:37 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 21:30 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 16:20 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 16:54 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 16:51 -0700
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 21:32 -0700 |
| Subject | The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. |
| Message-ID | <fb6f1170-e09c-4fd6-95d0-6a322e5a5459n@googlegroups.com> |
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf 2 Calculation versus Observation 2.1 What and how it can be observed EXCERPT *************************************************** A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate of 43′′ per century must emerge. In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. ... At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in calculations about 10 arcsec per century. ..... The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a small regular relativistic effect on top. ..... The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. .... The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to better that 3′′ per century. ... After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. His comment was: “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** To make the above clear: 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the entire Solar System. 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other hand. So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century GR: 42.98 arcsec/century Total: 575.31 arcsec/century The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). GR IS AN HOAX.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9203e326-1da5-471b-91dc-5f24900a18afn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613164 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf > > 2 Calculation versus Observation > 2.1 What and how it can be observed > > EXCERPT *************************************************** > > A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction > of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a > fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate > of 43′′ per century must emerge. > > In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) > numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step > about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) > error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability > of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. > ... > At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven > significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at > a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in > calculations about 10 arcsec per century. > ..... > The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model > because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate > because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of > ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a > small regular relativistic effect on top. > ..... > The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of > “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. > In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward > [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were > reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of > planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. > .... > The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ > are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to > better that 3′′ per century. > ... > After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a > drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value > about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > His comment was: > “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do > not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. > > END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > To make the above clear: > > 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made > over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. > > 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant > is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the > entire Solar System. > > 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be > translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical > method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic > contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value > between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. > > This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. > All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, > Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. > > 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, > it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced > perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and > even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with > the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the > other hand. > > So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades > by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total > value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show > that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, > and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! > > 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the > monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done > in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all > the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time > and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. > > So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed > as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. > > So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, > in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE > NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > GR IS AN HOAX. MORE....... 2.1.1 What has been observed Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is. Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”. Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory. A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision remains unknown. To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions. 3 Classical and GR orbits 3.1 Classical basic equations ....... ....... LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea7cee8d-14c9-4c21-adaf-01e48c86ca93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613194 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf > > > > 2 Calculation versus Observation > > 2.1 What and how it can be observed > > > > EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction > > of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a > > fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate > > of 43′′ per century must emerge. > > > > In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) > > numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step > > about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) > > error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability > > of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. > > ... > > At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven > > significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at > > a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in > > calculations about 10 arcsec per century. > > ..... > > The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model > > because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate > > because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of > > ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a > > small regular relativistic effect on top. > > ..... > > The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of > > “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. > > In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward > > [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were > > reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of > > planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. > > .... > > The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ > > are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to > > better that 3′′ per century. > > ... > > After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a > > drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value > > about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > His comment was: > > “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do > > not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. > > > > END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > To make the above clear: > > > > 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made > > over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. > > > > 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant > > is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the > > entire Solar System. > > > > 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be > > translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical > > method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic > > contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value > > between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. > > > > This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. > > All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, > > Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. > > > > 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, > > it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced > > perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and > > even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with > > the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the > > other hand. > > > > So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades > > by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total > > value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show > > that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, > > and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! > > > > 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the > > monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done > > in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all > > the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time > > and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. > > > > So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed > > as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. > > > > So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, > > in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE > > NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > MORE....... > > 2.1.1 What has been observed > Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly > observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the > equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other > hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be > filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight > as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is. > > Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”. > > Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single > publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion > advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data > not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory. > > A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same > time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes > the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision > remains unknown. > > To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a > brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in > our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with > comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions. > > 3 Classical and GR orbits > 3.1 Classical basic equations > ....... > ....... > > > > LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING. Their conclusion states: "The GR-term, which is thought to be the cause of both the perihelion advance effect and the light bending effect, has no physical sense, as shown by Fock and in our work. The Fock’s work also shows that the equation of light propagation in a vicinity of massive object must have the linear (potential) term instead of the GR-term. The latter is of the next degree of smallness and should be neglected....The prediction of the bending of light is not valid for the same reason as in the perihelion advance case, while the predicted red-shift is inconsistent with the GR framework. These and other arguments raise the question about sufficiency and completeness of the GR physical foundations. Overall, we conclude that the claimed confirmation of the GR prediction of the relativistic perihelion advance is neither theoretically nor empirically substantiated."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92da25db-5612-4fe6-95fd-e1008c151032n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613194 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf > > > > 2 Calculation versus Observation > > 2.1 What and how it can be observed > > > > EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction > > of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a > > fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate > > of 43′′ per century must emerge. > > > > In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) > > numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step > > about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) > > error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability > > of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. > > ... > > At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven > > significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at > > a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in > > calculations about 10 arcsec per century. > > ..... > > The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model > > because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate > > because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of > > ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a > > small regular relativistic effect on top. > > ..... > > The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of > > “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. > > In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward > > [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were > > reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of > > planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. > > .... > > The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ > > are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to > > better that 3′′ per century. > > ... > > After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a > > drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value > > about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > His comment was: > > “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do > > not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. > > > > END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > To make the above clear: > > > > 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made > > over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. > > > > 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant > > is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the > > entire Solar System. > > > > 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be > > translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical > > method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic > > contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value > > between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. > > > > This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. > > All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, > > Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. > > > > 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, > > it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced > > perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and > > even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with > > the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the > > other hand. > > > > So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades > > by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total > > value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show > > that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, > > and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! > > > > 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the > > monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done > > in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all > > the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time > > and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. > > > > So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed > > as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. > > > > So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, > > in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE > > NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > MORE....... > > 2.1.1 What has been observed > Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly > observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the > equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other > hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be > filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight > as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is. > > Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”. > > Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single > publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion > advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data > not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory. > > A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same > time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes > the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision > remains unknown. > > To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a > brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in > our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with > comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions. > > 3 Classical and GR orbits > 3.1 Classical basic equations > ....... > ....... > > > > LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING. Jonathan Bain provides several different baselines for calculating the most relevant anomaly of Mercury's perihelion advance. Of course, the anomaly can readily be accounted for by classical Newtonian methods factoring in the Sun's barycenter motion and the oblateness and spin of the Sun, as shown by several scientists. This article's finding makes it clear the anomaly is less than was thought and closer to Newton's calculation. Relativity is unnecessary and is not physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54b3eb37-215f-4d01-b116-f9acb9c00c4bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613196 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:03:15 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf > > > > > > 2 Calculation versus Observation > > > 2.1 What and how it can be observed > > > > > > EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction > > > of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a > > > fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate > > > of 43′′ per century must emerge. > > > > > > In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) > > > numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step > > > about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) > > > error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability > > > of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. > > > ... > > > At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven > > > significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at > > > a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in > > > calculations about 10 arcsec per century. > > > ..... > > > The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model > > > because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate > > > because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of > > > ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a > > > small regular relativistic effect on top. > > > ..... > > > The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of > > > “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. > > > In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward > > > [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were > > > reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of > > > planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. > > > .... > > > The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ > > > are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to > > > better that 3′′ per century. > > > ... > > > After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a > > > drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value > > > about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > > > His comment was: > > > “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do > > > not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. > > > > > > END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > > > > To make the above clear: > > > > > > 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made > > > over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. > > > > > > 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant > > > is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the > > > entire Solar System. > > > > > > 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be > > > translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical > > > method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic > > > contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value > > > between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. > > > > > > This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. > > > All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, > > > Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. > > > > > > 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, > > > it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced > > > perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > > > 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and > > > even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with > > > the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the > > > other hand. > > > > > > So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades > > > by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total > > > value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show > > > that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, > > > and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! > > > > > > 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the > > > monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done > > > in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all > > > the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time > > > and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. > > > > > > So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed > > > as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. > > > > > > So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, > > > in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE > > > NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > MORE....... > > > > 2.1.1 What has been observed > > Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly > > observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the > > equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other > > hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be > > filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight > > as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is. > > > > Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”. > > > > Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single > > publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion > > advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data > > not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory. > > > > A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same > > time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes > > the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision > > remains unknown. > > > > To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a > > brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in > > our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with > > comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions. > > > > 3 Classical and GR orbits > > 3.1 Classical basic equations > > ....... > > ....... > > > > > > > > LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING. > Jonathan Bain provides several different baselines for calculating the most relevant anomaly of Mercury's perihelion advance. Of course, the anomaly can readily be accounted for by classical Newtonian methods factoring in the Sun's barycenter motion and the oblateness and spin of the Sun, as shown by several scientists. This article's finding makes it clear the anomaly is less than was thought and closer to Newton's calculation. Relativity is unnecessary and is not physics. Exactly! Le Verrier's work (1840 -1859), even incredible for today standards, lack of correctness with the value of parameters used. Even Newcomb (1896) didn't have today's values, like the exact masses of the Sun and every single planet. Einstein (1915) doesn't count because his target was the Gerber's equation. Only in the last 2 pages of his Nov 1915 paper, use values provided by his "assistant", the German astronomer Freundlich, who started his collaboration in 1912, making a contact with Newcomb on behalf of Einstein. It can be read, at the end of the paper from Nov. 18, 1915, how Einstein OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE Freundlich´s "collaboration". What was not acknowledged by Einstein OR ANY RELATIVIST is the fundamental role of Schwarzschild in his career, since late 1913. Schwarzschild convinced the Prussian Academy of Science to pay HALF the 12 years contract for Berlin, and was instrumental in finding a jewish industrialist that did pay the other half. In today's money, each part contributed with $120,000/year. Not bad, isn't it? But the contract was based on HIM finishing Grossman work on a new "Law of Gravitation", that he showed off in all Europe (years before 1914) that he was able to develop. BUT HE HAD TO DELIVER, AND HAD A FINITE TIME TO DO SO, in particular due to WWI, when both funding sides started to THINK AGAIN in what they were investing their money, which started to be scarce.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acd75b0d-d96d-4fe7-9276-b836dfe67e01n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613202 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:03:15 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf > > > > > > > > 2 Calculation versus Observation > > > > 2.1 What and how it can be observed > > > > > > > > EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > > > A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction > > > > of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a > > > > fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate > > > > of 43′′ per century must emerge. > > > > > > > > In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) > > > > numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step > > > > about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) > > > > error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability > > > > of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. > > > > ... > > > > At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven > > > > significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at > > > > a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in > > > > calculations about 10 arcsec per century. > > > > ..... > > > > The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model > > > > because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate > > > > because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of > > > > ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a > > > > small regular relativistic effect on top. > > > > ..... > > > > The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of > > > > “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. > > > > In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward > > > > [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were > > > > reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of > > > > planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. > > > > .... > > > > The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ > > > > are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to > > > > better that 3′′ per century. > > > > ... > > > > After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a > > > > drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value > > > > about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > > > > > His comment was: > > > > “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do > > > > not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. > > > > > > > > END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > To make the above clear: > > > > > > > > 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made > > > > over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. > > > > > > > > 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant > > > > is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the > > > > entire Solar System. > > > > > > > > 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be > > > > translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical > > > > method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic > > > > contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value > > > > between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. > > > > > > > > This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. > > > > All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, > > > > Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. > > > > > > > > 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, > > > > it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced > > > > perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > > > > > 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and > > > > even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with > > > > the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the > > > > other hand. > > > > > > > > So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades > > > > by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total > > > > value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show > > > > that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, > > > > and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! > > > > > > > > 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the > > > > monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done > > > > in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all > > > > the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time > > > > and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. > > > > > > > > So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed > > > > as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. > > > > > > > > So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, > > > > in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE > > > > NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > MORE....... > > > > > > 2.1.1 What has been observed > > > Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly > > > observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > > > > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the > > > equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other > > > hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be > > > filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight > > > as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is. > > > > > > Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”. > > > > > > Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single > > > publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion > > > advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data > > > not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory. > > > > > > A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same > > > time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes > > > the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision > > > remains unknown. > > > > > > To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a > > > brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in > > > our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with > > > comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions. > > > > > > 3 Classical and GR orbits > > > 3.1 Classical basic equations > > > ....... > > > ....... > > > > > > > > > > > > LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING. > > Jonathan Bain provides several different baselines for calculating the most relevant anomaly of Mercury's perihelion advance. Of course, the anomaly can readily be accounted for by classical Newtonian methods factoring in the Sun's barycenter motion and the oblateness and spin of the Sun, as shown by several scientists. This article's finding makes it clear the anomaly is less than was thought and closer to Newton's calculation. Relativity is unnecessary and is not physics. > Exactly! > > Le Verrier's work (1840 -1859), even incredible for today standards, lack of correctness with the value of parameters used. Even > Newcomb (1896) didn't have today's values, like the exact masses of the Sun and every single planet. Einstein (1915) doesn't count > because his target was the Gerber's equation. Only in the last 2 pages of his Nov 1915 paper, use values provided by his "assistant", > the German astronomer Freundlich, who started his collaboration in 1912, making a contact with Newcomb on behalf of Einstein. > > It can be read, at the end of the paper from Nov. 18, 1915, how Einstein OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE Freundlich´s "collaboration". > > What was not acknowledged by Einstein OR ANY RELATIVIST is the fundamental role of Schwarzschild in his career, since late 1913. > Schwarzschild convinced the Prussian Academy of Science to pay HALF the 12 years contract for Berlin, and was instrumental in > finding a jewish industrialist that did pay the other half. In today's money, each part contributed with $120,000/year. > > Not bad, isn't it? But the contract was based on HIM finishing Grossman work on a new "Law of Gravitation", that he showed off in > all Europe (years before 1914) that he was able to develop. BUT HE HAD TO DELIVER, AND HAD A FINITE TIME TO DO SO, in particular > due to WWI, when both funding sides started to THINK AGAIN in what they were investing their money, which started to be scarce. I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than physics. What has probably never been explained is how a speed of light for gravity could improve the calculations. According to Laplace that would throw way off all orbital calculations due to the angular momentum introduced by a less than instantaneous speed for gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 09:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BqSdnRhg5-Yi-w35nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #613211 |
On 6/18/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than > physics. Nonsense. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS. If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel? Einstein was the quintessential physicist, devoting his life to understanding the universe. And you are the quintessential fool.... > What has probably never been explained is how a speed of light for > gravity could improve the calculations. According to Laplace that > would throw way off all orbital calculations due to the angular > momentum introduced by a less than instantaneous speed for gravity. This has all been explained many, many times, in PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS. A little studying on you part would dispel all your nonsense and fantasies. But apparently you are too stupid to realize that (along with many other idiots around here). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 07:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccf24d2a-8446-4340-a166-4df815f6fb20n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613235 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 11:31:38 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: <snip> > If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel? <snip> Fear to display how inept was. Fear to be killed, as in the '20s. Fear for his declining health. Laziness, as Minkowski clearly stated at the Polytechnic: "Lazy dog". Belief that he already had paid his debt with zionists, since 1919. Cost/benefits didn't work for this charlatan, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6031a8f-9b29-4e07-8b45-536ddb0576ffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613235 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:31:38 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/18/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than > > physics. > Nonsense. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS. > > If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel? > > Einstein was the quintessential physicist, devoting his life to > understanding the universe. And you are the quintessential fool.... > > What has probably never been explained is how a speed of light for > > gravity could improve the calculations. According to Laplace that > > would throw way off all orbital calculations due to the angular > > momentum introduced by a less than instantaneous speed for gravity. > This has all been explained many, many times, in PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS. A > little studying on you part would dispel all your nonsense and > fantasies. But apparently you are too stupid to realize that (along with > many other idiots around here). > > Tom Roberts It is ad hoc reasoning, according to the typical definition available on the internet, that is, "making things up." Ad hoc reasoning is worse than that because it is making up exceptions to rules that are unwarranted and not demonstrated by experiments such as virtually all of relativity. I notice you could not give any specifics in reply and could only rely on ad hominem mud-slinging. The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations because they can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 07:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering |
| Message-ID | <dae2a9ef-61fb-4432-ba95-3152c9cac68dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613238 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:51:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations . They don't. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 08:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering |
| Message-ID | <3366c62d-9707-4a97-b9f4-84ee819a60e4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613240 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:51:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations . > > They don't. Idiot. The speed of light for gravity is part of Einstein's explanation for Mercury's anomalous advance since he used Gerber's exact formula and this would throw the calculations of the whole solar system way off as shown by LaPlace and Van Flandern. As usual, your comments do not contribute anything of substance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 11:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering |
| Message-ID | <d34e4de4-0704-461e-ad58-0532be00dae3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613242 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:01:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:51:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations . > > > > They don't. Idiot. > The speed of light for gravity is part of Einstein's explanation for Mercury's anomalous advance No it isn't. Repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it true, it makes you a bigger idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fb31ea2-afd4-4927-807f-87b4c4548c42n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613235 |
On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 16:31:38 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/18/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than > > physics. > Nonsense. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS. > > If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel? > > Einstein was the quintessential physicist, devoting his life to > understanding the universe. It was rather obvious that you don't understand or believe a word of these wise things you sometimes write about models.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7452d324-95d3-4096-83f8-fcd3731094aen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613235 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:31:38 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/18/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than > > physics. > Nonsense. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS. > > If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel? > > Einstein was the quintessential physicist, devoting his life to > understanding the universe. And you are the quintessential fool.... > > What has probably never been explained is how a speed of light for > > gravity could improve the calculations. According to Laplace that > > would throw way off all orbital calculations due to the angular > > momentum introduced by a less than instantaneous speed for gravity. > This has all been explained many, many times, in PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS. A > little studying on you part would dispel all your nonsense and > fantasies. But apparently you are too stupid to realize that (along with > many other idiots around here). > > Tom Roberts Einstein was a very incapable physicist who was inept at reasoning and whose ideas were completely divorced from physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca447e53-b83b-4e24-9fe2-950c240f4fb7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613202 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:03:15 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf > > > > > > > > 2 Calculation versus Observation > > > > 2.1 What and how it can be observed > > > > > > > > EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > > > A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction > > > > of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a > > > > fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate > > > > of 43′′ per century must emerge. > > > > > > > > In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer) > > > > numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step > > > > about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration) > > > > error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability > > > > of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back. > > > > ... > > > > At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven > > > > significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at > > > > a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in > > > > calculations about 10 arcsec per century. > > > > ..... > > > > The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model > > > > because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate > > > > because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of > > > > ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a > > > > small regular relativistic effect on top. > > > > ..... > > > > The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of > > > > “Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times. > > > > In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward > > > > [23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were > > > > reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of > > > > planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time. > > > > .... > > > > The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′ > > > > are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to > > > > better that 3′′ per century. > > > > ... > > > > After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a > > > > drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value > > > > about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > > > > > His comment was: > > > > “The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do > > > > not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”. > > > > > > > > END OF EXCERPT *************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > To make the above clear: > > > > > > > > 1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made > > > > over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation. > > > > > > > > 2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant > > > > is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the > > > > entire Solar System. > > > > > > > > 3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be > > > > translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical > > > > method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic > > > > contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value > > > > between 38"/cy and 48"/cy. > > > > > > > > This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943. > > > > All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence, > > > > Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect. > > > > > > > > 4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works, > > > > it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced > > > > perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century. > > > > > > > > 5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and > > > > even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with > > > > the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the > > > > other hand. > > > > > > > > So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades > > > > by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total > > > > value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show > > > > that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago, > > > > and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!! > > > > > > > > 6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the > > > > monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done > > > > in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all > > > > the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time > > > > and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself. > > > > > > > > So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed > > > > as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy. > > > > > > > > So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb, > > > > in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE > > > > NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO. > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > MORE....... > > > > > > 2.1.1 What has been observed > > > Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly > > > observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. > > > > > > The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not > > > provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the > > > equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other > > > hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be > > > filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight > > > as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is. > > > > > > Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”. > > > > > > Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single > > > publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion > > > advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data > > > not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory. > > > > > > A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same > > > time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes > > > the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision > > > remains unknown. > > > > > > To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a > > > brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in > > > our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with > > > comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions. > > > > > > 3 Classical and GR orbits > > > 3.1 Classical basic equations > > > ....... > > > ....... > > > > > > > > > > > > LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING. > > Jonathan Bain provides several different baselines for calculating the most relevant anomaly of Mercury's perihelion advance. Of course, the anomaly can readily be accounted for by classical Newtonian methods factoring in the Sun's barycenter motion and the oblateness and spin of the Sun, as shown by several scientists. This article's finding makes it clear the anomaly is less than was thought and closer to Newton's calculation. Relativity is unnecessary and is not physics. > Exactly! > > Le Verrier's work (1840 -1859), even incredible for today standards, lack of correctness with the value of parameters used. Even > Newcomb (1896) didn't have today's values, like the exact masses of the Sun and every single planet. Einstein (1915) doesn't count > because his target was the Gerber's equation. Only in the last 2 pages of his Nov 1915 paper, use values provided by his "assistant", > the German astronomer Freundlich, who started his collaboration in 1912, making a contact with Newcomb on behalf of Einstein. > > It can be read, at the end of the paper from Nov. 18, 1915, how Einstein OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE Freundlich´s "collaboration". > > What was not acknowledged by Einstein OR ANY RELATIVIST is the fundamental role of Schwarzschild in his career, since late 1913. > Schwarzschild convinced the Prussian Academy of Science to pay HALF the 12 years contract for Berlin, and was instrumental in > finding a jewish industrialist that did pay the other half. In today's money, each part contributed with $120,000/year. > > Not bad, isn't it? But the contract was based on HIM finishing Grossman work on a new "Law of Gravitation", that he showed off in > all Europe (years before 1914) that he was able to develop. BUT HE HAD TO DELIVER, AND HAD A FINITE TIME TO DO SO, in particular > due to WWI, when both funding sides started to THINK AGAIN in what they were investing their money, which started to be scarce. Thanks again Richard and Laurence for this scholarship. The "most precisely confirmed theory in the history of science" is being chipped to pieces, one "confirmation" at a time. And thank you Tom Roberts--your impotent response to Richard's and Laurence's charges is quite revealing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d8369b9-3063-4e5d-af2d-ea1bb12aa67fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613164 |
I'm quoting here what Clemence, the guy that corrected Newcomb and still is a mandatory reference, had to say about Mercury and Einstein's paper, based on his GR (1943, 1947, 1952). ************************************************************************************** Gerald Clemence ( Rev. Mod. Phys. 19, 361364, 1947) "According to general theory of relativity, the elliptical orbit of a planet referred to a Newtonian frame of reference rotates in its own plane in the same direction as the planet moves... The observations cannot be made in a Newtonian frame of reference. They are affected by the precession of the equinoxes, and the determination of the precessional motion is one of the most difficult problems of observational astronomy. It is not surprising that a difference of opinions could exist regarding the closeness of agreement of observed and theoretical motions... I am not aware that relativity is at present regarded by physicists as a theory that may be believed or not, at will. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest to present the most recent evidence on the degree of agreement between the observed and theoretical motions of the planets." ************************************************************************************** And the above was extracted from this paper of Vankov, the Russian physicist who made an incredible forensic analysis of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which WAS NOT translated to English for many decades, and still remains hard to get. Here is link to the English translation, work performed by Professor Roger Rydin from the University of Virginia, who paid much attention to linguistic fidelity and scientific adequacy of the texts. Vankov adds: "It is followed with our critical Comments concerning the rigor of Einstein’s derivation of the equation of motion and the corresponding approximate solution leading to the perihelion advance formula. The latter was obtained in numerous works later on from the Schwarzschild “exact” solution". Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” Anatoli Andrei Vankov https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf As in his other paper, of which I provided a link in the OP of this thread. It's clearly demonstrated that Einstein and partners (like the astronomer Freundlich) cooked the paper ENTIRELY, making several noticeable HACKS and subtle FUDGING of equations, just to get the Gerber's formula from 1898. His numerical calculations, don in the last page out of 12, just as a justification to prove Gerber and Newcomb values of 43"/century. What really matter is HOW he FUDGED the integral of his Eq. 11, FORCING THE RESULT to deliver +43" INSTEAD OF -14" (without the fraudulent addition of a term in front of the integral). I claimed that this fraud has been silenced FOR DECADES. EXCERPT FROM VANKOV'S CRITICS ****************************************** 2.1.1 Historical remarks Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance, Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publication that contains the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper "The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30", Einstein presents his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by referring it as in Doc.24, along with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”. Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem. ****************************************** -14"/century, not 43"/century, is the value obtained CORRECTING THE COOK/FRAUD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5950f5b4-44c9-474c-be94-2bd5af0af9cdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613328 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > I'm quoting here what Clemence, the guy that corrected Newcomb and still is a mandatory reference, > had to say about Mercury and Einstein's paper, based on his GR (1943, 1947, 1952). > > ************************************************************************************** > Gerald Clemence ( Rev. Mod. Phys. 19, 361364, 1947) > > "According to general theory of relativity, the elliptical orbit of a planet referred to a Newtonian frame of reference rotates > in its own plane in the same direction as the planet moves... > > The observations cannot be made in a Newtonian frame of reference. They are affected by the precession of the equinoxes, > and the determination of the precessional motion is one of the most difficult problems of observational astronomy. > > It is not surprising that a difference of opinions could exist regarding the closeness of agreement of observed and > theoretical motions... I am not aware that relativity is at present regarded by physicists as a theory that may be > believed or not, at will. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest to present the most recent evidence on the degree of > agreement between the observed and theoretical motions of the planets." > ************************************************************************************** > > And the above was extracted from this paper of Vankov, the Russian physicist who made an incredible forensic analysis > of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which WAS NOT translated to English for many decades, and still remains hard to get. Here is > link to the English translation, work performed by Professor Roger Rydin from the University of Virginia, who paid much > attention to linguistic fidelity and scientific adequacy of the texts. > > Vankov adds: "It is followed with our critical Comments concerning the rigor of Einstein’s derivation of the equation of motion > and the corresponding approximate solution leading to the perihelion advance formula. The latter was obtained in numerous > works later on from the Schwarzschild “exact” solution". > > Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” > Anatoli Andrei Vankov > > https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf > > As in his other paper, of which I provided a link in the OP of this thread. > > > It's clearly demonstrated that Einstein and partners (like the astronomer Freundlich) cooked the paper ENTIRELY, making several > noticeable HACKS and subtle FUDGING of equations, just to get the Gerber's formula from 1898. His numerical calculations, don > in the last page out of 12, just as a justification to prove Gerber and Newcomb values of 43"/century. What really matter is HOW > he FUDGED the integral of his Eq. 11, FORCING THE RESULT to deliver +43" INSTEAD OF -14" (without the fraudulent addition of > a term in front of the integral). I claimed that this fraud has been silenced FOR DECADES. > > EXCERPT FROM VANKOV'S CRITICS > ****************************************** > 2.1.1 Historical remarks > Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance, Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publication that contains the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper "The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30", > Einstein presents his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by > referring it as in Doc.24, along with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”. Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem. > ****************************************** > > -14"/century, not 43"/century, is the value obtained CORRECTING THE COOK/FRAUD. Yes, I have that translation. It includes this: "It is after all the clear meaning of your problem in the best order. It is an entirely wonderful thing, that from one so abstract an idea comes out such a conclusive clarification of the Mercury anomaly. As you see, it means that the friendly war with me, in which in spite of your considerable protective fire throughout the terrestrial distance, allows this stroll in your fantasy land." - Schwarzschild’s letter to Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17a4e71a-4c62-4ecf-b2e3-ae09ae38a83fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613332 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 7:24:50 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > I'm quoting here what Clemence, the guy that corrected Newcomb and still is a mandatory reference, > > had to say about Mercury and Einstein's paper, based on his GR (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > ************************************************************************************** > > Gerald Clemence ( Rev. Mod. Phys. 19, 361364, 1947) > > > > "According to general theory of relativity, the elliptical orbit of a planet referred to a Newtonian frame of reference rotates > > in its own plane in the same direction as the planet moves... > > > > The observations cannot be made in a Newtonian frame of reference. They are affected by the precession of the equinoxes, > > and the determination of the precessional motion is one of the most difficult problems of observational astronomy. > > > > It is not surprising that a difference of opinions could exist regarding the closeness of agreement of observed and > > theoretical motions... I am not aware that relativity is at present regarded by physicists as a theory that may be > > believed or not, at will. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest to present the most recent evidence on the degree of > > agreement between the observed and theoretical motions of the planets." > > ************************************************************************************** > > > > And the above was extracted from this paper of Vankov, the Russian physicist who made an incredible forensic analysis > > of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which WAS NOT translated to English for many decades, and still remains hard to get. Here is > > link to the English translation, work performed by Professor Roger Rydin from the University of Virginia, who paid much > > attention to linguistic fidelity and scientific adequacy of the texts. > > > > Vankov adds: "It is followed with our critical Comments concerning the rigor of Einstein’s derivation of the equation of motion > > and the corresponding approximate solution leading to the perihelion advance formula. The latter was obtained in numerous > > works later on from the Schwarzschild “exact” solution". > > > > Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” > > Anatoli Andrei Vankov > > > > https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf > > > > As in his other paper, of which I provided a link in the OP of this thread. > > > > > > It's clearly demonstrated that Einstein and partners (like the astronomer Freundlich) cooked the paper ENTIRELY, making several > > noticeable HACKS and subtle FUDGING of equations, just to get the Gerber's formula from 1898. His numerical calculations, don > > in the last page out of 12, just as a justification to prove Gerber and Newcomb values of 43"/century. What really matter is HOW > > he FUDGED the integral of his Eq. 11, FORCING THE RESULT to deliver +43" INSTEAD OF -14" (without the fraudulent addition of > > a term in front of the integral). I claimed that this fraud has been silenced FOR DECADES. > > > > EXCERPT FROM VANKOV'S CRITICS > > ****************************************** > > 2.1.1 Historical remarks > > Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance, Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publication that contains the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper "The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30", > > Einstein presents his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by > > referring it as in Doc.24, along with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”. Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem. > > ****************************************** > > > > -14"/century, not 43"/century, is the value obtained CORRECTING THE COOK/FRAUD. > Yes, I have that translation. It includes this: "It is after all the clear meaning of your problem in the best order. > It is an entirely wonderful thing, that from one so abstract an idea comes > out such a conclusive clarification of the Mercury anomaly. > As you see, it means that the friendly war with me, in which in spite of > your considerable protective fire throughout the terrestrial distance, allows > this stroll in your fantasy land." - Schwarzschild’s letter to Einstein I wrote MANY TIMES here about the importance of Schwarzschild in the life of Einstein, between 1913 and 1915, as ADVISOR (to the least, and probably more than that). 1) Schwarzschild convinced two parts to put the money for a 12 years contract (more than $ 2.4 millions in today's money). 2) Schwarzschild had volunteered to fight (artillery official) at the eastern front, since mid 1915. YET, he obtained A LICENSE to witness Einstein's lecture to the Prussian Academy of Science, that day Nov. 18, 1915. That lecture was published by the PAS one month later, with minor modifications. HE WAS THERE THAT DAY, then went back to the front and got the lethal autoimmune skin disease that killed him 5 months later. 3) Schwarzschild wrote his exact solution, in polar coordinates, and sent it to Einstein 3 WEEKS LATER!!! He had the solution beforehand, and knew tensors and curvature of space/time SINCE 1900!! His seminal paper "About the curvature of the universe", written and published in 1900, is considered FOUNDATIONAL for what is today COSMOLOGY. Nobody, before him, did attempt to EXPLAIN the behavior of the whole universe (by then, it was the Milky Way, and had a length of 10,000 ly). But he has half jew, and because of THIS he has been ignored by the zionist cabal on his role in GR. He volunteered being 41, without need, just to prove THAT HE WAS A PATRIOT. And he died for this, while Einstein stole every single credit for EVERYTHING. Because it was, by design, that a jew had to be the new emperor of physics. Einstein sold his soul to the devil, for fame and privileges, while Schwarzschild (unsurpassed even today) gave his life for his motherland.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11a6f0a0-eaf7-4b2b-af27-72232d85a5c3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613339 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 3:51:34 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 7:24:50 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > I'm quoting here what Clemence, the guy that corrected Newcomb and still is a mandatory reference, > > > had to say about Mercury and Einstein's paper, based on his GR (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > ************************************************************************************** > > > Gerald Clemence ( Rev. Mod. Phys. 19, 361364, 1947) > > > > > > "According to general theory of relativity, the elliptical orbit of a planet referred to a Newtonian frame of reference rotates > > > in its own plane in the same direction as the planet moves... > > > > > > The observations cannot be made in a Newtonian frame of reference. They are affected by the precession of the equinoxes, > > > and the determination of the precessional motion is one of the most difficult problems of observational astronomy. > > > > > > It is not surprising that a difference of opinions could exist regarding the closeness of agreement of observed and > > > theoretical motions... I am not aware that relativity is at present regarded by physicists as a theory that may be > > > believed or not, at will. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest to present the most recent evidence on the degree of > > > agreement between the observed and theoretical motions of the planets." > > > ************************************************************************************** > > > > > > And the above was extracted from this paper of Vankov, the Russian physicist who made an incredible forensic analysis > > > of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which WAS NOT translated to English for many decades, and still remains hard to get. Here is > > > link to the English translation, work performed by Professor Roger Rydin from the University of Virginia, who paid much > > > attention to linguistic fidelity and scientific adequacy of the texts. > > > > > > Vankov adds: "It is followed with our critical Comments concerning the rigor of Einstein’s derivation of the equation of motion > > > and the corresponding approximate solution leading to the perihelion advance formula. The latter was obtained in numerous > > > works later on from the Schwarzschild “exact” solution". > > > > > > Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” > > > Anatoli Andrei Vankov > > > > > > https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf > > > > > > As in his other paper, of which I provided a link in the OP of this thread. > > > > > > > > > It's clearly demonstrated that Einstein and partners (like the astronomer Freundlich) cooked the paper ENTIRELY, making several > > > noticeable HACKS and subtle FUDGING of equations, just to get the Gerber's formula from 1898. His numerical calculations, don > > > in the last page out of 12, just as a justification to prove Gerber and Newcomb values of 43"/century. What really matter is HOW > > > he FUDGED the integral of his Eq. 11, FORCING THE RESULT to deliver +43" INSTEAD OF -14" (without the fraudulent addition of > > > a term in front of the integral). I claimed that this fraud has been silenced FOR DECADES. > > > > > > EXCERPT FROM VANKOV'S CRITICS > > > ****************************************** > > > 2.1.1 Historical remarks > > > Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance, Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publication that contains the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper "The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30", > > > Einstein presents his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by > > > referring it as in Doc.24, along with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”. Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem. > > > ****************************************** > > > > > > -14"/century, not 43"/century, is the value obtained CORRECTING THE COOK/FRAUD. > > Yes, I have that translation. It includes this: "It is after all the clear meaning of your problem in the best order. > > It is an entirely wonderful thing, that from one so abstract an idea comes > > out such a conclusive clarification of the Mercury anomaly. > > As you see, it means that the friendly war with me, in which in spite of > > your considerable protective fire throughout the terrestrial distance, allows > > this stroll in your fantasy land." - Schwarzschild’s letter to Einstein > I wrote MANY TIMES here about the importance of Schwarzschild in the life of Einstein, between 1913 and 1915, as ADVISOR > (to the least, and probably more than that). > > 1) Schwarzschild convinced two parts to put the money for a 12 years contract (more than $ 2.4 millions in today's money). > > 2) Schwarzschild had volunteered to fight (artillery official) at the eastern front, since mid 1915. YET, he obtained A LICENSE > to witness Einstein's lecture to the Prussian Academy of Science, that day Nov. 18, 1915. That lecture was published by the > PAS one month later, with minor modifications. HE WAS THERE THAT DAY, then went back to the front and got the lethal > autoimmune skin disease that killed him 5 months later. > > 3) Schwarzschild wrote his exact solution, in polar coordinates, and sent it to Einstein 3 WEEKS LATER!!! > He had the solution beforehand, and knew tensors and curvature of space/time SINCE 1900!! > > His seminal paper "About the curvature of the universe", written and published in 1900, is considered FOUNDATIONAL for > what is today COSMOLOGY. Nobody, before him, did attempt to EXPLAIN the behavior of the whole universe (by then, it was > the Milky Way, and had a length of 10,000 ly). > > But he has half jew, and because of THIS he has been ignored by the zionist cabal on his role in GR. He volunteered being 41, > without need, just to prove THAT HE WAS A PATRIOT. And he died for this, while Einstein stole every single credit for EVERYTHING. > > Because it was, by design, that a jew had to be the new emperor of physics. Einstein sold his soul to the devil, for fame and privileges, > while Schwarzschild (unsurpassed even today) gave his life for his motherland. I think Einstein gave his soul to Zionism which he cared about much more than physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 20:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kff0n6F2biaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613343 |
On 6/20/2023 6:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 3:51:34 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 7:24:50 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> I'm quoting here what Clemence, the guy that corrected Newcomb and still is a mandatory reference, >>>> had to say about Mercury and Einstein's paper, based on his GR (1943, 1947, 1952). >>>> >>>> ************************************************************************************** >>>> Gerald Clemence ( Rev. Mod. Phys. 19, 361364, 1947) >>>> >>>> "According to general theory of relativity, the elliptical orbit of a planet referred to a Newtonian frame of reference rotates >>>> in its own plane in the same direction as the planet moves... >>>> >>>> The observations cannot be made in a Newtonian frame of reference. They are affected by the precession of the equinoxes, >>>> and the determination of the precessional motion is one of the most difficult problems of observational astronomy. >>>> >>>> It is not surprising that a difference of opinions could exist regarding the closeness of agreement of observed and >>>> theoretical motions... I am not aware that relativity is at present regarded by physicists as a theory that may be >>>> believed or not, at will. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest to present the most recent evidence on the degree of >>>> agreement between the observed and theoretical motions of the planets." >>>> ************************************************************************************** >>>> >>>> And the above was extracted from this paper of Vankov, the Russian physicist who made an incredible forensic analysis >>>> of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which WAS NOT translated to English for many decades, and still remains hard to get. Here is >>>> link to the English translation, work performed by Professor Roger Rydin from the University of Virginia, who paid much >>>> attention to linguistic fidelity and scientific adequacy of the texts. >>>> >>>> Vankov adds: "It is followed with our critical Comments concerning the rigor of Einstein’s derivation of the equation of motion >>>> and the corresponding approximate solution leading to the perihelion advance formula. The latter was obtained in numerous >>>> works later on from the Schwarzschild “exact” solution". >>>> >>>> Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” >>>> Anatoli Andrei Vankov >>>> >>>> https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf >>>> >>>> As in his other paper, of which I provided a link in the OP of this thread. >>>> >>>> >>>> It's clearly demonstrated that Einstein and partners (like the astronomer Freundlich) cooked the paper ENTIRELY, making several >>>> noticeable HACKS and subtle FUDGING of equations, just to get the Gerber's formula from 1898. His numerical calculations, don >>>> in the last page out of 12, just as a justification to prove Gerber and Newcomb values of 43"/century. What really matter is HOW >>>> he FUDGED the integral of his Eq. 11, FORCING THE RESULT to deliver +43" INSTEAD OF -14" (without the fraudulent addition of >>>> a term in front of the integral). I claimed that this fraud has been silenced FOR DECADES. >>>> >>>> EXCERPT FROM VANKOV'S CRITICS >>>> ****************************************** >>>> 2.1.1 Historical remarks >>>> Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance, Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publication that contains the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper "The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30", >>>> Einstein presents his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by >>>> referring it as in Doc.24, along with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”. Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem. >>>> ****************************************** >>>> >>>> -14"/century, not 43"/century, is the value obtained CORRECTING THE COOK/FRAUD. >>> Yes, I have that translation. It includes this: "It is after all the clear meaning of your problem in the best order. >>> It is an entirely wonderful thing, that from one so abstract an idea comes >>> out such a conclusive clarification of the Mercury anomaly. >>> As you see, it means that the friendly war with me, in which in spite of >>> your considerable protective fire throughout the terrestrial distance, allows >>> this stroll in your fantasy land." - Schwarzschild’s letter to Einstein >> I wrote MANY TIMES here about the importance of Schwarzschild in the life of Einstein, between 1913 and 1915, as ADVISOR >> (to the least, and probably more than that). >> >> 1) Schwarzschild convinced two parts to put the money for a 12 years contract (more than $ 2.4 millions in today's money). >> >> 2) Schwarzschild had volunteered to fight (artillery official) at the eastern front, since mid 1915. YET, he obtained A LICENSE >> to witness Einstein's lecture to the Prussian Academy of Science, that day Nov. 18, 1915. That lecture was published by the >> PAS one month later, with minor modifications. HE WAS THERE THAT DAY, then went back to the front and got the lethal >> autoimmune skin disease that killed him 5 months later. >> >> 3) Schwarzschild wrote his exact solution, in polar coordinates, and sent it to Einstein 3 WEEKS LATER!!! >> He had the solution beforehand, and knew tensors and curvature of space/time SINCE 1900!! >> >> His seminal paper "About the curvature of the universe", written and published in 1900, is considered FOUNDATIONAL for >> what is today COSMOLOGY. Nobody, before him, did attempt to EXPLAIN the behavior of the whole universe (by then, it was >> the Milky Way, and had a length of 10,000 ly). >> >> But he has half jew, and because of THIS he has been ignored by the zionist cabal on his role in GR. He volunteered being 41, >> without need, just to prove THAT HE WAS A PATRIOT. And he died for this, while Einstein stole every single credit for EVERYTHING. >> >> Because it was, by design, that a jew had to be the new emperor of physics. Einstein sold his soul to the devil, for fame and privileges, >> while Schwarzschild (unsurpassed even today) gave his life for his motherland. > I think Einstein gave his soul to Zionism which he cared about much more than physics. "He denied the existence of a God that cares for humans, he argued that there is nothing divine about morality, he did not believe in any holy Scriptures, he had no faith in religious teachings, he rejected the authority of all churches and temples, he belonged to no congregation, he denied the existence of souls, life after death, divine rewards or punishments." <https://notevenpast.org/was-einstein-really-religious-0/#:~:text=He%20denied%20the%20existence%20of,the%20existence%20of%20souls%2C%20life> "Einstein was a prominent supporter of Labor Zionism for Israel, and also advocated Arab–Jewish cooperation after the outbreak of the Arab– Israeli conflict." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web