GR is the most beautiful gravitational theory

James R told us that GR is the most beautiful gravitational theory, and we expect him to use GR to calculate the orbits of the planets in the solar system.

If James R can't do it, then I hope he can give other people's orbital data calculated by using GR.

If James R is still unable to do it, then please tell us why GR is the most beautiful theory of gravity, can its beauty level be compared with "Emperor's New Clothes"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have said so much, but you have never been able to give your data. If you can bravely admit your incompetence and GR's incompetence, I don't think anyone will laugh at you. You are also one of the victims of GR.
My calculations are all based on classical mechanics, if you think classical mechanics is a pseudoscience, you can write to your country's aerospace department and ask them to stop using these pseudosciences, you can make them use the great GR. Of course you can charge them.
Some scholars have seen your post, and here are some of their replies:
The idea that JamesR can do any actual computations of the planetary orbits, by using a simple hand calculator, is preposterous. Idiotic. Look at the NASA, JAXA, and the Chinese Space Agency, as to the computational tools that they use. Not only do the orbits change, essentially daily to weekly, but they are not stationary, and never were. The actual data can only be seen, by observation. As was done for hundreds of years. If you were to shoot a rocket to Mars, using a hand calculation, you would probably crash into the planet, or worse, never be seen again. These kinds of real-life things can never be left to primitive math, thank God. Real science requires real processes. Making a table on a piece of paper, with orbits, will always be incorrect.

... and JamesR in his thread, pointed that out as well. Orbital Mechanics are dynamical (impossible to approximate much less calculate with appropriate precision using pencil, paper, and a regular computational device) and GR is necessary in significantly high gravitational regimes (i.e., near large masses and BHs). However, I have other significant issues with this article having to do with the general concept of gravitational waves (their speed and dynamics).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

?? Wow you really don't know much of anything.

Classical mechanics is an excellent approximation that is accurate 99.9% of the time for small systems. It is not accurate when it is scaled up.
This is true for all disciplines. Classic circuit theory using Kirchoff's law and Ohm's law is valid 99.9% of the time. It is taught in every college engineering course in the country. It is used by every electrician and engineer in the country. It is not valid at high frequencies.

Some other engineers/teachers I know have seen your post and they had this to say:

Nothing new here. I have taught people like this for decades. They are closed minded and nothing you or I can say will change that. Often in cases like this I recommend they pursue a non-technical degree like literature, where there is no need for right answers.

. . . in his defense he may simply be lacking the proper critical thinking skills to understand the relevance of each mode of analysis.

 

Maybe when you see the words classical mechanics, what flashes in your mind is Newton's law of universal gravitation, and the Newton's gravitational equation that has been proven for hundreds of years cannot calculate planetary orbits with very high precision. For example, in the precession of Mercury, there is a 43"/century deviation between the astronomical observation data and the classical mechanical calculation data.

Maybe you should take a look at our paper. We not only correctly calculated the total orbital precession of Mercury, but also calculated the total orbital precession of other planets. These data are basically consistent with astronomical observations.

GR calculated 43"/century, but unfortunately GR has never been able to calculate the total orbital precession of Mercury, let alone other planets.
Of course, my understanding of GR is not enough, so I look forward to James R being able to give the planetary orbit data calculated using GR.
As a gravitational theory, if GR cannot even calculate the orbits of planets, does that mean it is very ridiculous?

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves
This paper provides a method of calculating planetary orbits using classical mechanics, and makes a detailed analysis. This paper has been reviewed by many physicists from all over the world, especially a physicist in the Netherlands, who kept asking me questions for more than a month. Finally, I added how gravitational waves are generated, how to estimate the intensity of gravitational waves, etc.

 

The most shameless thing about GR is to insist that it is similar to Newton's theory of gravity in a weak field, which is very shameless!
But James R's reply shocked me even more. James R believed that Newton's theory of gravity is pseudoscience. The fig leaf that the cultists finally put on GR's face was torn to pieces by James R again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He didn't say that. You are a liar.

When you have to resort to rank dishonesty to desperately try to make your point - you have already lost.

 

My theory is classical mechanics, James R thinks my theory is pseudoscientific theory, can't you see? ? ?

 

You are a liar.

 

I really don’t know if you are blind or not. I’m posting James R’s reply again. If you still can’t see these words, I suggest you go to an eye hospital for an examination.

 

No. Your nonsense is pseudoscience. That is what James was saying. Not classical mechanics. Your nonsense, specifically.

Unfortunately for you I can read quite well, thanks. I imagine that someone who has trouble reading might be more tempted to buy your woo.

 

billvon, my theory is based on classical mechanics, which corrects Newton's gravity equation and correctly calculates the orbital precession of the planets in the solar system. We just use data to speak, and there is no point in talking about it.
I expect James R to come up with the orbit data of planets in the solar system calculated by GR. Since GR is a gravitational theory, it should be used for orbit calculation, so please come up with your data! Use your data to prove that GR is not pseudoscience.