On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:04:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:57:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:07:34 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > For more than 170 years, the influence of planets on the advance of Mercury's
> > > > > perihelion has been computed using, most of the time, Gauss torus gravity
> > > > > formulae. Only since the '60s, with the advent of computers powerful enough,
> > > > > new algorithms and direct numerical calculations have been used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, the most known tables: Le Verrier (1854), Newcomb (1895), Clemence
> > > > > (1947) and Park (2017) share a common hypocrisy:
> > > > >
> > > > > All of them use infinite speed of gravity to compute the influence of planets
> > > > > on Mercury's perihelion advance, except for the 300,000 Km/s speed for the
> > > > > influence of the Sun over Mercury (spacetime), since Einstein's 1915.
> > > > >
> > > > > And all the tables, since 1895, assign 532"/cy to Newtonian influence, using
> > > > > INFINITE speed of gravity, and 43"/cy to GR spacetime twisted and bent at
> > > > > c speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the popularized tables, averaging 575"/cy, have similar values since 1895:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Merc-Venus pull, arcsec/orbit): 3.15E-02 ; Distance (light-sec): 167.7
> > > > > 2) Merc-Earth pull, arcsec/orbit): 1.03E-02 ; Distance (light-sec): 305.6
> > > > > 3) Merc-Mars pull, arcsec/orbit): 2.82E-04 ; Distance (light-sec): 566.8
> > > > > 4) Merc-Jupiter pull, arcsec/orbit): 1.75E-02 ; Distance (light-sec): 2,401.3
> > > > > 5) Merc-Saturn pull, arcsec/orbit): 8.32E-04 ; Distance (light-sec): 4,571.6
> > > > > 6) Merc-Uranus pull, arcsec/orbit): 1.62E-05 ; Distance (light-sec): 9,390.4
> > > > > 7) Merc-Neptune pull, arcsec/orbit): 4.82E-06 ; Distance (light-sec): 14,821.8
> > > > > 8) GR influence, arcsec/orbit): 4.89E-03, ; Distance (light-sec): 0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, have relativists no shame?
> > > > >
> > > > > They mix Newton's influence of about 532"/cy, with gravity acting at
> > > > > INFINITE speed plus an additional 8% (43"/cy) acting at c speed, with
> > > > > no remorse. Pure hypocrisy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The real problems are:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) GR is an HOAX, and the 43"/cy (even disputed by old and modern
> > > > > scholars), remain written in stone since the 1915 paper.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) No matter which adjustment is made on the total gravitational pull,
> > > > > it's fixed that work in this way:
> > > > >
> > > > > Newton's influence/cy + UNKNOWNS + 43"/cy = 575.3"/cy
> > > > >
> > > > > The last publicized table (2017, Park et all) made UNKNOWNS = 0,
> > > > > assigning errors to computes in solar oblateness.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the INFINITE speed of gravity is not questioned at all in the result
> > > > > of 5.3231 arcsec/year.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any comment, indoctrinated relativists?
> > > > As I thought, not a single idea come out to refute anything on the OP.
> > >
> > > That's because your post is nonsense, as usual, and people who know
> > > this stuff simply get bored of posting the obvious sometimes. We also
> > > have other, frequently much more interesting, things to do.
> > >
> > > > Relativity is an HOAX,
> > >
> > > Again, nonsense. Meaning that it's not even wrong, it's just complete
> > > meaningless conceptual chaos. Relativity CAN be critiques, just like
> > > any other theory (not only in physics) but it takes knowledge and
> > > brains to do it. It cannot be done by pretending a monomania refers
> > > to a real thing.
> > >
> > > One more time: see a doctor. There is something odd going on with
> > > your emotional responses to certain facets of everyday life.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > i don't don't if you are 'self-aware' Jan, but you beginning to sound
> > like you're always talking about yourself...
> Repeating what I say is a cheap shot. Anybody can do it.
> > maybe...YOU...are the one who is searching for a new hobby, or whish you
> > had one many moons ago.
> No. It's very simple: I know this stuff. That's all there is to it.
>
> --
> Jan
YOU KNOW THIS STUFF???? You were the first chump to turn tail and run from the BBP.

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