Mercury Precession and GR maths

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The God, May 31, 2016.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I know that you are not competent, you just make parrotized noise.

    But I understand this kind of integration and the maths involved, I found nothing wrong with his integration. Let us see what Rpenner has to say.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,711
    What I have to say is: if Einstein made such a basic error, why has it taken 100 years for a chinese man to notice?

    Considering also that in those 100 years, astronomy has advanced to the degree we can time the orbits of planets with radar, etc. Wouldn't someone have noticed by now that Mercury's perihelion is "wrong" (thanks to Einstein) by about 30 arc-seconds per century?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You have a point.
    You are also a keen student of maths, the integration as suggested by him is certainly not beyond many here, so in all fairness we should rebut him.

    It is quite likely that none would have thought that a man of Einstein's intellect would, if at all, make such a basic error.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Yeah sure,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I remember another called rajesh who posted the link to a paper he had published with similar anti GR nonsense concerning BH's...That was quickly rejected and adequately rebuffed by another professional, but he like you, with an obvious agenda, was totally blind to the facts the good professor put and eventually drove him [the professor] away with his ranting nonsense.Sad...

    Exactly! SR and GR have stood the tests of incredibly precise experiments and observations, and continue to do so.
    Both have passed every test including this fabricated nonsensical Mercury precession, and the dregs that the god has managed to drag up to support his never ending preaching and evangelistic opposition to mainstream cosmology and SR/GR.
     
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Irrelevant nonsense..an attempt to obfuscate the issue..
    Pl stay away as you have admitted that you cannot comment on the merit of Hua Di paper.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No, true story and fact!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Review pop science???
    And of course if I like I could pull up a 100 papers supporting GR 100% [and obviously have in past threads]
    You are floundering again my friend.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Then read Popper again...........
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Popper would be turning in his grave to hear the way you so often distort and misinterpret what could be generally construed as logic.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I was expecting that someone will tear apart the paper as attached in my post # 16......It contains doable integration.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I expect not many have read the paper based on the facts of your methodology and goal on this forum, and of course the fact that the Mercury precession aspect of cosmology has been confirmed as per GR, again and again and again.
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I am not surprised Paddoboy, that our technically erudite Mod did not make any comment on the paper. He was quick in creating a separate thread for Bds and Farsight, he is ever ready to give his tensor maths to prove a point. But this time, his silence, can be construed, that he has no rebuttal ? I refuse to believe that he does not understand such a simple integration, when he can indulge himself in Bds 1 + 1 = 1, I am sure he can look into more demanding integral maths.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    It's not worthy of any further rebuttal than what you have already received.
    You are grasping at straws, and making no impression here, or anywhere else as far as science/cosmology is concerned: That is a FACT!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You are making that statement, without understanding abc of that paper ! You do not know how to find out the surface area / volume of a sphere when radius is given, so question of finding fault with integration is beyond you...

    Let someone who knows maths rebut, otherwise silence means no rebuttal....I do not need straws.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Hey! It's your thread and you are in pseudoscience.
    Again , no rebuttal required beyond what has already been given.
    Have fun anyway!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You look smart with those white teeth and green make up !! Have fun anyway !
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    You don't look really smart with threads continually moved to the fringes.
     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    You have more than one moderator, but no right to demand a response from either.
    On the first paper my comment was:


    What integration? If you are referring to the integration in http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/128?ajax I follow it.
    If you are referring to the integration in the paper you attached in post #16, it's irrelevant, because it's only part of the calculation.

    Einstein alleges that (after a typo corrected):
    \(\int \limits_{1/r'_{+}}^{1/r'_{-}} \frac{ du }{\sqrt{ (u - 1/r_{+})(1/r_{-} - u ) + r_s u^3 }} \approx \left( 1 + \frac{ r_s}{2} \left( 1/r_{-} + 1/r_{+} \right) \right) \int \limits_{1/r_{+}}^{1/r_{-}} \frac{ \left( 1 + \frac{r_s}{2} u \right) du }{\sqrt{ (u - 1/r_{+})(1/r_{-} - u ) }} \approx \pi + \frac{ 3 \pi r_s}{4} \left( 1/r_{-} + 1/r_{+} \right) \)
    Hua Di alleges \(\int \limits_{1/r_{+}}^{1/r_{-}} \frac{ \left( 1 + \frac{r_s}{2} u \right) du }{\sqrt{ (u - 1/r_{+})(1/r_{-} - u ) }} \approx \pi + \frac{ \pi r_s}{4} \left( 1/r_{-} + 1/r_{+} \right) \) which is the same claim because the prefactor was ignored.
    He also ignores the intermediate typo which the was noted as footnote 16 inserted by the collectors of the papers.

    Further, high precision numerical calculation shows the approximations are appropriate in this situation.

    Assuming \(r_{-} = 46,001,200 \, \textrm{km}, \; r_{+} = 69,816,900 \, \textrm{km}, \; r_s = 2.95 \, \textrm{km}\) we have
    \(r'_{-} \approx 46,001,191.351930914033165192263953438 \, \textrm{km} \\ r'_{+} \approx 69,816,905.698068772139457806401588149 \, \textrm{km} \\ \int \limits_{1/r'_{+}}^{1/r'_{-}} \frac{ du }{\sqrt{ (u - 1/r_{+})(1/r_{-} - u ) + r_s u^3 }} \approx \pi + 0.7500001506 \, \pi r_s \left( \frac{1}{r_{+}} + \frac{1}{r_{-}} \right) \\ \int \limits_{1/r_{+}}^{1/r_{-}} \frac{ \left( 1 + \frac{r_s}{2} u \right) du }{\sqrt{ (u - 1/r_{+})(1/r_{-} - u ) }} = \pi + \frac{r_s}{2} \int \limits_{1/r_{+}}^{1/r_{-}} \frac{ u du }{\sqrt{ (u - 1/r_{+})(1/r_{-} - u ) }} = \pi + \frac{\pi r_s}{4} \left( \frac{1}{r_{+}} + \frac{1}{r_{-}} \right) \\ \left( 1 + \frac{ r_s}{2} \left( 1/r_{-} + 1/r_{+} \right) \right) \left( \pi + \frac{\pi r_s}{4} \left( \frac{1}{r_{+}} + \frac{1}{r_{-}} \right) \right) \approx \pi + \frac{3 \pi r_s}{4} \left( \frac{1}{r_{+}} + \frac{1}{r_{-}} \right) \)
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2016
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Rpenner,

    Thanks for your response. Hua Di makes two specific claims. One he says that correct integration leads to 75" per century while removal of approximation leads to 100" per century....On the other hand Einstein proposes 43" only. You have not pointed any problem in Hua Di paper..
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    So why not take it up then?
    Write up another paper in support....
    I mean you do know your claims otherwise amount to a total waste of bandwidth, correct?

    In reality though all I see is stubborn resistance to the fact that once again, you have been shown to be in error.
     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    How I am shown yo be in error ? Pl show any error in Hua Di paper...
     

Share This Page