The JPL Horizons on-line ephemeris system provides access to solar system data and customizable production of accurate ephemerides for observers, mission-planners, researchers, and the public, by numerically characterizing the location, motion, and observability of solar system objects as a function of time, as seen from locations within the solar system.

Available objects include 1,229,000+ asteroids, 3822 comets, 211 natural satellites, all planets, the Sun, 202 spacecraft, and several dynamical points such as Earth-Sun L1, L2, L4, L5, Earth-Moon L1, L2, L4, L5 and planetary system barycenters. Ephemerides, lighting, and visibility for points on the surface of distant bodies may also be generated.

Over 2300 predefined Earth station locations (observatories) are available, from which to generate relative ephemerides. Users may define their own topocentric observing site coordinates on any planet or natural satellite having a known rotational model, if the desired site is not predefined.

All the data is based on Kepler/Newton, without a trace of relativity, and is
used freely by amateurs or researches to obtain ephemerides with resolution
from 1 minute, 1 hour or 1 day, covering a time span of 20,000 years.

Major resolution in time is available under request. Data can be downloaded
in different formats, coordinate centers and target bodies (like Mercury).

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/

NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF RELATIVITY, IN PARTICULAR GR.

As this site, dedicated to the Solar System, is used worldwide and has
equivalents in ESA and Roscosmos, is valid to ask WHY GR is ignored,
if data provided has a resolution of 16 DECIMAL DIGITS for every parameter
of orbits of the 1.2+ million objects.

This site represents the value of TRUE SCIENCE, against the crap of GR.

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:04:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> All the data is based on Kepler/Newton, without a trace of relativity...

From the technical report on that site:

"This section presents the dynamical models of the planetary and lunar ephemerides... The point-mass interaction between planetary bodies is governed by the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formulation (Will and Nordtvedt, 1972; Moyer 2003)

[Equation 27, the general relativity post-Newtonian formula]

where the summations are over all bodies, and beta and gamma are the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters representing the measure of nonlinearity in the superposition law for gravity and the amount of space curvature produced by a unit rest mass, respectively, and are constrained to unity as predicted by the general theory of relativity (GTR)."

> This site represents the value of TRUE SCIENCE...

Indeed.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:05:45 AM UTC-3, Bill wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:04:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > All the data is based on Kepler/Newton, without a trace of relativity....
>
> From the technical report on that site:
>
> "This section presents the dynamical models of the planetary and lunar ephemerides... The point-mass interaction between planetary bodies is governed by the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formulation (Will and Nordtvedt, 1972; Moyer 2003)
>
> [Equation 27, the general relativity post-Newtonian formula]
>
> where the summations are over all bodies, and beta and gamma are the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters representing the measure of nonlinearity in the superposition law for gravity and the amount of space curvature produced by a unit rest mass, respectively, and are constrained to unity as predicted by the general theory of relativity (GTR)."
>
> > This site represents the value of TRUE SCIENCE...
>
> Indeed.

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/approx_pos.html

Approximate Positions of the Planets

Lower accuracy formulae for planetary positions have a number of important applications when one doesn’t need the full accuracy of an integrated ephemeris. They are often used in observation scheduling, telescope pointing, and prediction of certain phenomena as well as in the planning and design of spacecraft missions.

Approximate positions of the planets may be found by using Keplerian formulae with their associated elements and rates. Such elements are not intended to represent any sort of mean; they are simply the result of being adjusted for a best fit. As such, it must be noted that the elements are not valid outside the given time-interval over which they were fit.

High precision ephemerides for the planets are available via the Horizons system.
........
Formulae for using the Keplerian elements

Keplerian elements given in the tables below are

1. semi-major axis [au, au/century]
2. eccentricity
3. inclination [degrees, degrees/century]
4. mean longitude [degrees, degrees/century]
5. longitude of perihelion [degrees, degrees/century]
6. longitude of the ascending node [degrees, degrees/century]

***********************************************

This SIX Keplerian elements are the basis for the entire construction of the algorithms built in the Horizons software.

The formulae to generate them are based on the developments explained in the same page, and have been used for MORE THAN 200 YEARS!

QUOTE:
In order to obtain the coordinates of one of the planets at a given Julian ephemeris date, T_eph,

1) Compute the value of each of that planet's six elements:
2) Compute the argument of perihelion, w , and the mean anomaly, M.
3) Obtain the eccentric anomaly E, by recursion.
4) Compute the planet's heliocentric coordinates in its orbital plane, x', y', z'.
5) Compute the coordinates, (x_ecl, y_ecl, z_ecl) , in the J2000 ecliptic plane, with the x-axis aligned toward the equinox.
6) If desired, obtain the equatorial coordinates in the "ICRF" or "J2000 frame", (x_eq y_eq, z_eq)
END QUOTE

FAQ QUOTE:
Q: I want to write my own solar system "calculator". Where do I find the relevant equations?

A: The following books provide fundamental equations used in celestial mechanics.

“Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac”, ed. P. K. Seidelmann, 1992, University Science Books.
“Fundamentals of Astrodynamics”, R.R. Bate, D.D. Mueller, J.E. White, 1971, Dover Publications, Inc.
“Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics”, J.M.A. Danby, 1992, Willmann-Bell.
“Methods of Orbit Determination for the Micro Computer”, D. Boulet, 1991, Willmann-Bell.
“Orbital Mechanics”, J.E. Prussing, B.A. Conway, 1993, Oxford University Press.
“Orbits for Amateurs with a Microcomputer”, D. Tattersfield, 1984, Halsted Press.
“Spherical Astronomy”, R. M. Green, 1985, Cambridge University Press.
“Vectorial Astrometry”, C.A. Murray, 1983, Adam Hilger Ltd.
END QUOTE

I've used these formulae TO VERIFY Horizons data IN THE OSCULATING MODE (classic) and made its conversion to STATE VECTORS (position, velocity).

Then, I compared each result with the OUTPUT of the Horizons database for 3 orbital periods, with 1 hour resolution (more than 6,300 lines of data), in
the OSCULATING PARAMETERS mode. Then I compared equal amount of data in the STATE VECTORS mode, with a 100% match.

These parameters, generated by Keplerian/Newtonian math, are used by thousands of observatories (in high resolution mode) and hundred of thousand
amateurs and professional in almost every country of the world, as it's the most complete online ephemerides data resource that exist.

What you wrote about, which I couldn't find in the site, is probably an alternative source of information FOR RELATIVISTS.

NASA depends on JPL to obtain data for its projects, based on Kepler-Newton..

As you can see, not a trace of GR DERIVED PPN in the four types of outputs:

1. Observer Table
2. Vector Table
3. Osculating Orbital Elements
4. Small-Body SPK File

Why don't give it a try, and also make a fact-check? It's fun, but no GR/PPN ANYWHERE (sorry for that).

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:04:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF RELATIVITY, IN PARTICULAR GR.

Dumbestfuck,

PPN is a parametrized form of GR, the same exact way as RMS and SME are parametrized forms of SR. Your ignorance is showing. Again.

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 10:18:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:04:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF RELATIVITY, IN PARTICULAR GR.
> Dumbestfuck,
>
> PPN is a parametrized form of GR, the same exact way as RMS and SME are parametrized forms of SR. Your ignorance is showing. Again.

(I think that "parameterized" and "parametrized" are two different things that are often interchanged,
i.e. whether something has a parameter or is metrized.)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:05:45 AM UTC-3, Bill wrote:

<snip>

> From the technical report on that site:
>
> "This section presents the dynamical models of the planetary and lunar ephemerides... The point-mass interaction between planetary bodies is governed by the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formulation (Will and Nordtvedt, 1972; Moyer 2003)
>
> [Equation 27, the general relativity post-Newtonian formula]
>
> where the summations are over all bodies, and beta and gamma are the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters representing the measure of nonlinearity in the superposition law for gravity and the amount of space curvature produced by a unit rest mass, respectively, and are constrained to unity as predicted by the general theory of relativity (GTR)."

<snip>

Didn't cost too much for me to find out from WHERE your BIASED post was quoting the first paragraph. As usual, for a DECEIVING RELATIVIST LIKE YOU,
you tried to pass the above info AS IF it was declared within the JPL Horizons website.

Your post is A LIE, A DECEPTIVE ATTEMPT to discredit my fact-based assertion that JPL Horizons is based ONLY on Kepler-Newton, which IS TRUE.

Your post IS FALSE. I don't understand why did you write such string of lies.

This is the PAPER from which your comment was extracted:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/abd414

Go to section "3.1. Point-mass Acceleration" and your quote is there, exactly 100% equal.

But what you DON'T MENTION, which shows your true colors as a shill/troll, is that the paper:

"The JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE440 and DE441"
Ryan S. Park, William M. Folkner, James G. Williams, and Dale H. Boggs
Published 2021 February 8 • © 2021 Published by The American Astronomical Society. "

is a work based on PPN, using keplerian data provided by NASA JPL, and is RESEARCH in applying linearized GR equations.

Why did you lie? I can't understand your motives. This is the final closure of the paper:

"The authors would like to thank A. Konopliv, R. Jacobson, J. Border, D. Jones, T. Morely, and F Budnik for providing some of the data used to compute DE440 and DE441. This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Government sponsorship is acknowledged."

They are stating clearly that the paper provided a new calculation of ephemerides to replace DE430 (previous general-purpose ephemerides released in 2014).

Also, this work IS UNRELATED TO JPL Horizons database which, at any case, was the source of Keplerian/Newtonian data, which they used to compute
ephemerides by using PPN equations (linearized GR).

Do you understand, troll?

Your initial comment: "From the technical report on that site" is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. You lied in order to discredit the OP, but it turns out that
you discredited yourself, showing that you are a fucking liar and deceitful relativist, with a shill MO in order to twist the truth.

Nothing different from what many thousands of cretins did, before you, in the last 100 years.

You are a supporter of FAKE SCIENCE: RELATIVISM.

This is the basis of osculating orbital parameters for elliptical motion: A Keplerian-Newtonian model, as used by JPL Horizons database:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Major-parameters-of-an-elliptical-orbit_fig4_229022121

Periodically, JPL Horizons recompute basic parameters, based on thousands of observations made on Earth (optical, radioastronomy), and
by different observatories in orbit and specific satellites. It applies to most of the major bodies in the database. Example of curve fitting:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Observations-and-model-orbits-are-shown-for-two-representative-systems-from-those_fig1_372416658

Using equations perfected for 200 years, since Euler's rotations of reference planes, data is modified in almost real time.

This is an example of data on semi-major axis "a" and eccentricity "e" for Mercury, in an interval of 4 hours:

Julian Date.............................Date................................a (Km)..................... e
2460195,25000000 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 18: 57909248,74878 0,20563272552
2460195,20833333 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 17: 57909248,42255 0,20563273224
2460195,29166666 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 19: 57909249,07077 0,20563271879
2460195,16666666 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 16: 57909248,09210 0,20563273896

The enormous amount of decimal digits is due to the results of elliptical curve fitting by using thousands of observations of different sources.

And this information, which is online, is generated by algorithms perfected for more than 20/25 years.

And yet, this information is "LOW RESOLUTION". If you want "HIGH RESOLUTION" you have to download binary files and use specific software, which is free.

Kepler-Newton RULES. GR is a fucking joke.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 3:32:56 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is the basis of osculating orbital parameters for elliptical motion: A Keplerian-Newtonian model, as used by JPL Horizons database:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Major-parameters-of-an-elliptical-orbit_fig4_229022121
>
> Periodically, JPL Horizons recompute basic parameters, based on thousands of observations made on Earth (optical, radioastronomy), and
> by different observatories in orbit and specific satellites. It applies to most of the major bodies in the database. Example of curve fitting:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Observations-and-model-orbits-are-shown-for-two-representative-systems-from-those_fig1_372416658
>
> Using equations perfected for 200 years, since Euler's rotations of reference planes, data is modified in almost real time.
>
> This is an example of data on semi-major axis "a" and eccentricity "e" for Mercury, in an interval of 4 hours:
>
> Julian Date.............................Date.................................a (Km)..................... e
> 2460195,25000000 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 18: 57909248,74878 0,20563272552
> 2460195,20833333 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 17: 57909248,42255 0,20563273224
> 2460195,29166666 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 19: 57909249,07077 0,20563271879
> 2460195,16666666 A.D. 2023-Sep-07 16: 57909248,09210 0,20563273896
>
> The enormous amount of decimal digits is due to the results of elliptical curve fitting by using thousands of observations of different sources.
>
> And this information, which is online, is generated by algorithms perfected for more than 20/25 years.
>
> And yet, this information is "LOW RESOLUTION". If you want "HIGH RESOLUTION" you have to download binary files and use specific software, which is free.
>
>
> Kepler-Newton RULES. GR is a fucking joke.

My mistake. I posted data that was not correctly classified. This is a real example:

Julian Date.............................Date.................................a (Km)..................... e
2460213,58333333.......A.D. 2023-Sep-26 02:.......57909092,6205815....0,2056293251622
2460213,62500000.......A.D. 2023-Sep-26 03:.......57909092,3208225....0,2056293209803
2460213,54166666.......A.D. 2023-Sep-26 01:.......57909092,9234421....0,2056293293836
2460213,66666666.......A.D. 2023-Sep-26 04:.......57909092,0241722....0,2056293168379

On 10/8/23 12:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> (I think that "parameterized" and "parametrized" are two different
> things that are often interchanged, i.e. whether something has a
> parameter or is metrized.)

You are wrong. The second is merely a misspelling of the f1rst. Or a typo.

Tom Roberts

One proof that JPL Horizons online database provides PURE Kepler-Newton data;

PERIHELION ADVANCE DURING THREE ORBITAL PERIODS IS PRACTICALLY ZERO ARCSECONDS.

DATA:

1) Mercury's orbital period: 87.96923544 days (average for 2,953 samples between 2023-Jul-10 00:00 and 2023-Nov-10 00:00)
2) Mercury's perihelion advance per orbit: 0.0000734570 arcsec/orbit.

3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.

As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL. The
residual of 2), which is 1,400+ times lower than what was used in GR by 1915, demonstrates that orbits (Mercury's one in this case) are
PURE NEWTONIAN, as the advance of perihelion of Mercury/orbit is EXACTLY 360°, which shows a NULL PRECESSION.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 4:19:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.

Dumbestfuck

0.43 arcsec/year is the DIFFERENCE between the Newtonan prediction and the measured value. You have put your foot in your mouth once again.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:49:50 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Dumbestfuck
>
> 0.43 arcsec/year is the DIFFERENCE between the Newtonan prediction and the measured value. You have put your foot in your mouth once again.

Dyslexic imbecile, that was exactly my point since the OP. NASA

It seems that you persist with your old traits like a true shill, troll and stupid romanian gypsy. Never one true word written by you, cretin relativist.

JPL Horizons online database delivers results based on Kepler-Newton, not GR-PPN.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:31:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:49:50 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Dumbestfuck
> >
> > 0.43 arcsec/year is the DIFFERENCE between the Newtonan prediction and the measured value. You have put your foot in your mouth once again.
> Dyslexic imbecile,

Nice new signature, Dick

> that was exactly my point since the OP. NASA

You are not only an imbecile, you are an imbecile and a liar. Your sniped you own point, here it is again:

> 3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year

> JPL Horizons online database delivers results based on Kepler-Newton, not GR-PPN.

You are lying. Again. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:31:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > JPL Horizons online database delivers results based on Kepler-Newton, not GR-PPN.
> You are lying. Again. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

I repeat my previous post. No lies, just pure data computed from JPL Horizons database.

I provided enough information so that an imbecile like you can do a fact-check, lazy dog.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/2WGF6G3hB2c/m/6Rab-uEGBAAJ

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:19:12 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> One proof that JPL Horizons online database provides PURE Kepler-Newton data;
>
> PERIHELION ADVANCE DURING THREE ORBITAL PERIODS IS PRACTICALLY ZERO ARCSECONDS.
>
> DATA:
>
> 1) Mercury's orbital period: 87.96923544 days (average for 2,953 samples between 2023-Jul-10 00:00 and 2023-Nov-10 00:00)
> 2) Mercury's perihelion advance per orbit: 0.0000734570 arcsec/orbit.
>
> 3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.
>
> As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL. The
> residual of 2), which is 1,400+ times lower than what was used in GR by 1915, demonstrates that orbits (Mercury's one in this case) are
> PURE NEWTONIAN, as the advance of perihelion of Mercury/orbit is EXACTLY 360°, which shows a NULL PRECESSION.

Both Paul Andersen and I have demonstrated that Mercury's perihelion shift
is variable over time. The perihelion forwards and backwards depending on
the precise alignment of the other planets, only ON AVERAGE advancing.

If I remember correctly, Paul's results are somewhat better than mine, since
he used precise orbital elements, whereas I was more approximate in my
approach.

One way or another, your objections are just plain stupid.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:44:49 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/8/23 12:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > (I think that "parameterized" and "parametrized" are two different
> > things that are often interchanged, i.e. whether something has a
> > parameter or is metrized.)
> You are wrong. The second is merely a misspelling of the f1rst. Or a typo..
>
> Tom Roberts

Alright then if I make it a word then I'll define it thusly.

Hey thanks Dr. Roberts, thanks for your time and your opinion.

I don't suppose you care to get into "pseudomomentum" then.

There are at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,
completeness or gaplessness of the real numbers, while most
people only have one, after all the formalism arising from axiomatic
set theory and descriptive set theory and the real numbers of a
continuum of real numbers. I.e. they were only provided one and
left off that there are others with their own suitable formalisms,
then that much later it makes for "Jordan measure" and "Dirichlet problem"
why in the derivations such things pretty much need be, but, unfortunately,
then they don't agree with their own earlier derivations. It seems sort of
the same when trying to resolve that "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local",
space-time has magmas as it were, and with respect to anything its curvature,
it's a lattice and straight and flat.

About the ephemeris, there are lots of parameters. About the metrizing,
it's whatever solves the field equations.

It tooks a lot of time for "dark matter has hit six sigmas", then that also
"well it looks like MOND and not really inverse square" sort of adds up.

That theories of potential are somehow more true, it's a thing, about
fall gravity and asymptotic freedom and getting GR and QM back together.

So, the "metrized" and "metrizing" as of "ultra-filters" in mathematics
is its own thing, and sometimes they use "para-metrizing" particularly,
if on the mathematics side. Agreeably it should be left off as confusing.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:14:00 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Both Paul Andersen and I have demonstrated that Mercury's perihelion shift
> is variable over time. The perihelion forwards and backwards depending on
> the precise alignment of the other planets, only ON AVERAGE advancing.
>
> If I remember correctly, Paul's results are somewhat better than mine, since
> he used precise orbital elements, whereas I was more approximate in my
> approach.
>
> One way or another, your objections are just plain stupid.

Typo
"The perihelion forwards and backwards"
should be
"The perihelion moves forwards and backwards"

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:50:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:31:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > JPL Horizons online database delivers results based on Kepler-Newton, not GR-PPN.
> > You are lying. Again. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.
> I repeat my previous post.

Repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it true, it just make you douly idiotic.

> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/2WGF6G3hB2c/m/6Rab-uEGBAAJ

Referring to your prior imbecilities is not a valid reference, it is just reinforcing the fact that you are a crank.

Den 09.10.2023 01:19, skrev Richard Hertz:
> One proof that JPL Horizons online database provides PURE Kepler-Newton data;
>
> PERIHELION ADVANCE DURING THREE ORBITAL PERIODS IS PRACTICALLY ZERO ARCSECONDS.
>
> DATA:
>
> 1) Mercury's orbital period: 87.96923544 days (average for 2,953 samples between 2023-Jul-10 00:00 and 2023-Nov-10 00:00)

That is 123 days, so Mercury will pass perihelion maximum twice.
That means that the perihelion advance can only be measured
for one orbit.

> 2) Mercury's perihelion advance per orbit: 0.0000734570 arcsec/orbit.

The advance is measured for one particular orbit.
And as a wise person like you will know, will the advance
vary a lot from one orbit to the next.

I have simulated the Solar System.
The result for the perihelion advance of Mercury (the first 100 years):

https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/AdvanceOfMercury.pdf

You can see the advance for the first 24 orbits here:

https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/FirstAdvance.pdf

Note that the advance per orbit varies between +14.5" and -5.9,
and among these 24 orbits the smallest advance is 0.6".
So it isn't very remarkable that the advance may be very small
for some orbits.

The reason for the variation is that the pull from the other
planets will vary a lot depending on the distance to them,
particularly Venus and Jupiter.

You can't fail to understand this if you think, or can you?

>
> 3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.

If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html

But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.

So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be
532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.

I don't have to tell you which of them is in
accordance with observations.

>
> As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL.

Good grief, Richard.
Are you really so naive that you think that there
is no advance of Mercury's perihelion? :-D

Your ignorance never cease to amaze.

https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:41:27 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> I have simulated the Solar System.
> The result for the perihelion advance of Mercury (the first 100 years):
>
> https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/AdvanceOfMercury.pdf
>
> You can see the advance for the first 24 orbits here:
>
> https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/FirstAdvance.pdf
>
> Note that the advance per orbit varies between +14.5" and -5.9,
> and among these 24 orbits the smallest advance is 0.6".
> So it isn't very remarkable that the advance may be very small
> for some orbits.
>
> The reason for the variation is that the pull from the other
> planets will vary a lot depending on the distance to them,
> particularly Venus and Jupiter.
>
> You can't fail to understand this if you think, or can you?

It's rather remarkable what Richard can think.

> > 3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.
> If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
> GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century.
>
> See:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
> https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html
>
> But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
> advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
> bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.
>
> So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be
> 532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.
>
> I don't have to tell you which of them is in
> accordance with observations.
> >
> > As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL.
> Good grief, Richard.
> Are you really so naive that you think that there
> is no advance of Mercury's perihelion? :-D
>
> Your ignorance never cease to amaze.
>
> https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
> https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar

Richard appears to have been at one time a competent
electrical engineer. What is is about retired electrical engineers
that leads them to the loss of all the critical faculties that they
must once upon a time have possessed?

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 00:48:55 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:41:27 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> > I have simulated the Solar System.
> > The result for the perihelion advance of Mercury (the first 100 years):
> >
> > https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/AdvanceOfMercury.pdf
> >
> > You can see the advance for the first 24 orbits here:
> >
> > https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/FirstAdvance.pdf
> >
> > Note that the advance per orbit varies between +14.5" and -5.9,
> > and among these 24 orbits the smallest advance is 0.6".
> > So it isn't very remarkable that the advance may be very small
> > for some orbits.
> >
> > The reason for the variation is that the pull from the other
> > planets will vary a lot depending on the distance to them,
> > particularly Venus and Jupiter.
> >
> > You can't fail to understand this if you think, or can you?
> It's rather remarkable what Richard can think.
> > > 3) GR prediction: 0.43 arcsec/year OR 0.103564055 arcsec/orbit.
> > If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
> > GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century.
> >
> > See:
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html
> >
> > But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
> > advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
> > bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.
> >
> > So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be
> > 532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.
> >
> > I don't have to tell you which of them is in
> > accordance with observations.
> > >
> > > As it can see, the value 2) (coming from NASA JPL Horizons database) implies that the shift of the perihelion/orbit is almost NULL.
> > Good grief, Richard.
> > Are you really so naive that you think that there
> > is no advance of Mercury's perihelion? :-D
> >
> > Your ignorance never cease to amaze.
> >
> > https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/SolarSystem/GRSolarSystem.jar
> Richard appears to have been at one time a competent
> electrical engineer. What is is about retired electrical engineers
> that leads them to the loss of all the critical faculties that they
> must once upon a time have possessed?

Don't speak about "critical faculties", trash, The Shit
of your idiot guru is rejecting common sense and
basic [Euclidean] math, and wasn't even consistent.