On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:31:07 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
You might have a look at the Parker Solar Probe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe>
as an illustration of the predictions of orbital accuracy that can be achieved nowadays.
It will reach it's final orbit after 7 (yes, that is seven) close encounters with Venus for gravity assist. To get all those swings right
you must navigate the thing -very- accurately. (to kilometer precision)
You can only do that if you know where everything else in the solar system is, to that precision. Here is an orbit preview, notice the 9 significant digits. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Animation_
of_Parker_Solar_Probe_trajectory.gif>
And yes, orbital prediction is that accurate, nowadays. The uncertainties are due mainly to 'asteroid noise'.
It seems to me that you are ripe for following your own advice, for you
are clearly not capable of keeping up with developments,
Jan
Thanks for the info about this solar probe, but it's unrelated to the problem of Mercury's perihelion advance.
I have no doubts about the incredible progress achieved in the last 20 years on Solar System Dynamics and better models for newtonian calculations (NOT PPN, please. Not used by anyone, except desktop physicists and astronomers).
BUT, regarding to the 166 years old enigma about Mercury, discovered by Le
Verrier, you have to consider this:
Disregarding the bias due to observations from Earth, the problem itself is to determine EXACTLY which is the influence of every planet and other solar system massive objects, like the main asteroid belt and other things
INTO the advance of the perihelion during 100 years.
To perform an ACCURATE calculation, the effects of different celestial bodies HAS TO BE COMPUTED on a daily basis for more than 365 days, INCLUDING the perturbations of one body over every each other.
Then, assuming that after calculations over 365 days completed a cycle that repeats, then multiply it by 100 to obtain the result.
BUT, consider that a model for the influence of the Sun and every planet,
their moons, asteroids, etc., IS REQUIRED.
This model has to be run into a powerful computer system, with A SOFTWARE
capable of computing more than 10 gravitational perturbations per day. And
EVERY SINGLE PERTURBATION (like Earth + Moon) has to have a separate program that compute the perturbations of EVERY OTHER celestial body within the Solar System PER DAY.
When you do the math, the main software has to include thousand of calculations per day to obtain the daily perturbation over the orbit of Mercury. And, for the safety of accuracy and precision, the program HAS TORight, and that is precisely what is done, only better.
include real data (to fact-check), obtained through observational astronomy (either Earth or space based).
(at places like JPL)
When you can SHOW ME a program with the above characteristics that, once having run ten of times to average, and that gives a missing factor of 43"/cy, I WILL BELIEVE.You can find some of the results in <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2>
Smmary: Total precession rate = 575.3100 ą 0.0015''/century,
General relativistic contribution = 42.9799 ą 0.0009''/century.
This reports on both computed data and observations made by spacecraft tracking. And yes, this is accurate to milliarcseconds.
Meanwhile, what is theoretically available in 2023, are APPROXIMATIONS.
And consider that none of the funny cosmological phenomena (like Dark Matter, galactic Black Hole, Dark Energy, etc) is yet considered.
In the time between fiction and reality, enjoy and worship GR and the Einstein icon.The so-called 'HOAX' is just you being silly,
Jan
The hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:03:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:31:07 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
You might have a look at the Parker Solar Probe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe>
as an illustration of the predictions of orbital accuracy that can be
achieved nowadays.
It will reach it's final orbit after 7 (yes, that is seven) close encounters with Venus for gravity assist. To get all those swings right
you must navigate the thing -very- accurately. (to kilometer precision)
You can only do that if you know where everything else in the solar system is, to that precision. Here is an orbit preview, notice the 9 significant digits. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Animation_
of_Parker_Solar_Probe_trajectory.gif>
And yes, orbital prediction is that accurate, nowadays. The uncertainties are due mainly to 'asteroid noise'.
It seems to me that you are ripe for following your own advice, for you
are clearly not capable of keeping up with developments,
Jan
Thanks for the info about this solar probe, but it's unrelated to the problem of Mercury's perihelion advance.
I have no doubts about the incredible progress achieved in the last 20 years on Solar System Dynamics and better models for newtonian calculations (NOT PPN, please. Not used by anyone, except desktop physicists and astronomers).
BUT, regarding to the 166 years old enigma about Mercury, discovered by Le
Verrier, you have to consider this:
Disregarding the bias due to observations from Earth, the problem itself
is to determine EXACTLY which is the influence of every planet and other
solar system massive objects, like the main asteroid belt and other things
INTO the advance of the perihelion during 100 years.
To perform an ACCURATE calculation, the effects of different celestial bodies HAS TO BE COMPUTED on a daily basis for more than 365 days, INCLUDING the perturbations of one body over every each other.
Then, assuming that after calculations over 365 days completed a cycle that repeats, then multiply it by 100 to obtain the result.
BUT, consider that a model for the influence of the Sun and every planet,
their moons, asteroids, etc., IS REQUIRED.
This model has to be run into a powerful computer system, with A SOFTWARE
capable of computing more than 10 gravitational perturbations per day. And
EVERY SINGLE PERTURBATION (like Earth + Moon) has to have a separate program that compute the perturbations of EVERY OTHER celestial body within the Solar System PER DAY.
When you do the math, the main software has to include thousand of calculations per day to obtain the daily perturbation over the orbit ofRight, and that is precisely what is done, only better.
Mercury. And, for the safety of accuracy and precision, the program HAS TO
include real data (to fact-check), obtained through observational astronomy (either Earth or space based).
(at places like JPL)
When you can SHOW ME a program with the above characteristics that, onceYou can find some of the results in <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2>
having run ten of times to average, and that gives a missing factor of 43"/cy, I WILL BELIEVE.
Smmary: Total precession rate = 575.3100 ą 0.0015''/century,
General relativistic contribution = 42.9799 ą 0.0009''/century.
This reports on both computed data and observations made by spacecraft tracking. And yes, this is accurate to milliarcseconds.
Meanwhile, what is theoretically available in 2023, are APPROXIMATIONS.
And consider that none of the funny cosmological phenomena (like Dark Matter, galactic Black Hole, Dark Energy, etc) is yet considered.
In the time between fiction and reality, enjoy and worship GR and the Einstein icon.The so-called 'HOAX' is just you being silly,
Jan
The hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
There are no fudge factors in GR.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:03:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
There are no fudge factors in GR. This is a very characteristic trait of the theory.
--
Jan
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:48:09?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:[lots of text I didn't write]
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:31:07?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Einstein's result of 43" was immediately convincing in 1916JanThe hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
precisely because it -did not- involve any fudge factors,
or as real physicist say, free parameters.
Given GR, there is no correct way of obtaining any other answer.
You are of course incompetent,
but those who did understand GR back then,
people like Planck, Lorentz, Eddington, Pauli, etc. could see that,
and did see that,
JanI don't see anything but free parameters.
Relativity is incompetent. The use of C for the speed of gravity is a free parameter without any justification from physics and as Hertz just said "using F = GMm/r? massively imply to accept that the speed of gravity is infinite seems to be, hypocritically, accepted by everyone working on
these fields." As usual I've wasted time reading your comments.
Relativity is incompetent. The use of C for the speed of gravity is a free parameter without any justification from physics and as Hertz just said "using F = GMm/r? massively imply to accept that the speed of gravity is infinite seems to be, hypocritically, accepted by everyone working on
these fields." As usual I've wasted time reading your comments.
Their is no c in the Einstein field equation.
(or anywhere else in physics)
Their is no c in the Einstein field equation.
(or anywhere else in physics)
OTOH there are a lot of factors 1 ,
Jan
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 7:47:55?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
Their is no c in the Einstein field equation.
(or anywhere else in physics)
OTOH there are a lot of factors 1 ,
Jan
In PHYSICAL UNITS, [snip irrelevancies]
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 7:47:55?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
Their is no c in the Einstein field equation.
(or anywhere else in physics)
OTOH there are a lot of factors 1 ,
Jan
In PHYSICAL UNITS, [snip irrelevancies]
Your 'physical units' contain arbitrary constants,
with conventional (human given) values, so they are unphysical.
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:Einstein uses Gerber's formula with c for the speed of gravity. I guess you missed that. That's a big oversight.
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:48:09?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:[lots of text I didn't write]
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:31:07?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Einstein's result of 43" was immediately convincing in 1916JanThe hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
precisely because it -did not- involve any fudge factors,
or as real physicist say, free parameters.
Given GR, there is no correct way of obtaining any other answer.
You are of course incompetent,
but those who did understand GR back then,
people like Planck, Lorentz, Eddington, Pauli, etc. could see that,
and did see that,
JanI don't see anything but free parameters.
Your problem.
Relativity is incompetent. The use of C for the speed of gravity is a free parameter without any justification from physics and as Hertz just said "using F = GMm/r? massively imply to accept that the speed of gravity is infinite seems to be, hypocritically, accepted by everyone working on these fields." As usual I've wasted time reading your comments.
Their is no c in the Einstein field equation.
(or anywhere else in physics)
OTOH there are a lot of factors 1 ,
Jan
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 1:57:04 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:Yes, Mei discusses changing of polar coordinates. If Jan wants to contend with the criticism without making excuses based on ad hominem then he can read him. "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the Deflection of Light in the Solar System
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:03:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:<snip>
The hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
There are no fudge factors in GR. This is a very characteristic trait of the theory.You are a LIAR and a DECEIVER, relativist.
--
Jan
Any approach to a solution using non-linear equations of GR is FULL OF FUDGING, COOKING, TRIMMING, ETC.
- Selective and dubious choice of initial parameters.
- Dismissal of terms in equations arguing that they are not significant.
- Dismissal of second degree and higher values, resorting to justifications that they are not relevant in the APPROXIMATIONS.
- Extremely questionable LINEARIZATION of equations that DON'T HAVE ANY ANALYTICAL SOLUTION.
You seem to forget that THE ONLY ONES who found an "exact" analytical solution to THE SIMPLEST PROBLEM OF GR (void universe
except a single not charged, not rotating point-like mass were Schwarzschild and Hilbert, after him.
And BOTH CHEATED, changing to polar coordinates and the PLACE OF THE ORIGIN.
None of them verified the norm in the determinant.
And THESE ACTIONS are FUDGING, COOKING, TRIMMING, ETC., even for the simplest problem of GR FE.
It took almost 50 years for another imbecile to find a solution for a non charged rotating point-like mass.
A FULL FLEDGED CRETIN like yourself is capable to sell his soul to the devil in order to defend GR.
Because you are a fucking disgrace as a scientist wannabe that embraced relativity AS YOUR RELIGION, leaving behind
the moral values of the true religion under which you were born, satanic e immoral SOB.
DECEPTION is the weapon of choice of satanic relativists like you, cretin.
On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 06:57:04 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:03:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:31:07 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
You might have a look at the Parker Solar Probe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe>
as an illustration of the predictions of orbital accuracy that can be
achieved nowadays.
It will reach it's final orbit after 7 (yes, that is seven) close encounters with Venus for gravity assist. To get all those swings right
you must navigate the thing -very- accurately. (to kilometer precision)
You can only do that if you know where everything else in the solar
system is, to that precision. Here is an orbit preview, notice the 9
significant digits. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Animation_
of_Parker_Solar_Probe_trajectory.gif>
And yes, orbital prediction is that accurate, nowadays. The uncertainties are due mainly to 'asteroid noise'.
It seems to me that you are ripe for following your own advice, for you
are clearly not capable of keeping up with developments,
Jan
It is something that very many excellent scientists have pointed out many fudge factors in GR. In fact, since GR is based on illogical premises, it necessarily results in endless nonsense.Thanks for the info about this solar probe, but it's unrelated to the
problem of Mercury's perihelion advance.
I have no doubts about the incredible progress achieved in the last 20
years on Solar System Dynamics and better models for newtonian calculations (NOT PPN, please. Not used by anyone, except desktop physicists and astronomers).
BUT, regarding to the 166 years old enigma about Mercury, discovered by Le
Verrier, you have to consider this:
Disregarding the bias due to observations from Earth, the problem itself
is to determine EXACTLY which is the influence of every planet and other
solar system massive objects, like the main asteroid belt and other things
INTO the advance of the perihelion during 100 years.
To perform an ACCURATE calculation, the effects of different celestial
bodies HAS TO BE COMPUTED on a daily basis for more than 365 days, INCLUDING the perturbations of one body over every each other.
Then, assuming that after calculations over 365 days completed a cycle
that repeats, then multiply it by 100 to obtain the result.
BUT, consider that a model for the influence of the Sun and every planet,
their moons, asteroids, etc., IS REQUIRED.
This model has to be run into a powerful computer system, with A SOFTWARE
capable of computing more than 10 gravitational perturbations per day. And
EVERY SINGLE PERTURBATION (like Earth + Moon) has to have a separate program that compute the perturbations of EVERY OTHER celestial body within the Solar System PER DAY.
When you do the math, the main software has to include thousand of calculations per day to obtain the daily perturbation over the orbit ofRight, and that is precisely what is done, only better.
Mercury. And, for the safety of accuracy and precision, the program HAS TO
include real data (to fact-check), obtained through observational astronomy (either Earth or space based).
(at places like JPL)
When you can SHOW ME a program with the above characteristics that, onceYou can find some of the results in <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2>
having run ten of times to average, and that gives a missing factor of
43"/cy, I WILL BELIEVE.
Smmary: Total precession rate = 575.3100 ą 0.0015''/century,
General relativistic contribution = 42.9799 ą 0.0009''/century.
This reports on both computed data and observations made by spacecraft tracking. And yes, this is accurate to milliarcseconds.
Meanwhile, what is theoretically available in 2023, are APPROXIMATIONS.
And consider that none of the funny cosmological phenomena (like Dark
Matter, galactic Black Hole, Dark Energy, etc) is yet considered.
In the time between fiction and reality, enjoy and worship GR and theThe so-called 'HOAX' is just you being silly,
Einstein icon.
Jan
The hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
There are no fudge factors in GR.And Jan is a queen of England.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:47:55?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:48:09?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:[lots of text I didn't write]
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:31:07?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder:
Einstein's result of 43" was immediately convincing in 1916JanThe hoax is that GR only pretends to explain it using fudge factors without physical basis.
precisely because it -did not- involve any fudge factors,
or as real physicist say, free parameters.
Given GR, there is no correct way of obtaining any other answer.
You are of course incompetent,
but those who did understand GR back then,
people like Planck, Lorentz, Eddington, Pauli, etc. could see that,
and did see that,
JanI don't see anything but free parameters.
Your problem.
Relativity is incompetent. The use of C for the speed of gravity is a free
parameter without any justification from physics and as Hertz just said "using F = GMm/r? massively imply to accept that the speed of gravity is infinite seems to be, hypocritically, accepted by everyone working on these fields." As usual I've wasted time reading your comments.
Their is no c in the Einstein field equation.
(or anywhere else in physics)
OTOH there are a lot of factors 1 ,
JanEinstein uses Gerber's formula with c for the speed of gravity. I guess
you missed that. That's a big oversight.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 41:46:07 |
Calls: | 7,791 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,918 |
Messages: | 5,748,886 |