It's well known the history of Halley's comet and how the astronomer sought
Newton's help to explain how did it behave, resulting in a most striking proof
of Newton's Law of Gravity (no hack needed, by the way).

In gratitude and in recognition of Newton's intellectual stature, Halley paid
for the expensive publication of Newton's "Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy", fact that changed the world forever.

Newton's law, applied to Halley's comet, has been accurate within +/-1 day
in 75 years (36 ppm) and the continuous corrections using N-Bodies models
are projected for the next 3,000 years (next 40 orbits).

Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path, and even more when was tried to explain the behavior of the Universe, finding that (in current cosmology) GR can't explain why half of the known
universe mass is not there, being needed the INVENTION of Dark Matter to
sustain its applicability (not to mention Dark Energy), because only 5% of
the "known Universe" mass is baryonic.

Here is one link from NASA:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/

And some excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the time of English astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), comets were believed to make only one pass through the solar system.

But in 1705, Halley used Isaac Newton's theories of gravitation and planetary motions to compute the orbits of several comets. Halley found the similarities in the orbits of bright comets reported in 1531, 1607 and 1682 and he suggested that the trio were actually a single comet making return trips. Halley correctly predicted the comet's return in 1758-1759 — 16 years after his death — and history's first known "periodic" comet was later named in his honor.

The comet has since been connected to ancient observations going back more than 2,000 years. It is featured in the famous Bayeux tapestry, which chronicles the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
................
In 1986, an international fleet spacecraft met the comet for an
unprecedented study from a variety of vantage points. The science fleet
included Japan's Suisei and Sakigake spacecraft, the Soviet Union's Vega
1 and Vega 2 (repurposed after a successful Venus mission), the
international ISEE-3 (ICE) spacecraft and the European Space Agency's
Giotto. NASA's Pioneer 7 and Pioneer 12 also contributed the the bounty
of science data collected.
................
Scientists calculate that an average periodic comet lives to complete
about 1,000 trips around the Sun. Halley has been in its present orbit
for at least 16,000 years, but it has shown no obvious signs of aging
in its recorded appearances.
...............
Comet Halley moves backward (opposite to Earth's motion) around the
Sun in a plane tilted 18 degrees to that of the Earth's orbit. Halley's
backward, or retrograde, motion is unusual among short-period comets,
as is its greatest distance from the Sun (aphelion) is beyond the orbit of
Neptune.

Halley's orbit period is, on average, 76 Earth years. This corresponds to
an orbital circumference around the Sun of about 7.6 billion miles (12.2
billion kilometers). The period varies from appearance to appearance
because of the gravitational effects of the planets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, if you want to watch a video with computed orbits for Halley's comet
and the perturbation of planets, specially Saturn, this is the link:

https://astronomynow.com/2016/07/01/chaotic-orbit-of-comet-halley-explained/

Meanwhile, for GR fanatics, Halley's comet is a forbidden name, because
it shows the fallacies of General Relativity explaining such local behavior..
Much less can be pretended by extending the use of GR, without shame, to the entire Einstein's "universe" and patches from cosmology in the last
100 years. And, even when patches pile up, it's Newton's theory what is
used in supercomputer's models to explain galaxies and clusters of
galaxies motion, in million years units in the time scale.

Shame on all of you, fanatic worshipers of GR (and also SR).

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:

> Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,

You need to stop spewing lies, odious piece of shit. GR explains the Venus orbit complete with its secular precesion, something that Newtonian gravitation cannot.

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
> > Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,
> You need to stop spewing lies, odious piece of shit. GR explains the Venus orbit complete with its secular precesion, something that Newtonian gravitation cannot.

Dono, форма життя reptile.. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, odious piece of shit Richard Hertz lied:

> Meanwhile, for GR fanatics, Halley's comet is a forbidden name, because
> it shows the fallacies of General Relativity explaining such local behavior.

You are lying, odious one. Again. Here shiteater: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/4/3576/2608575?login=true

Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?

I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:15:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, odious piece of shit Richard Hertz lied:
> > Meanwhile, for GR fanatics, Halley's comet is a forbidden name, because
> > it shows the fallacies of General Relativity explaining such local behavior.
> You are lying, odious one. Again. Here shiteater: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/4/3576/2608575?login=true
Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.
Newton örökké uralkodni fog, míg Einstein tolvaj, plágiumíró és matematikai vicc.
Newton regnerà per sempre, mentre Einstein è un ladro, un plagiatore e uno scherzo matematico.
Newton će vladati zauvijek, dok je Einstein lopov, plagijator i matematička šala.
Newton 將永遠統治，而Einstein是小偷、剽竊者和數學笑話。
سيحكم Newton إلى الأبد ، بينما Einstein هو لص ، منتحل ومزحة رياضية.

<Meanwhile, Moroney persist on his relativity credo>

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>
> I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.

Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.

My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.

Why do YOU persist in sustain a fvcking lie? Keep reading and REFUTE IT (I'll give you the next 10 years or so)

Google search: GR applied to a 3-Body problem

GENERAL ANSWER IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH:
---------------------------------------------------------
People also ask
Is there a solution to the 3 body problem?

No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies)
is possible, as the motion of the bodies quickly becomes chaotic.
---------------------------------------------------------

Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.
Use Google Translate, imbecile, and tell me how did it work (Use "detect language", idiotic reptilian lifeform)
Newton örökké uralkodni fog, míg Einstein tolvaj, plágiumíró és matematikai vicc.
Newton regnerà per sempre, mentre Einstein è un ladro, un plagiatore e uno scherzo matematico.
Newton će vladati zauvijek, dok je Einstein lopov, plagijator i matematička šala.
Newton 將永遠統治，而Einstein是小偷、剽竊者和數學笑話。
سيحكم Newton إلى الأبد ، بينما Einstein هو لص ، منتحل ومزحة رياضية.

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,

False.

> and even more when was tried to explain the behavior of the Universe, finding that (in current cosmology) GR can't explain why half of the known
> universe mass is not there, being needed the INVENTION of Dark Matter to
> sustain its applicability (not to mention Dark Energy), because only 5% of
> the "known Universe" mass is baryonic.

Yes, but this is nothing new and not just GR-specific. It's a result of us not having
a theory that would encompass both GR and QM.

So your point is moot.

> Here is one link from NASA:
>
> https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/

And?

> Shame on all of you, fanatic worshipers of GR (and also SR).

Why do the cranks here ALWAYS refer to scientists who know the stuff as
"worshipers"? Do you guys hold secret meetings to agree on the common
terminology or something?

(It's a rhetorical question, of course.)

--
Jan

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 12:17:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <Meanwhile, Moroney persist on his relativity credo>
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> >
> > I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.
> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

You don't understand this stuff and he does. What's so complicated
about that and why is it so difficult to accept? You behave like a child.

> I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.

Which you do not understand.

> My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.

The 3-body problem is unsolvable even in Newtonian mechanics. GR is
no different in that regard.

> Google search: GR applied to a 3-Body problem

Again, the 3-body problem is unsolvable in Newtonian mechanics already.
It's not GR's fault that this is a difficult problem.

> GENERAL ANSWER IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH:
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> People also ask
> Is there a solution to the 3 body problem?
>
> No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies)
> is possible, as the motion of the bodies quickly becomes chaotic.
> ---------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and this is Newtonian.

--
Jan

On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 21:28:56 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,
> False.
> > and even more when was tried to explain the behavior of the Universe, finding that (in current cosmology) GR can't explain why half of the known
> > universe mass is not there, being needed the INVENTION of Dark Matter to
> > sustain its applicability (not to mention Dark Energy), because only 5% of
> > the "known Universe" mass is baryonic.
> Yes, but this is nothing new and not just GR-specific. It's a result of us not having
> a theory that would encompass both GR and QM.
>
> So your point is moot.
> > Here is one link from NASA:
> >
> > https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/
> And?
> > Shame on all of you, fanatic worshipers of GR (and also SR).
> Why do the cranks here ALWAYS refer to scientists who know the stuff as
> "worshipers"?

Not to "scientists who know the stuff" but to a bunch
of idiots worshipping an insane ideology. That some
of you indeed are scientists and indeed know some
stuff - is independent.

On 9/23/2021 2:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
>>> Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,
>> You need to stop spewing lies, odious piece of shit. GR explains the Venus orbit complete with its secular precesion, something that Newtonian gravitation cannot.
>
> Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.
>
Should we be impressed that you know how to use Google Translate?

Jan, 30 years of your life wasted defending insanity (SR and GR). I really feel sorry for your pathetic life.
Why don't stuck your head onto programming? Or you was replaced by AI?

I want you to remember old times, when you was a punching ball for Kublee. Hilarious!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koobee Wublee

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:48:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> Tom can answer for himself but my guess is his reaction comes from years on this NG.

Koobee Wublee doubts that. Tom is thoroughly opinionated. Put it in a more scientifically oriented way,
Tom is exceedingly mystified with the fvcked religion known as SR and GR. <shrug>

> Tom and I have been here since before this group's beginning, in my case since 1991 or so.

Gee! You old timers still have not evolved. You old farts are still stuck in stone age in terms of scientific
understandings. <shrug>

> On Usenet since 1985 (at that time only academic institutions had access, so it was a rather sane place unlike
> current mental disorders zoo).

Koobee Wublee will bet that Jan cannot even do simple calculus stuff since day one. That would be since 1985.
Oh, yes, since the Bears won the Superbowl with another trouble maker known as Jim McMahon as the overly
sensational quarterback. <shrug>

> And before you get any ideas, over that entire time Tom and I exchanged e-mails only once, IIRC.

Gee! You old farts are so fvckingly ancient. Stop writing to each via US mail then. Use emails. At least, emails are free so far. <shrug>

> Simply put: to a normal sane person it is simply _astonishing_ to the Nth
> power to see people who obviously must realise they know nothing on the
> subject, yet still persist not only in creating nonsensical theories (that
> would be just fine, everyone has a hobby) but most _amazingly_ and
> _incomprehensibly_ call the others "fools", "ignorant", etc.

Koobee Wublee was totally taken by a surprise when Jan cannot do simple calculus. Well, that was Koobee Wublee's
fault, was it not? A dumb fungus exists wherever pile of dung it can grow and proliferate on. <shrug>

> (This of course includes the obligatory calling Albert Einstein names - a pathetic spectacle.)

Well, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Using any other words to describe the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
would be guilty of lying. Jan needs to get over with that reality instead of worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, a liar such as
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god. <shrug>

> It is disturbing because one imagines what if a person so _totally dishonest with himself_ gets called, say, to jury duty?
> Can you imagine?? And what's frightening is the sheer number of such people.
> On this NG the cranks easily outnumber knowledgeable people by 20:1. The same is true for other science groups.

Hmmm... Jan's babbling nonsense is quite mundane. Not only Jan cannot do simple calculus, Jan also has problems in
even simpler geometry concept. Professionally, what does Jan do?
************* Oh, just a computer technician programming z-transforms in a biotech company. Of course, the very humble
************* position does not prevent Jan from identifying itself as a scientist of some sort. <shrug>

> Of course science couldn't care less about any of this.

That is correct. Science does not care how ignorant Jan or Tom is. <shrug>

> As we say in Polish: "The dogs bark, the caravan keeps moving along just fine".

Caravans in Poland? For Jan's information, Poland is part of eastern Europe and not in some patch of desert where
the camels are the top survivors. Jan is really out of reality. It can only live happily in its own fantasy world where Jan
is free to invent its own laws of physics and proverbs. <shrug>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Jan, you believe that because you've being here for 30+ years, the SAME SHIT that you've posted tirelessly again and
again is MORE CERTAIN?

By the way, when Kublee was OWNING YOU here, it was OBVIOUS that you had access (simultaneously) to several books
or documents, which you literally PLAGIARIZED in your comments to sound more knowledgeable. Of course, it doesn't
surprise me, as it is the way your MASTER taught to you it was MORALLY CORRECT to do.

No, Jan. It's not correct. It's immoral no matter how much your perverted mind try to accept without guilt (if any neuron is left,
after 30 years of fossilization by coming here and other sites (like math) where you are not exactly admired.

By the way: do you still use z-transforms in DSP programming? Tell me something about your past years of glory in SW.

Look Jan, you received thanks three times here:

Errata for Early Printings of The C++ Programming Language (3rd Edition, 2004)
https://www.stroustrup.com/3rd_old_errata.html

And wrote THIS. Don't deny: the email direction was what you used here a decade ago.

Returning memory to the OS
Jan Bielawski <filmart@gmail.com>
https://www.thecodingforums.com/threads/returning-memory-to-the-os.701025/

SO, THAT'S WHY YOU ARE UNBEARABLE AND ARROGANT. Just a programmer like Tom,
except that he's a physicist and you are just an impostor.

Is this your son, an ENGINEER? Can't be possible! If you hate Engineers. That's why you're such a bitch?

Uninitialized Field Access Detection in Scala Language Using Static Code Analysis (2012)
https://repo.pw.edu.pl/info/bachelor/WUTe843cd2078044e2a8f3ee152eadbaf8d/

I'm done forever with you, POS. Get a life while you can. It's too late for your sidekicks here.

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:24:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 2:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
> >>> Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,
> >> You need to stop spewing lies, odious piece of shit. GR explains the Venus orbit complete with its secular precesion, something that Newtonian gravitation cannot.
> >
> > Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.
> >
> Should we be impressed that you know how to use Google Translate?

Newton 將永遠統治，而Einstein是小偷、剽竊者和數學笑話。

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> Newton 將永遠統治，而Einstein是小偷、剽竊者和數學笑話。
>
> سيحكم Newton إلى الأبد ، بينما Einstein هو لص ، منتحل ومزحة رياضية.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jan, 30 years of your life wasted defending insanity (SR and GR). I
> really feel sorry for your pathetic life.
> Why don't stuck your head onto programming? Or you was replaced by AI?
>
> I want you to remember old times, when you was a punching ball for Kublee. Hilarious!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Koobee Wublee
>
> On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:48:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
>> Tom can answer for himself but my guess is his reaction comes from years on this NG.
>
> Koobee Wublee doubts that. Tom is thoroughly opinionated. Put it in a
> more scientifically oriented way,
> Tom is exceedingly mystified with the fvcked religion known as SR and GR. <shrug>
>
>> Tom and I have been here since before this group's beginning, in my case
>> since 1991 or so.
>
> Gee! You old timers still have not evolved. You old farts are still stuck
> in stone age in terms of scientific
> understandings. <shrug>
>
>> On Usenet since 1985 (at that time only academic institutions had
>> access, so it was a rather sane place unlike
>> current mental disorders zoo).
>
> Koobee Wublee will bet that Jan cannot even do simple calculus stuff
> since day one. That would be since 1985.
> Oh, yes, since the Bears won the Superbowl with another trouble maker
> known as Jim McMahon as the overly
> sensational quarterback. <shrug>
>
>> And before you get any ideas, over that entire time Tom and I exchanged
>> e-mails only once, IIRC.
>
> Gee! You old farts are so fvckingly ancient. Stop writing to each via US
> mail then. Use emails. At least, emails are free so far. <shrug>
>
>> Simply put: to a normal sane person it is simply _astonishing_ to the Nth
>> power to see people who obviously must realise they know nothing on the
>> subject, yet still persist not only in creating nonsensical theories (that
>> would be just fine, everyone has a hobby) but most _amazingly_ and
>> _incomprehensibly_ call the others "fools", "ignorant", etc.
>
> Koobee Wublee was totally taken by a surprise when Jan cannot do simple
> calculus. Well, that was Koobee Wublee's
> fault, was it not? A dumb fungus exists wherever pile of dung it can grow
> and proliferate on. <shrug>
>
>> (This of course includes the obligatory calling Albert Einstein names -
>> a pathetic spectacle.)
>
> Well, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Using any other
> words to describe the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
> would be guilty of lying. Jan needs to get over with that reality instead
> of worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, a liar such as
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god. <shrug>
>
>> It is disturbing because one imagines what if a person so _totally
>> dishonest with himself_ gets called, say, to jury duty?
>> Can you imagine?? And what's frightening is the sheer number of such people.
>> On this NG the cranks easily outnumber knowledgeable people by 20:1. The
>> same is true for other science groups.
>
> Hmmm... Jan's babbling nonsense is quite mundane. Not only Jan cannot do
> simple calculus, Jan also has problems in
> even simpler geometry concept. Professionally, what does Jan do?
> ************* Oh, just a computer technician programming z-transforms in
> a biotech company. Of course, the very humble
> ************* position does not prevent Jan from identifying itself as a
> scientist of some sort. <shrug>
>
>> Of course science couldn't care less about any of this.
>
> That is correct. Science does not care how ignorant Jan or Tom is. <shrug>
>
>> As we say in Polish: "The dogs bark, the caravan keeps moving along just fine".
>
> Caravans in Poland? For Jan's information, Poland is part of eastern
> Europe and not in some patch of desert where
> the camels are the top survivors. Jan is really out of reality. It can
> only live happily in its own fantasy world where Jan
> is free to invent its own laws of physics and proverbs. <shrug>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, Jan, you believe that because you've being here for 30+ years, the
> SAME SHIT that you've posted tirelessly again and
> again is MORE CERTAIN?
>
> By the way, when Kublee was OWNING YOU here, it was OBVIOUS that you had
> access (simultaneously) to several books
> or documents, which you literally PLAGIARIZED in your comments to sound
> more knowledgeable. Of course, it doesn't
> surprise me, as it is the way your MASTER taught to you it was MORALLY CORRECT to do.
>
> No, Jan. It's not correct. It's immoral no matter how much your perverted
> mind try to accept without guilt (if any neuron is left,
> after 30 years of fossilization by coming here and other sites (like
> math) where you are not exactly admired.
>
> By the way: do you still use z-transforms in DSP programming? Tell me
> something about your past years of glory in SW.
>
>
>

Note that Koobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed. All that’s left of
him is this kind of jackwagon cackling. As will be true of you, Mr Retired
Engineer. Congratulations on your future legacy.

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

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Jan, 30 years of your life wasted defending insanity (SR and GR).

The only insanity is yours. And your opinion about it is not even wrong (that's
Pauli's phrase).

> I really feel sorry for your pathetic life.

Oh boo-hoo, doesn't this feel you good about yourself now?

> Why don't stuck your head onto programming? Or you was replaced by AI?

Glad to see you have no arguments left. Just a crybaby now.

--
Jan

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Note that Koobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed.

Didn't Koobee post here recently?

He was more competent than Richard but his OCD was rather bad.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Note that Koobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed.
>
> Didn't Koobee post here recently?
>
> He was more competent than Richard but his OCD was rather bad.
>
> --
> Jan
>

No, that was a spoofer, sadly.
I could be wrong but don’t think so.

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

On 9/23/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <Meanwhile, Moroney persist on his relativity credo>
>
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>
>> I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.
>
> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
Silence, imbecile! I did not give you permission to speak rudely!
>
> I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.

Yeah, tell me another one.
>
> My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.

Yes, in GR, the three body problem does not have a closed solution. It
doesn't have a closed solution in Newtonian physics, either.
>
> Why do YOU persist in sustain a fvcking lie? Keep reading and REFUTE IT (I'll give you the next 10 years or so)

What lie is that? The only liar I see here is you.

> Google search: GR applied to a 3-Body problem
>
> GENERAL ANSWER IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH:
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> People also ask
> Is there a solution to the 3 body problem?
>
> No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies)
> is possible, as the motion of the bodies quickly becomes chaotic.

That would be discussing Newtonian mechanics, of course. Rarely is the
accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per
orbit) It is true that there is no closed solution for the 3 body
problem under GR either.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
> holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per orbit)

Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at hand.
It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post findings in the BURIED
1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized copy of which is hold at Princeton,
and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.

Of course, EVERYONE tried to help to prevent the evidence that Einstein and Besso
were plagiarists, liars, deceivers and that the only honest person in that 1913-1915
trio was Marcel Grossman.

If you want to be prepared, you and your idiot relativist partners can try to anticipate
the butthurt by analyzing such document, here:

Einstein and Besso: Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382

I warn you all that the evidence about Einstein and Besso being idiots and plagiarists
is all over the document, which also shows the FAILED ATTEMPTS on light deflection
as well as the GHOSTS OF NORDSTROM AND GERBER were present there (written by
hand) in the summer of 1913: 51 pages with pure garbage and more than 400 formulae.

Also, you'll appreciate HOW they DISSECTED the theory of Nordstrom, which final formulae
differs from Gerber's formulae by an EXACT VALUE OF SIX (6), plus the intention of Einstein
(written by his hand) was to plagiarize Nordstrom AND Gerber, when he fudged it to include
the 6 factor into his use of Nordstrom formula.

That got the famous 18" that he claimed as a fail at the Prussian Academy, with his
introduction with a paper with 43", that I've mentioned here.

It will hurt your butt to witness how a couple of retarded persons had to resort to
plagiarism, because they WERE SO LOST after 51 pages of calculations that they had to
give up.

Only when the fucker stole Hilbert's work by Oct. 1915, went back to these calculations in
order to FUDGE THEM (HACKING GR) to get his famous 43".

And you come here to praise GR? INDOCTRINATED IDIOT!

The evidence is in front of your eyes now (and of every other retarded eyes).
You just have to be such LAZY DOGS (as Einstein) and start analyzing such Besso-Einstein SILENCED 51 pages.

Enjoy the ride!

P.D.: I don't believe that you have the intelligence nor the ability to do such analysis (nor JanPB, etc.).

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually
>> involving black
>> holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per
>> orbit)
>
> Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at
> hand.
> It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post
> findings in the BURIED 1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized
> copy of which is hold at Princeton,
> and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382
> I warn you all that the evidence about Einstein and Besso being idiots
> Only when the fucker stole Hilbert's work by Oct. 1915, went back to
> these calculations in order to FUDGE THEM (HACKING GR) to get his famous
> 43". And you come here to praise GR? INDOCTRINATED IDIOT!

lol, morony cant physics.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 10:16:41 AM UTC-7, pervert Richard Hertz wrote:
> I have some butter at hand. It will help to shove it up my ass, entirely,

You have a lot of experience doing that to yourself

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 10:16:41 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
> > holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per orbit)
> Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at hand.
> It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post findings in the BURIED
> 1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized copy of which is hold at Princeton,
> and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.

And you'll lose, of course.

> Of course, EVERYONE tried to help to prevent the evidence that Einstein and Besso
> were plagiarists, liars, deceivers and that the only honest person in that 1913-1915
> trio was Marcel Grossman.

Another stupid fantasy.

> If you want to be prepared, you and your idiot relativist partners can try to anticipate
> the butthurt by analyzing such document, here:

Ah, finally you utter another obligatory crank phrase (perhaps you did earlier but
I've noticed it only now): "relativist".

Of course in real life there is no such thing.

> Einstein and Besso: Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury.
>
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382

And you have no clue what it really says. As always.

> I warn you all that the evidence about Einstein and Besso being idiots and plagiarists
> is all over the document,

Nonsense.

> which also shows the FAILED ATTEMPTS on light deflection
> as well as the GHOSTS OF NORDSTROM AND GERBER were present there (written by
> hand) in the summer of 1913: 51 pages with pure garbage and more than 400 formulae.

Nonsense. Not even wrong.

> P.D.: I don't believe that you have the intelligence nor the ability to do such analysis (nor JanPB, etc.).

Ah, finally the other crank shoe drops as well: "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot".

What a moron.

--
Jan