Mercury Precession and GR maths
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
That has already been done.
You are pissing into the wind with this continued fabricated anti science campaign and wasting bandwidth..
But if you are fair dinkum, and see this paper as valid, then write up a support paper and get it properly peer reviewed with a reputable publisher.
Should be easy for anyone that sees himself as the god.
I am still awaiting....none could rebut Hua Di figures of 75/100 as against Einstein's 43.....one of them must be wrong. Who ?
Ho hum, The last time I looked GR is still the firm model of gravity.
And you are still in pseudoscience shouting conspiracy!.
Then you have not understood rpenner's post. You also have not understood the editors efforts to correct typesetting errors, or what a prefactor is, and presumably neither has Hua Di.
Although you claim to understand the integration in question, do you understand the astronomical measurements of Mercury's precession? Do you understand the notion of post-Newtonian approximation of the field equations and why a Newtonian approximation doesn't explain the astronomy?
Because that's what I've convinced myself I will need to do to understand why Hua Di gets the wrong figures, although the mistakes he makes which you also make, go a long way towards that not particularly interesting outcome.
Last edited:
Then Hua Di is no mathematician.
In §1, Hua Di calls the formula $$24 \pi^3 \frac{a^2}{T^2 c^2 (1-e^2)}$$ a needless resort when $$\frac{3}{2} \pi r_s \left( \frac{1}{r_{-}} + \frac{1}{r_{+}} \right)$$ gives the same result for Mercury of $$5 \times 10^{-7} \, \textrm{radians per orbit}$$ but he calculates to enough precision to reveal that the numerical results depend on the formula because the quantities aren't exactly known and have errors are introduced in different manner.
In §2, Hua Di resorts to misparsing the Einstein source paper and not calculating the original quantity. So he computes on the basis of a typo rather than according to physical theory. He then egregiously purports to misunderstand Einstein and abuses mathematics. In detail, minus the typo that Hua Di never corrects, Einstein's approximations all hold good as seen in post #37. Hua Di compounds error after error where Einstein's math speaks for itself even in light of the obvious typo. Even the issue of what the one in the formula corresponds with seems to elude Hua Di.
In §3, Hua Di demonstrates that no part of analysis lives in his heart. He uses the term "approximation" incorrectly and asks questions that are trivial to answer.
$$r_{+} = a (1 + e) , r_{-} = a (1 - e), r_s = \frac{2 GM}{c^2}, \frac{G(M+m)}{4 \pi^2} = \frac{a^3}{T^2} $$ means:
$$\frac{3}{2} \pi r_s \left( \frac{1}{r_{-}} + \frac{1}{r_{+}} \right) = \frac{3}{2} \pi \frac{2 GM}{c^2} \frac{4 \pi^2 a^3}{G(M+m) T^2} \left( \frac{1}{a ( 1 - e)} + \frac{1}{a (1 +e)} \right) = 12 \pi^3 \frac{M}{M+m} \frac{a^3}{T^2 c^2} \frac{2 a}{a^2 (1-e^2)} = \frac{M}{M+m} 24 \pi^3 \frac{a^2}{T^2 c^2 (1 - e^2)} \approx 24 \pi^3 \frac{a^2}{T^2 c^2 (1 - e^2)} $$
The approximation is good to 2 parts per 10 million which means it's physically indistinguishable from the result of the approximate integration, which itself is only good to about 2 parts per 10 million.
So basically, Hua Di doesn't understand any part of physics or math in his paper, wastes times on minutia and never bothers to learn the metrology, physics or correct way to approximate the elliptic integral. He doesn't even bother to read the 100-year-old correction to the paper noted in the sources. So Hua Di is weaving a falsehood and The God is willfully repeating it rather than learn physics. I don't think such dishonesty is allowed in any part of this forum.
The God is just searching for and presenting ANY papers that disagree the robust theory of GR. He cleary does not understand GR nor does he understand the papers that purport to disprove GR. Why would he undertake such a monumental waste of time? God only knows...
I will not comment on what Hua D understands or not. But great, you proved the problem in his paper. Thats nicely settled by you...despite the chronic nonsensical noise by few resident trolls here..
It's just a shame that you could not invoke just a smidgin of common sense, and try and reason why after 100 years, an isolated swallow,with one paper , published in questionable circumstances, who probably also like you has a religious bias, was not going to out weigh or invalidate the mountains of evidence that others have kept pointing out to you on this forum, and the many many reputable papers and articles which you so cynically and ignorantly reject..