On 20/06/2021 21:59, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Whereas actually Mr.Biesel's calculations yield less than 10% of the
>> observed value, as i said.
>>
> Cretinoid,
>
> Biesel's paper shows the DIFFERENCE between Newtonian and GR predictions for the advancement of the Mercury perihelion . The DIFFERENCE between the two predictions is 10%. The GR prediction agrees with measurements, the Newtonian prediction is 10% short.
> On the other hand, the difference between Newtonian and GR predictions for the starlight bending by the Sun is....100%. The measurements agree with GR and disprove Newtonian mechanics.
> Wat another (big) spoonful of shit, Keith!
>

On 27/05/2021 20:24, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 18/03/2021 19:18, Keith Stein wrote:
> >
> >>> Program "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies
>
> Newtonian constant of gravitation = 6.671281903 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2

And that's the only physical constant it is necessary to know in order
to predict the perihelion advance of every planet in the Solar system,
according to the Newtonian theory of gravitation that is.

Einstein's acolytes will claim that Einstein's theories are more
accurate than Newtons, but i don't believe there's one of them could
model the Solar system utilizing Einstein's warped space time bullshit.

So my advice girls, is take no heed of those deceivers who would tell
you that Einstein is better than Newton. Just ask to see their program
for model of the Solar system based on Einstein's warped spacetime bullshit.

or ask them exactly what physical constants are required according to
Einstein's GR? I doubt they would even know how many constants are
required , let alone their values ? RELATIVISTS !! They no NOTHING.
Don't waste your time with them, would be my advice.

keith stein

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 21:59, Dono. wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Whereas actually Mr.Biesel's calculations yield less than 10% of the
>>> observed value, as i said.
>>>
>> Cretinoid,
>>
>> Biesel's paper shows the DIFFERENCE between Newtonian and GR predictions
>> for the advancement of the Mercury perihelion . The DIFFERENCE between
>> the two predictions is 10%. The GR prediction agrees with measurements,
>> the Newtonian prediction is 10% short.
>> On the other hand, the difference between Newtonian and GR predictions
>> for the starlight bending by the Sun is....100%. The measurements agree
>> with GR and disprove Newtonian mechanics.
>> Wat another (big) spoonful of shit, Keith!
>>
>
>
> On 27/05/2021 20:24, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 18/03/2021 19:18, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Program "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies
>>
>> Newtonian constant of gravitation = 6.671281903 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
>
>
> And that's the only physical constant it is necessary to know in order
> to predict the perihelion advance of every planet in the Solar system,
> according to the Newtonian theory of gravitation that is.
>
> Einstein's acolytes will claim that Einstein's theories are more
> accurate than Newtons, but i don't believe there's one of them could
> model the Solar system utilizing Einstein's warped space time bullshit.
>
> So my advice girls, is take no heed of those deceivers who would tell
> you that Einstein is better than Newton. Just ask to see their program
> for model of the Solar system based on Einstein's warped spacetime bullshit.
>
> or ask them exactly what physical constants are required according to
> Einstein's GR? I doubt they would even know how many constants are
> required , let alone their values ? RELATIVISTS !! They no NOTHING.
> Don't waste your time with them, would be my advice.
>
> keith stein
>

How little you know, Mr. Stein. You were educated to do one kind of task
over and over again, and so this is the one thing you believe should be
enough to do anything.

You do not know that G is the only constant that enters into GR besides c.
This is the same constant Newton used but didn’t know the value of.

You do not know that GR is perfectly as suited to solving the solar system
numerically as Newton’s law is. You do not know where to find such
simulations and so you insist they do mot exist.

The only one in this conversation who does nothing with GR is you, Mr.
Stein. Oh, maybe Woz too, but he doesn’t do any physics at all.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 13:45:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 20/06/2021 21:59, Dono. wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Whereas actually Mr.Biesel's calculations yield less than 10% of the
> >>> observed value, as i said.
> >>>
> >> Cretinoid,
> >>
> >> Biesel's paper shows the DIFFERENCE between Newtonian and GR predictions
> >> for the advancement of the Mercury perihelion . The DIFFERENCE between
> >> the two predictions is 10%. The GR prediction agrees with measurements,
> >> the Newtonian prediction is 10% short.
> >> On the other hand, the difference between Newtonian and GR predictions
> >> for the starlight bending by the Sun is....100%. The measurements agree
> >> with GR and disprove Newtonian mechanics.
> >> Wat another (big) spoonful of shit, Keith!
> >>
> >
> >
> > On 27/05/2021 20:24, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18/03/2021 19:18, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Program "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies
> >>
> >> Newtonian constant of gravitation = 6.671281903 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
> >
> >
> > And that's the only physical constant it is necessary to know in order
> > to predict the perihelion advance of every planet in the Solar system,
> > according to the Newtonian theory of gravitation that is.
> >
> > Einstein's acolytes will claim that Einstein's theories are more
> > accurate than Newtons, but i don't believe there's one of them could
> > model the Solar system utilizing Einstein's warped space time bullshit.
> >
> > So my advice girls, is take no heed of those deceivers who would tell
> > you that Einstein is better than Newton. Just ask to see their program
> > for model of the Solar system based on Einstein's warped spacetime bullshit.
> >
> > or ask them exactly what physical constants are required according to
> > Einstein's GR? I doubt they would even know how many constants are
> > required , let alone their values ? RELATIVISTS !! They no NOTHING.
> > Don't waste your time with them, would be my advice.
> >
> > keith stein
> >
> How little you know, Mr. Stein. You were educated to do one kind of task
> over and over again, and so this is the one thing you believe should be
> enough to do anything.
>
> You do not know that G is the only constant that enters into GR besides c..
> This is the same constant Newton used but didn’t know the value of.
>
> You do not know that GR is perfectly as suited to solving the solar system
> numerically as Newton’s law is.

A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic scum; ask
Tom or Jan - your Shit can't even provide a consistent
set of coordinates for the task.
Solar system is still solved Euclidean way, announced
wrong by your idiot guru.

On 19/06/2021 20:15, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Read Mr.Biesel's paper Mr.Bodkin. He performs two lengthy calculations
>> of the Newtonian prediction, and in both cases obtains a value for the
>> Newtonian prediction of the perihelion advance of Mercury as exactly
>> ZERO, and when you add that to his relativistic calculation one obtains
>> exactly: " 43.084 arcseconds per century.".
>
> You misunderstand. As it says in the introduction, that little pdf file discusses the perihelion precession "when the influences due to other planets have already all been accounted for". In general, the total precession of a planet's orbit is due to the interaction of that planet with the Sun and with the other planets. So we can compute NewtonTotal = NewtonSun + NewtonPlanets, and we can also compute GRTotal = GRSun + GRPlanets. Now, because the planets exert a relatively weak gravitational effect, it can be shown that the difference between NewtonPlanets and GRPlanets is very close to zero (as confirmed by careful calculations, see below), so the difference between NewtonTotal and GRTotal is essentially equal to the difference between NewtonSun and GRSun. As noted in the pdf file, we have NewtonSun = 0, so the difference between NewtonTotal and GRTotal is essentially just GRSun, which is about 43 arcsec/century. When people talk about the "Newtonian contribution to the precession" they are really referring to the effect of the other planets, and that effect is virtually the same, whether you compute it using Newtonian theory or general relativity.
>
>> Fact is neither you nor anyone has a program for simulating the
>> Solar System without utilising Newton's Law of Gravitation,
>
> That's not true at all. Calculations of celestial mechanics, including the solar system, have been performed many times using the post-Newtonian formulas based on general relativity. (Einstein himself, along with Infeld, developed one of the first sets of simulation formulas for numerical calculations.) In fact, high precision calculations have been made for the solar system using the PPN parameterization, to test the goodness of fit to the parameters of general relativity versus competitor theories such as the Brans-Dicke theory. The results confirmed general relativity to high precision. But, again, for many practical purposes involving the solar system (weak slow limit), the difference between Newtonian theory and general relativity are negligibly small, which is precisely why so much attention focused on Mercury's precession, being in the strongest field with highest speed of any planet, sufficient to (just barely) show the discrepancy between Newton and GR based on astronomical capabilities of a century ago. Of course, today with VLBI and interplanetary probes and radar we have much improved precision, and can detect the GR effects in more phenomena, not just Mercury's precession. This doesn't imply that Newtonian theory can't be used in situations where it is sufficiently accurate.
>
You really think Einstein can improve on Newton ?

"N Newtonian Gravitationally Interacting Bodies"
> FOR k = 1 TO N
> r2J(k) = 0
> FOR i = 1 TO N
> IF i = k THEN NEXT
> r2J(k)=r2J(k) + G * m(i) * (J(i) - J(k))/!J(i)-J(k)!^3
> NEXT
> J'(k) = J(k) + rJ(k)*DT
> rJ'(k) = rJ(k) + r2J(k)*DTe
> NEXT
>
> t = t + DT

Which line in the above would Einstein say was not exactly correct,
and what would Einstein claim it should be, do you think Mr.Adler ?

keith stein

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/06/2021 20:15, Arthur Adler wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> Read Mr.Biesel's paper Mr.Bodkin. He performs two lengthy calculations
>>> of the Newtonian prediction, and in both cases obtains a value for the
>>> Newtonian prediction of the perihelion advance of Mercury as exactly
>>> ZERO, and when you add that to his relativistic calculation one obtains
>>> exactly: " 43.084 arcseconds per century.".
>>
>> You misunderstand. As it says in the introduction, that little pdf file
>> discusses the perihelion precession "when the influences due to other
>> planets have already all been accounted for". In general, the total
>> precession of a planet's orbit is due to the interaction of that planet
>> with the Sun and with the other planets. So we can compute NewtonTotal
>> = NewtonSun + NewtonPlanets, and we can also compute GRTotal = GRSun +
>> GRPlanets. Now, because the planets exert a relatively weak
>> gravitational effect, it can be shown that the difference between
>> NewtonPlanets and GRPlanets is very close to zero (as confirmed by
>> careful calculations, see below), so the difference between NewtonTotal
>> and GRTotal is essentially equal to the difference between NewtonSun and
>> GRSun. As noted in the pdf file, we have NewtonSun = 0, so the
>> difference between NewtonTotal and GRTotal is essentially just GRSun,
>> which is about 43 arcsec/century. When people talk about the "Newtonian
>> contribution to the precession" they are really referring to the effect
>> of the other planets, and that effect is virtually the same, whether you
>> compute it using Newtonian theory or general relativity.
>>
>>> Fact is neither you nor anyone has a program for simulating the
>>> Solar System without utilising Newton's Law of Gravitation,
>>
>> That's not true at all. Calculations of celestial mechanics, including
>> the solar system, have been performed many times using the
>> post-Newtonian formulas based on general relativity. (Einstein himself,
>> along with Infeld, developed one of the first sets of simulation
>> formulas for numerical calculations.) In fact, high precision
>> calculations have been made for the solar system using the PPN
>> parameterization, to test the goodness of fit to the parameters of
>> general relativity versus competitor theories such as the Brans-Dicke
>> theory. The results confirmed general relativity to high precision.
>> But, again, for many practical purposes involving the solar system (weak
>> slow limit), the difference between Newtonian theory and general
>> relativity are negligibly small, which is precisely why so much
>> attention focused on Mercury's precession, being in the strongest field
>> with highest speed of any planet, sufficient to (just barely) show the
>> discrepancy between Newton and GR based on astronomical capabilities of
>> a century ago. Of course, today with VLBI and interplanetary probes and
>> radar we have much improved precision, and can detect the GR effects in
>> more phenomena, not just Mercury's precession. This doesn't imply that
>> Newtonian theory can't be used in situations where it is sufficiently accurate.
>>
>
> You really think Einstein can improve on Newton ?
>
>
> "N Newtonian Gravitationally Interacting Bodies"
>> FOR k = 1 TO N
>> r2J(k) = 0
> > FOR i = 1 TO N
> > IF i = k THEN NEXT
> > r2J(k)=r2J(k) + G * m(i) * (J(i) - J(k))/!J(i)-J(k)!^3
> > NEXT
>> J'(k) = J(k) + rJ(k)*DT
>> rJ'(k) = rJ(k) + r2J(k)*DTe
>> NEXT
>>
>> t = t + DT
>
>
> Which line in the above would Einstein say was not exactly correct,
> and what would Einstein claim it should be, do you think Mr.Adler ?
>
>
> keith stein
>

On 21/06/2021 17:19, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/06/2021 20:15, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> Read Mr.Biesel's paper Mr.Bodkin. He performs two lengthy calculations
>>>> of the Newtonian prediction, and in both cases obtains a value for the
>>>> Newtonian prediction of the perihelion advance of Mercury as exactly
>>>> ZERO, and when you add that to his relativistic calculation one obtains
>>>> exactly: " 43.084 arcseconds per century.".
>>>
>>> You misunderstand. As it says in the introduction, that little pdf file
>>> discusses the perihelion precession "when the influences due to other
>>> planets have already all been accounted for". In general, the total
>>> precession of a planet's orbit is due to the interaction of that planet
>>> with the Sun and with the other planets. So we can compute NewtonTotal
>>> = NewtonSun + NewtonPlanets, and we can also compute GRTotal = GRSun +
>>> GRPlanets. Now, because the planets exert a relatively weak
>>> gravitational effect, it can be shown that the difference between
>>> NewtonPlanets and GRPlanets is very close to zero (as confirmed by
>>> careful calculations, see below), so the difference between NewtonTotal
>>> and GRTotal is essentially equal to the difference between NewtonSun and
>>> GRSun. As noted in the pdf file, we have NewtonSun = 0, so the
>>> difference between NewtonTotal and GRTotal is essentially just GRSun,
>>> which is about 43 arcsec/century. When people talk about the "Newtonian
>>> contribution to the precession" they are really referring to the effect
>>> of the other planets, and that effect is virtually the same, whether you
>>> compute it using Newtonian theory or general relativity.
>>>
>>>> Fact is neither you nor anyone has a program for simulating the
>>>> Solar System without utilising Newton's Law of Gravitation,
>>>
>>> That's not true at all. Calculations of celestial mechanics, including
>>> the solar system, have been performed many times using the
>>> post-Newtonian formulas based on general relativity. (Einstein himself,
>>> along with Infeld, developed one of the first sets of simulation
>>> formulas for numerical calculations.) In fact, high precision
>>> calculations have been made for the solar system using the PPN
>>> parameterization, to test the goodness of fit to the parameters of
>>> general relativity versus competitor theories such as the Brans-Dicke
>>> theory. The results confirmed general relativity to high precision.
>>> But, again, for many practical purposes involving the solar system (weak
>>> slow limit), the difference between Newtonian theory and general
>>> relativity are negligibly small, which is precisely why so much
>>> attention focused on Mercury's precession, being in the strongest field
>>> with highest speed of any planet, sufficient to (just barely) show the
>>> discrepancy between Newton and GR based on astronomical capabilities of
>>> a century ago. Of course, today with VLBI and interplanetary probes and
>>> radar we have much improved precision, and can detect the GR effects in
>>> more phenomena, not just Mercury's precession. This doesn't imply that
>>> Newtonian theory can't be used in situations where it is sufficiently accurate.
>>>
>>
>> You really think Einstein can improve on Newton ?
>>
>>
>> "N Newtonian Gravitationally Interacting Bodies"
>>> FOR k = 1 TO N
>>> r2J(k) = 0
>> > FOR i = 1 TO N
>> > IF i = k THEN NEXT
>> > r2J(k)=r2J(k) + G * m(i) * (J(i) - J(k))/!J(i)-J(k)!^3
>> > NEXT
>>> J'(k) = J(k) + rJ(k)*DT
>>> rJ'(k) = rJ(k) + r2J(k)*DTe
>>> NEXT
>>>
>>> t = t + DT
>>
>>
>> Which line in the above would Einstein say was not exactly correct,
>> and what would Einstein claim it should be, do you think Mr.Adler ?
>>
>>
>> keith stein
>>

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/06/2021 17:19, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2021 20:15, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>> Read Mr.Biesel's paper Mr.Bodkin. He performs two lengthy calculations
>>>>> of the Newtonian prediction, and in both cases obtains a value for the
>>>>> Newtonian prediction of the perihelion advance of Mercury as exactly
>>>>> ZERO, and when you add that to his relativistic calculation one obtains
>>>>> exactly: " 43.084 arcseconds per century.".
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand. As it says in the introduction, that little pdf file
>>>> discusses the perihelion precession "when the influences due to other
>>>> planets have already all been accounted for". In general, the total
>>>> precession of a planet's orbit is due to the interaction of that planet
>>>> with the Sun and with the other planets. So we can compute NewtonTotal
>>>> = NewtonSun + NewtonPlanets, and we can also compute GRTotal = GRSun +
>>>> GRPlanets. Now, because the planets exert a relatively weak
>>>> gravitational effect, it can be shown that the difference between
>>>> NewtonPlanets and GRPlanets is very close to zero (as confirmed by
>>>> careful calculations, see below), so the difference between NewtonTotal
>>>> and GRTotal is essentially equal to the difference between NewtonSun and
>>>> GRSun. As noted in the pdf file, we have NewtonSun = 0, so the
>>>> difference between NewtonTotal and GRTotal is essentially just GRSun,
>>>> which is about 43 arcsec/century. When people talk about the "Newtonian
>>>> contribution to the precession" they are really referring to the effect
>>>> of the other planets, and that effect is virtually the same, whether you
>>>> compute it using Newtonian theory or general relativity.
>>>>
>>>>> Fact is neither you nor anyone has a program for simulating the
>>>>> Solar System without utilising Newton's Law of Gravitation,
>>>>
>>>> That's not true at all. Calculations of celestial mechanics, including
>>>> the solar system, have been performed many times using the
>>>> post-Newtonian formulas based on general relativity. (Einstein himself,
>>>> along with Infeld, developed one of the first sets of simulation
>>>> formulas for numerical calculations.) In fact, high precision
>>>> calculations have been made for the solar system using the PPN
>>>> parameterization, to test the goodness of fit to the parameters of
>>>> general relativity versus competitor theories such as the Brans-Dicke
>>>> theory. The results confirmed general relativity to high precision.
>>>> But, again, for many practical purposes involving the solar system (weak
>>>> slow limit), the difference between Newtonian theory and general
>>>> relativity are negligibly small, which is precisely why so much
>>>> attention focused on Mercury's precession, being in the strongest field
>>>> with highest speed of any planet, sufficient to (just barely) show the
>>>> discrepancy between Newton and GR based on astronomical capabilities of
>>>> a century ago. Of course, today with VLBI and interplanetary probes and
>>>> radar we have much improved precision, and can detect the GR effects in
>>>> more phenomena, not just Mercury's precession. This doesn't imply that
>>>> Newtonian theory can't be used in situations where it is sufficiently accurate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really think Einstein can improve on Newton ?
>>>
>>>
>>> "N Newtonian Gravitationally Interacting Bodies"
>>>> FOR k = 1 TO N
>>>> r2J(k) = 0
>>>> FOR i = 1 TO N
>>>> IF i = k THEN NEXT
>>>> r2J(k)=r2J(k) + G * m(i) * (J(i) - J(k))/!J(i)-J(k)!^3
>>>> NEXT
>>>> J'(k) = J(k) + rJ(k)*DT
>>>> rJ'(k) = rJ(k) + r2J(k)*DTe
>>>> NEXT
>>>>
>>>> t = t + DT
>>>
>>>
>>> Which line in the above would Einstein say was not exactly correct,
>>> and what would Einstein claim it should be, do you think Mr.Adler ?
>>>
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>
>

I’m guessing that you’re fishing for someone to teach you how to do a
simple program to model the time evolution of a planetary orbit using GR,
doing the numerical stepwise solving of a differential equation. Because
this is something you can relate to. But you know nothing about GR, you
know nothing about the field equations, and you have no desire to learn
anything about them on your own.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 14:32:58 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> I’m guessing that you’re fishing for someone to teach you how to do a
> simple program to model the time evolution of a planetary orbit using GR,

Remember, however, that because of time dilation idiocy
such model must vary for everyone, depending on his/her
speed, alitude and so on.