The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed.

[Richard Hertz]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf

2 Calculation versus Observation
2.1 What and how it can be observed

EXCERPT ***************************************************

A classical motion of Mercury’s perihelion advance caused by the interaction
of planets gives the effect 530 arc-sec/per century, see Table 1. This is a
fluctuating part of the background, on which the GR predicted effect of rate
of 43′′ per century must emerge.

In the authors’ works commented below, a powerful (Burlirsch-Stroer)
numerical method of differential equation solution is used with the time-step
about one day chosen to provide a calculational (accumulated in integration)
error of one part in 10E+13. Such a precision is required to ensure a stability
of numerical integration over about 300 year period and reverse back.
...
At the same time, initial conditions are known not better than seven
significant digits. (A position and a velocity of a center of every planet at
a given instant are meant). This must translate into a cumulative error in
calculations about 10 arcsec per century.
.....
The authors do not conduct calculations in the relativistic (PPN) model
because of a drastic rise of computer time. This is quite unfortunate
because one would like to see in the PPN formalism the effect of
ephemerides fluctuation and time instability in the determination of a
small regular relativistic effect on top.
.....
The important part of their works is a criticism of the method of
“Einstein’s effect fitting” used by Clemence and other authors in later times.
In particular, the results obtained by Clemence, also by Morrison and Ward
[23] (1975), are discussed. The matter is that the Clemence’s results were
reanalyzed in [23] in view of the fact that precision of data for masses of
planets and time scaling were significantly improved since Clemence’s time.
....
The low precision of the geocentric angular data having an error of 1′′
are incapable of giving the rate of motion of the perihelion of Mercury to
better that 3′′ per century.
...
After discarding few points, which looked suspicious, the author found a
drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced perihelion value
about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century.

His comment was:
“The only conclusion one can draw from the data is thus that they do
not contribute to a decision as to whether the actual motion of the ascending node of the orbit of Mercury exceeds that predicted by the theory”.

END OF EXCERPT ***************************************************


To make the above clear:

1) A numerical analysis of the advance of Mercury's perihelion was made
over 300 years, with a resolution of 1 day/calculation.

2) The position and a velocity of a center of every planet at a given instant
is provided with 7 digits resolution, used as initial conditions at t=0, for the
entire Solar System.

3) With the above precision, a cumulative error of about 10"/cy might be
translated to the final result using the powerful Burlirsch-Stroer numerical
method of differential equation solution. This MASKS ERRORS in relativistic
contribution, as CALCULATED since 1943, posing the eventual value
between 38"/cy and 48"/cy.

This is a warning to consider carefully ANY value obtained since 1943.
All the existing observational estimates, namely those made by Clemence,
Morrison and Ward, and the JPL groups, are suspect.

4) In 1993, after discarding suspicious values from all the previous works,
it was found a drastic drop in the least square number for the advanced
perihelion value about 15-16′′ (instead of 43) per century.

5) The Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and
even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence.
The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not
provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with
the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the
other hand.

So, the conclusion is that the 43"/cy are A MYTH, sustained along decades
by a bunch of "prestigious" astronomers. But, a deep analysis of the total
value of advance under complex numerical analysis using Newton show
that the total contribution to the advance has been FIXED a century ago,
and didn't let place to accept 43"/cy BUT A MUCH LOWER VALUE!!

6) The linearized GR theory of PPN is impossible to compute, due to the
monumental increase in complexity and number of calculations to be done
in order to contemplate the effects of spacetime in the interaction of all
the planets with a single one, each one having a different impact in time
and distances, due to the nature of relativity itself.

So, no solution for N-Body for GR neither for PPN. Whatever is claimed
as a relativistic truth in this matter IS BLATANTLY FALSE, as the 43"/cy.

So, this value has been wrongfully calculated since the times of Newcomb,
in 1896, who corrected Le Verrier 38"/cy from 1857, BECAUSE THE
NEWTONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE WRONGFULLY CALCULATED TOO.

As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943:

Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century
GR: 42.98 arcsec/century
Total: 575.31 arcsec/century

The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made
almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919,
dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952).

GR IS AN HOAX.

[Richard Hertz]

MORE.......

2.1.1 What has been observed
Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly

observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence.

The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not
provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the
equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other

hand. There is no other way but look for an admissible anomaly gap to be
filled with the predetermined perihelion advance of 43′′ per century as tight
as possible, no matter of what kind the effect is.

Such “a gap fitting” cannot be termed “the confirmation of the GR prediction”.

Another issue is a statistical meaning of the gap fitting. There is no single
publication devoted to the treatment of observations of Mercury perihelion
advance; the claimed numbers are stated in different works on empirical data
not treated in rigorous terms of statistical theory.

A bad fitting practice and the precision concept abuse should be noticed. At the same
time, the usage of standard “precise” initial conditions in ephemerides calculations makes
the results stable what creates an illusion of their high-precision, while the irreal precision
remains unknown.

To avoid any terminological ambiguity and fruitless disputes on this important issue, we present a
brief review of the statistical method that is usually used in physical experimental studies and, in
our opinion, should be used in the perihelion advance investigation as well (see the AppendixA with
comments). In the following sections, we investigate theoretical rigor of the GR predictions.

3 Classical and GR orbits
3.1 Classical basic equations
.......
.......



LEARN. LEARN. LEARN. IT'S FREE AND LIBERATING.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Their conclusion states: "The GR-term,
which is thought to be the cause of both the perihelion advance effect and
the light bending effect, has no physical sense, as shown by Fock and in our work. The Fock’s work also shows that the equation of light propagation in
a vicinity of massive object must have the linear (potential) term instead of
the GR-term. The latter is of the next degree of smallness and should be
neglected....The prediction of the bending of light is not valid for the same
reason as in the perihelion advance case, while the predicted red-shift is
inconsistent with the GR framework. These and other arguments raise the
question about sufficiency and completeness of the GR physical foundations.
Overall, we conclude that the claimed confirmation of the GR prediction
of the relativistic perihelion advance is neither theoretically nor empirically
substantiated."

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

Jonathan Bain provides several different baselines for calculating the most relevant anomaly of Mercury's perihelion advance. Of course, the anomaly can readily be accounted for by classical Newtonian methods factoring in the Sun's barycenter motion and the oblateness and spin of the Sun, as shown by several scientists. This article's finding makes it clear the anomaly is less than was thought and closer to Newton's calculation. Relativity is unnecessary and is not physics.

[Richard Hertz]

Exactly!

Le Verrier's work (1840 -1859), even incredible for today standards, lack of correctness with the value of parameters used. Even
Newcomb (1896) didn't have today's values, like the exact masses of the Sun and every single planet. Einstein (1915) doesn't count
because his target was the Gerber's equation. Only in the last 2 pages of his Nov 1915 paper, use values provided by his "assistant",
the German astronomer Freundlich, who started his collaboration in 1912, making a contact with Newcomb on behalf of Einstein.

It can be read, at the end of the paper from Nov. 18, 1915, how Einstein OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE Freundlich´s "collaboration".

What was not acknowledged by Einstein OR ANY RELATIVIST is the fundamental role of Schwarzschild in his career, since late 1913.
Schwarzschild convinced the Prussian Academy of Science to pay HALF the 12 years contract for Berlin, and was instrumental in
finding a jewish industrialist that did pay the other half. In today's money, each part contributed with $120,000/year.

Not bad, isn't it? But the contract was based on HIM finishing Grossman work on a new "Law of Gravitation", that he showed off in
all Europe (years before 1914) that he was able to develop. BUT HE HAD TO DELIVER, AND HAD A FINITE TIME TO DO SO, in particular
due to WWI, when both funding sides started to THINK AGAIN in what they were investing their money, which started to be scarce.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than physics. What has probably never been explained is how a speed of light for gravity could improve the calculations. According to Laplace that would throw way off all orbital calculations due to the angular momentum introduced by a less than instantaneous speed for gravity.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/18/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than
> physics.

Nonsense. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS.

If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel?

Einstein was the quintessential physicist, devoting his life to
understanding the universe. And you are the quintessential fool....

> What has probably never been explained is how a speed of light for
> gravity could improve the calculations. According to Laplace that
> would throw way off all orbital calculations due to the angular
> momentum introduced by a less than instantaneous speed for gravity.

This has all been explained many, many times, in PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS. A
little studying on you part would dispel all your nonsense and
fantasies. But apparently you are too stupid to realize that (along with
many other idiots around here).

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 11:31:38 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel?

<snip>

Fear to display how inept was. Fear to be killed, as in the '20s. Fear for his declining health.
Laziness, as Minkowski clearly stated at the Polytechnic: "Lazy dog".
Belief that he already had paid his debt with zionists, since 1919.
Cost/benefits didn't work for this charlatan, etc.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It is ad hoc reasoning, according to the typical definition available on the internet, that is, "making things up." Ad hoc reasoning is worse than that because it is making up exceptions to rules that are unwarranted and not demonstrated by experiments such as virtually all of relativity. I notice you could not give any specifics in reply and could only rely on ad hominem mud-slinging. The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations because they can't.

[patdolan]

Thanks again Richard and Laurence for this scholarship. The "most precisely confirmed theory in the history of science" is being chipped to pieces, one "confirmation" at a time. And thank you Tom Roberts--your impotent response to Richard's and Laurence's charges is quite revealing.

[Dono.]

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:51:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations .

They don't. Idiot.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The speed of light for gravity is part of Einstein's explanation for Mercury's anomalous advance since he used Gerber's exact formula and this would throw the calculations of the whole solar system way off as shown by LaPlace and Van Flandern. As usual, your comments do not contribute anything of substance.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 16:31:38 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/18/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > I think Einstein was much more motivated to practice Zionism than
> > physics.
> Nonsense. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS.
>
> If what you claim were true, why did he reject the presidency of Israel?
>
> Einstein was the quintessential physicist, devoting his life to
> understanding the universe.

It was rather obvious that you don't understand
or believe a word of these wise things you sometimes
write about models.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:31:38 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

Einstein was a very incapable physicist who was inept at reasoning and whose ideas were completely divorced from physics.

[Dono.]

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:01:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 7:51:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > The texts and Einstein have never explained how the speed of light for gravity accounted for anything in the Mercury calculations .
> >
> > They don't. Idiot.
> The speed of light for gravity is part of Einstein's explanation for Mercury's anomalous advance

No it isn't. Repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it true, it makes you a bigger idiot.

[Richard Hertz]

I'm quoting here what Clemence, the guy that corrected Newcomb and still is a mandatory reference,
had to say about Mercury and Einstein's paper, based on his GR (1943, 1947, 1952).

**************************************************************************************
Gerald Clemence ( Rev. Mod. Phys. 19, 361364, 1947)

"According to general theory of relativity, the elliptical orbit of a planet referred to a Newtonian frame of reference rotates
in its own plane in the same direction as the planet moves...

The observations cannot be made in a Newtonian frame of reference. They are affected by the precession of the equinoxes,
and the determination of the precessional motion is one of the most difficult problems of observational astronomy.

It is not surprising that a difference of opinions could exist regarding the closeness of agreement of observed and
theoretical motions... I am not aware that relativity is at present regarded by physicists as a theory that may be
believed or not, at will. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest to present the most recent evidence on the degree of
agreement between the observed and theoretical motions of the planets."
**************************************************************************************

And the above was extracted from this paper of Vankov, the Russian physicist who made an incredible forensic analysis
of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which WAS NOT translated to English for many decades, and still remains hard to get. Here is
link to the English translation, work performed by Professor Roger Rydin from the University of Virginia, who paid much
attention to linguistic fidelity and scientific adequacy of the texts.

Vankov adds: "It is followed with our critical Comments concerning the rigor of Einstein’s derivation of the equation of motion
and the corresponding approximate solution leading to the perihelion advance formula. The latter was obtained in numerous
works later on from the Schwarzschild “exact” solution".

Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”
Anatoli Andrei Vankov

https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf

As in his other paper, of which I provided a link in the OP of this thread.


It's clearly demonstrated that Einstein and partners (like the astronomer Freundlich) cooked the paper ENTIRELY, making several
noticeable HACKS and subtle FUDGING of equations, just to get the Gerber's formula from 1898. His numerical calculations, don
in the last page out of 12, just as a justification to prove Gerber and Newcomb values of 43"/century. What really matter is HOW
he FUDGED the integral of his Eq. 11, FORCING THE RESULT to deliver +43" INSTEAD OF -14" (without the fraudulent addition of
a term in front of the integral). I claimed that this fraud has been silenced FOR DECADES.

EXCERPT FROM VANKOV'S CRITICS
******************************************
2.1.1 Historical remarks
Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance, Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publication that contains the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper "The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30",
Einstein presents his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by
referring it as in Doc.24, along with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”. Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem.
******************************************

-14"/century, not 43"/century, is the value obtained CORRECTING THE COOK/FRAUD.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes, I have that translation. It includes this: "It is after all the clear meaning of your problem in the best order.
It is an entirely wonderful thing, that from one so abstract an idea comes
out such a conclusive clarification of the Mercury anomaly.
As you see, it means that the friendly war with me, in which in spite of
your considerable protective fire throughout the terrestrial distance, allows
this stroll in your fantasy land." - Schwarzschild’s letter to Einstein

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

He gives a reference to another of his own works I like: "General Relativity Problem of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance Revisited"

[Richard Hertz]

I wrote MANY TIMES here about the importance of Schwarzschild in the life of Einstein, between 1913 and 1915, as ADVISOR
(to the least, and probably more than that).

1) Schwarzschild convinced two parts to put the money for a 12 years contract (more than $ 2.4 millions in today's money).

2) Schwarzschild had volunteered to fight (artillery official) at the eastern front, since mid 1915. YET, he obtained A LICENSE
to witness Einstein's lecture to the Prussian Academy of Science, that day Nov. 18, 1915. That lecture was published by the
PAS one month later, with minor modifications. HE WAS THERE THAT DAY, then went back to the front and got the lethal
autoimmune skin disease that killed him 5 months later.

3) Schwarzschild wrote his exact solution, in polar coordinates, and sent it to Einstein 3 WEEKS LATER!!!
He had the solution beforehand, and knew tensors and curvature of space/time SINCE 1900!!

His seminal paper "About the curvature of the universe", written and published in 1900, is considered FOUNDATIONAL for
what is today COSMOLOGY. Nobody, before him, did attempt to EXPLAIN the behavior of the whole universe (by then, it was
the Milky Way, and had a length of 10,000 ly).

But he has half jew, and because of THIS he has been ignored by the zionist cabal on his role in GR. He volunteered being 41,
without need, just to prove THAT HE WAS A PATRIOT. And he died for this, while Einstein stole every single credit for EVERYTHING.

Because it was, by design, that a jew had to be the new emperor of physics. Einstein sold his soul to the devil, for fame and privileges,
while Schwarzschild (unsurpassed even today) gave his life for his motherland.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I think Einstein gave his soul to Zionism which he cared about much more than physics.

[whodat]

"He denied the existence of a God that cares for humans, he argued that
there is nothing divine about morality, he did not believe in any holy
Scriptures, he had no faith in religious teachings, he rejected the
authority of all churches and temples, he belonged to no congregation,
he denied the existence of souls, life after death, divine rewards or
punishments."

<https://notevenpast.org/was-einstein-really-religious-0/#:~:text=He%20denied%20the%20existence%20of,the%20existence%20of%20souls%2C%20life>


"Einstein was a prominent supporter of Labor Zionism for Israel, and
also advocated Arab–Jewish cooperation after the outbreak of the Arab–
Israeli conflict."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein>

[Paparios]

What a total load of crap!!!

Schwarzschild's solution was the first available GR solution and clearly made him worldwide famous. Had he not died in 1916, he would have continued to contribute a lot to the development of GR.

"Schwarzschild provided the first exact solution to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, for the limited case of a single spherical non-rotating mass, which he accomplished in 1915, the same year that Einstein first introduced general relativity. The Schwarzschild solution, which makes use of Schwarzschild coordinates and the Schwarzschild metric, leads to a derivation of the Schwarzschild radius, which is the size of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole".

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:05:47 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:

<snip>

> "He denied the existence of a God that cares for humans, he argued that
> there is nothing divine about morality, he did not believe in any holy
> Scriptures, he had no faith in religious teachings, he rejected the
> authority of all churches and temples, he belonged to no congregation,
> he denied the existence of souls, life after death, divine rewards or punishments."
>
> <https://notevenpast.org/was-einstein-really-religious-0/#:~:text=He%20denied%20the%20existence%20of,the%20existence%20of%20souls%2C%20life>

<snip>

- He was mainly a racist and a communist, an advocate of One World Government.

- He EXPRESSED his thoughts about chinese as a filthy, inferior race, completely different from the japanese (World Tour 1922-1925).

- He EXPRESSED his thoughts of brazilian ENGINEERS as ignorant monkies (World Tour 1922-1925, Latam Section). Same with black people.

- He only had social ties with WEALTHY JEWS, and scientific ties with jew or zionist scientists (do you want the list?).

- He, by design, acted as the front man of the jew revolution in physics, taking all the credits. The cabal buried his "helpers" in history.

- He couldn't handle the superior intellect of Mileva Maric, his legitimate spouse. He thought that women were inferior beings, only
apt to cook, clean and make babies. He hated any women in science, philosophy, mathematics, etc. He HATED Mm. Curie.

- He hated Germany and non-jew german scientists, in particular after 1919 and the wave of critics for his behavior. While his
"colleagues" were starving, after WWI, he fled Germany for the Zionist World Fundraising Tour. He was DESPISED there, and
he expressed his fear to be assassinated, so he ran away.

- He was an early supporter of gay and lesbians, and the first wave of movements to legalize homosexuality (Michel Besso?).

- He was a cynical back-stabber. The list of "friends" betrayed by him has no less than a dozen jews. Not for nothing Besso
kept the 1913 (54 pages) manuscript under his bed until his death in 1954 (41 years). Being analyzed by dozen of scholars
in the '70s and '80s, showed no less than 200 fatal errors and misconceptions on the analysis of Mercury, which shows
how IMBECILE IGNORANT he was. The manuscript is online, along with more than 200 pages of details written by scholars.
The difference between this manuscript and "his" 1915 paper is abysmal, proving that TWO DIFFERENT teams were involved.
And BOTH ARE WRONG.

- He believed in a God that did care for him, and he wrote about that many times.

- He, maybe forced to, embraced his jewinesh openly after 1915.

- He supported the atomic bomb, but to be dropped on Germany, not Japan. He was a war consultant (forced or not) for
the Pentagon, about how to KILL people more efficiently (like those in ships).

- He was a natural-born SOB.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 7:00:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> - He supported the atomic bomb, but to be dropped on Germany, not Japan. He was a war consultant (forced or not) for
> the Pentagon, about how to KILL people more efficiently (like those in ships).
>
> - He was a natural-born SOB.

All very interesting but I doubt he was a consultant for the Manhattan Project. I think the important point is that relativity is essentially idol worship and Einstein really wasn't much of a physicist. Because of a desire to pop the bubble of idol worshipers sometimes he may be criticized slightly too harshly.

[Richard Hertz]

I didn't mention the Manhattan Project. I wrote that he worked, part-time, as a war consultant scientist, as many other prominent scientists
which didn't know squat about nuclear physics, but knew classic physics.

A LOT of them worked in the nascent field of Operational Research, which was developed to merge all branches of physics, chemistry and
mathematics into a systemic methodology to focus all of it into specific objectives: algorithms for any conceivable thing, new methods for
older problems, cross-fertilization of ideas from different specialists, etc. Much of what is the infrastructure of the modern industry was
born during WWII, based on Operational Research, which covered almost any field of activity: From hard sciences, economics, social
sciences, political engineering up to making canned food. One of the main drives of OR was the optimization of cost/benefits for whatever.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I'm sure he wasn't of any real help there, of all places! How did he get involved?

[whodat]

Wheeler and Einstein were friends. Wheeler's graduate
student classes and Wheeler attended an annual tea at
Einstein's home.

Wheeler actively participated in the Manhattan project and
had started teaching at Princeton in 1938. I suggest that
any involvement Einstein *may* have had with the project was
unofficial.

[J. J. Lodder]

whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:08:14?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 12:19:24?AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen:

The nutters here are completely crazy
about all that 'Einstein and bomb' stuff.
He had nothing to do with it,
apart from recommending starting the project.
(urged by Szilard)

Einstein didn't have any security clearance.
On the contrary, Hoover was quite delusional
about Einstein being a secret communist.
(and spent large amounts of taxpayer money
in vain attempts to prove it)
Talking about anything to do with the Manhattan project
with Einstein would have been seen as high treason.
(and yes, the phones were tapped, and Hoover's gumshoes were everwhere)

And why would they want too?
Wheeler was an expert on general relativity,
and he made many important contributions to the subject.
He also played a major part in popularising it,
and in getting it better understood.
They had more interesting, and more important things to talk about
than technical trivia,

Jan

[Volney]

Einstein was a pacifist; he would not want to work on anything
military-related.

He had no security clearance.

The FBI thought he was a flaming communist; there is no way he would
have been approved for any such work even if he wanted to do it (which
he didn't).

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thank you for the interesting facts.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thanks for the info. But what did relativity contribute to the atomic bomb? The mass-energy relationship was already well-known before Einstein's relativistic version.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:09:30 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip>

> Einstein was a pacifist; he would not want to work on anything military-related.
>
> He had no security clearance.
>
> The FBI thought he was a flaming communist; there is no way he would have been approved for any such work
> even if he wanted to do it (which he didn't).

You didn't need a security clearance to work on theoretical physics, within OR.

Thousand of mathematicians and physicists worked in this way, during WWII.

In 1936, Einstein filed a Declaration of Intention to become an American citizen. He became a U.S. citizen in 1940,
but retained his Swiss citizenship.

Declaration of Intention for Albert Einstein (doc. from US government):
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_02745/?r=-0.013,0.156,1.485,0.603,0

After he became a US citizen, in 1940, he was obliged to follow any request from the US gov. in war times, since Pearl Harbor.

Here is swearing his allegiance to US laws and Constitution, on October 01, 1940 :
https://www.facebook.com/History101magazine/photos/a.608192056205191/1017507371940322/?type=3
https://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/613338


Einstein In his study at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, where he was engaged in research for the U.S. Navy, 24 July 1943. With him are Captain Geoffrey E. Sage, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval Training Station, Princeton (at left); and Lieutenant Commander Frederick L. Douthit, USNR, Executive Officer, Naval Training Station, Princeton. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the National Archives.
https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nara-series/80-g/80-G-40000/80-G-42919.html

As ANYONE CAN READ, this document is from the US NAVY ARCHIVES!

Einstein, the pacifist, working for the US Navy
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24537208


So, Volney, ADAPT your delusion TO REALITY.

[Richard Hertz]

After being drafted by the US Navy, Einstein asked for permission to spend some summer days on vacations:


Letter of Albert Einstein to the Lieutenant Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance
https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/letter-of-albert-einstein-to-the-lieutenant-stephen-brunauer-us-navy-bureau-of-ordnance

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:17:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Einstein In his study at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, where he was engaged in research for the U.S. Navy, 24 July 1943. With him are Captain Geoffrey E. Sage, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval Training Station, Princeton (at left); and Lieutenant Commander Frederick L. Douthit, USNR, Executive Officer, Naval Training Station, Princeton. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the National Archives.
> https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nara-series/80-g/80-G-40000/80-G-42919.html
>
> As ANYONE CAN READ, this document is from the US NAVY ARCHIVES!
>
> Einstein, the pacifist, working for the US Navy
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/24537208
>
>
> So, Volney, ADAPT your delusion TO REALITY.

What did Einstein do for the Navy? Twiddle his thumbs and make things up?

[Richard Hertz]

One job was to determine which was the best impact area by torpedoes, in order to sink any kind of ships, as well as the
amount of explosive charge (energy of detonation and exact place along the ship structure, like over or under the line of flotation).

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

He would be pathetic at that.

[whodat]

"He joined the Manhattan Project in 1942, first at the University of
Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory and then with DuPont in Wilmington,
Delaware. Wheeler was the leading physicist in residence at Hanford and
is credited with solving the riddle of the B Reactor going dead a few
hours after it started, an event that threatened to seriously delay the
first production of plutonium."

https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/profile/john-wheeler/

In my experience the branches involved in any major project touch all
sorts of issues one doesn't, out of hand, particularly associate with
such major projects.

[Richard Hertz]

In this paper, one of many from Vankov:

General Relativity Problem of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance Revisited

Anatoli Andrei Vankov
46 pages, 2010

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf

he cites 42 references (books and papers from 1882 to 2008), that support or are critics of the theory of relativity (both).

In particular, I downloaded this book from Muller (1953), which deals with GR and SR. The book is a first class material
for students of relativity and, being of my interest, contain a detailed analysis of the three predictions that Einstein did
prior to the development of the 1915 GR.

In particular, the analysis of the Mercury's perihelion advance (using Schwarzschild, but following in detail Einstein's 1915 paper)
derives the same formulae as Einstein (and Gerber). This section was strongly criticized by Vankov, as it reproduces the same
sloppy approximations that Einstein did in his Nov.18, 1915 paper, but with much more clarity and additional explanations.

Anyone can download the 409 pages book, by just googling:

THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
BY C. MOLLER
PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Oxford University Press. 1955, Second Edition

and go to

XII EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
130. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury (page 366)

which is one of the targets of the criticism of Vankov. It's like if Einstein's paper can be analyzed 40 years after
by two first grade physicists, with two completely different positions about THIS particular prediction of GR.

Enjoy, and it might help to understand Vankov papers (many), against this particular problem, with more clarity and depth.

[J. J. Lodder]

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 4:23:37?AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > On 6/20/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:08:14?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 12:19:24?AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen:

Not really. What was known before Einstein was what was then known as
'the velocity dependence of mass'.
Lorentz had the right relativistic answer,
many others had different and hence wrong answers.
The concept of -rest mass- also being energy is really due to Einstein.

From there to nuclear binding energy manifesting itself as mass
differences between nuclei took another 30 years to establish.
(by high precision mass spectroscopy)

The uranium isotope U235 wasn't discovered until 1935,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Also memorable as one of the occasions
on which Feyman roundly admitted to having been wrong.
The engineers had designed the reactor with more fuel tubes
that necessary for achieving criticality.
Feynman criticised them for that.
After Wheeler had identified the problem it could be easily remedied
by adding more fuel rods in the 'superfluous' tubes.
This would have been impossible if Feynman's ideas had been followed
in the construction.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 9:09:30?AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
[-]

> > Einstein was a pacifist; he would not want to work on anything
> > military-related.
> >
> > He had no security clearance.
> >
> > The FBI thought he was a flaming communist; there is no way he would
> > have been approved for any such work even if he wanted to do it (which
> > he didn't).
> Thank you for the interesting facts.

I find it somewhat surprising that you,
given your penchant for crank anti-Einstein books,
didn't discover the facts on your own.

The FBI files on Einstein are by now declassified, (on fbi.gov)
and there is even a whole book about them, [1]

Jan

[1] Fred Jerome - The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War
Against the World's Most Famous Scientist

[Maciej Wozniak]

And while the answers of our Giant Guru are the only
right answers - forbidden by your bunch of idiots
"improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Einstein's politics are very tangential to scientific concerns.

[J. J. Lodder]

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Whatever. They are perpendicular to all silly claims
that Einstein may have been involved with the atomic bomb project.

Zero, Zilch, Nada,

Jan

[Richard Hertz]

What IS NEVER SAID: Apples + Oranges = Total Mercury's perihelion advance.


Clemence values (1943, 1947, 1952):

Newton: 532.33"/cy [Contributions of every planet, CALCULATED WITH INFINITE SPEED OF GRAVITY]
MISSING: 42.98"/cy [Assigned to GR, CALCULATED WITH SPEED OF GRAVITY = c]
OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY: 575.31"/cy

The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY,
after Einstein 1919, dared to refute. In particular, Clemence.

This, alone, serves to display THE HOAX of GR PREDICTION (even Gerber's prediction of the speed of gravity)

And, for the shame of astronomy and physics in general, the explanation of 1915 GR has been hold for more than a century,

Because nobody dares to embarrass the name and actions of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), founded in 1919
and partners in this crime on science. Observe the year of creation of the IAU, created ad-hoc of the HOAX.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-06-23 14:07:28 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> What IS NEVER SAID: Apples + Oranges = Total Mercury's perihelion advance.

Of course it's never said: it's gibberish.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Not only did he have nothing to do with the atomic bomb, relativity had nothing to do with it either.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Except he approved of it and signed a petition to the president for it.

[Richard Hertz]

You don't understand shit about this.

Please, stay with your sticky enzymes, your safe place.

[whodat]

Most people forget (if they ever actually knew) that Einstein was
involved in lots of technological research/development other than
the relativity he was most famous for.

[Volney]

On 6/23/2023 11:51 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-06-23 14:07:28 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>>
>>> What IS NEVER SAID: Apples + Oranges = Total Mercury's perihelion advance.

>> Of course it's never said: it's gibberish.
>>
>> --
>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>
> You don't understand shit about this.

It's so simple that even you should be able to understand it.

The precession of the orbit of Mercury is measured;
The precession caused by the other planets etc. is calculated and
subtracted from the measured value;
The difference is about 43"/century;
Einstein's GR predicts about 43"/century. Nothing else predicts it;
Therefore, there is supporting evidence for GR.

[Epifanio Schoonenburg]

wow, because the Einstine was a khazar, or what?? You khazars goys just
destroyed Einstine. You don't believe The Bible, but you use The Bible
when you are about to steal a land.
*_"I_steal_this_land,_because_it_stays_in_The_Bible"_*. Nato kiss my ass.
Beside *_illegal_bioweapon_labs_in_uKurine_*, you know nothing about
relativity. I strongly start to believe, Einstine was a
*_falsflag_event_*.

[Maciej Wozniak]

It's evidence that we're FORCED to THE BEST WAY, sure.
And for your ISO idiocy being a "Newton mode" as well.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

How could he have contributed anything of real value when relativity is pseudoscience?

[Reginal Langbroek]

there are no forces acting in Gravity, my friend. Are you a goy of
polakia? You want to steal a country, misnamed right now, as ukurine?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

There is no physics basis in GR that retrodicts Mercury's advance. Therefore it does not explain the anomaly. Playing around with the math and tossing in factors that are unwarranted such as the speed of light for gravity, explains nothing.

[whodat]

Check his patent applications and other economic activities. There is a
lot of crap included whenever one uses "Einstein" in an internet search.
The internet has been achieving less as its "dumbing down" progresses.

It will probably take some time for this phenomena to subside and for
internet searches to yield academically significant results once more.
Hopefully all the books will not have been burned in the interim.

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip>

> It's so simple that even you should be able to understand it.
>
> The precession of the orbit of Mercury is measured;
> The precession caused by the other planets etc. is calculated and subtracted from the measured value;
> The difference is about 43"/century;
> Einstein's GR predicts about 43"/century. Nothing else predicts it; Therefore, there is supporting evidence for GR.

VOLNEY, THIS ARTICLE CAN HELP YOU TO BE LESS IGNORANT. THE CALCULATIONS ARE DONE FOR INFINITE SPEED OF GRAVITY.

*********************************************

Perihelion advance of planets
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node44.html

The solar system consists of eight major planets (Mercury to Neptune) moving around the Sun in slightly elliptical orbits that are approximately coplanar with one another. According to Chapter 4, if we neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions, the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space.

However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess in a prograde manner (i.e., rotate in the same direction as the orbital motion) around the Sun. We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion precession of a given planet by treating the other planets as uniform concentric rings, centered on the Sun, of mass equal to the planetary mass, and radius equal to the mean orbital radius.

This method of calculation, which is due to Gauss, is equivalent to averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits of the other planets. It is reasonable to do this because the timescale associated with the perihelion precession is very much longer than the orbital period of any planet in the solar system.

Thus, by treating the other planets as rings, we can calculate the mean gravitational perturbation due to these planets, and, thereby, determine the desired precession rate. (Actually, Gauss also incorporated the eccentricities, and non-uniform angular velocities, of the planetary orbits into his original calculation.)

We can conveniently index the planets in the solar system by designating Mercury as planet 1, and Neptune as planet 8.
Let the mᵤ and the aᵤ, for u=1...8 , be the planetary masses and mean orbital radii, respectively. Furthermore, let M be the mass of the Sun. It follows, from Section 3.7, that the gravitational potential generated in the vicinity of the i th planet by the Sun and the other planets is

Φᵤ(r) = -GM/r - ∑ᵏ⁼⁰ pᵏ [∑ᵛ<ᵘ Gmᵥ/aᵥ (aᵥ/r)²ᵏ⁺¹ + ∑ᵛ>ᵘ Gmᵥ/aᵥ (r/aᵥ)²ᵏ]

pᵏ = [P²ᵏ(0]². Pʳ(x) is a Legendre polynomial (Abramowitz and Stegun 1965b).

The perihelion of the u_th planet advances by

δωᵤ ≈ 2π ∑ᵏ⁼¹ k (2k+1) pᵏ [∑ᵛ<ᵘ mᵥ/M (aᵥ/aᵤ)²ᵏ + ∑ᵛ>ᵘ mᵥ/M (aᵤ/aᵥ)²ᵏ]

radians per revolution around the Sun. Of course, the time required for a single revolution is the orbital period, Tᵤ . From this (read the paper), it's derived the rate of the perihelion precession, in arcseconds/year, with the formula

δωᵤ ≈ [12960000/Tᵤ(yr)] ∑ᵏ⁼¹ k (2k+1) pᵏ [∑ᵛ<ᵘ mᵥ/M (aᵥ/aᵤ)²ᵏ + ∑ᵛ>ᵘ mᵥ/M (aᵤ/aᵥ)²ᵏ⁺¹]

RESULTS OF THE APPROXIMATE FORMULA δωᵤ
Table: Observed and theoretical planetary perihelion precession rates (at J2000). Source: Standish and Williams (1992).

PLANET .......... OBSERVED .......... THEORETICAL
Mercury .......... 5.75"/year .......... 5.54"/year ................... [5.32"/year, with more accurate formula]
Venus ............. 2.05"/year .......... 12.07"/year
Earth ............. 11.45"/year .......... 12.79"/year
Mars ............. 16.28"/year .......... 17.75"/year
Jupiter ............ 6.55"/year .......... 7.51"/year
Saturn .......... 19.50"/year .......... $ 18.59"/year
Uranus ........... 3.34"/year .......... 2.75"/year
Neptune ......... 0.36"/year .......... 0.67"/year

Perihelion precession of Mercury
As described in Appendix B, if the calculation described in the previous section is carried out MORE ACCURATELY, taking into account the slight eccentricities of the planetary orbits, as well as their small mutual inclinations, then the perihelion precession rate of the planet Mercury is found to be 5.32 arcseconds per year. However, the observed precession rate is 5.75 arcseconds per year.

The difference of 43"/century is calculated by giving gravity the speed c (Gerber, Einstein).

The above table gives results with INFINITE speed of gravity. And this has been so since Le Verrier (1857).

As I wrote before: Apples + Oranges = TOTAL THEORETICAL Mercury's perihelion advance.

Others use FORCES, NOT FIELDS. But, under Newton the speed of gravity is INFINITE, for Venus over Mercury OR Uranus over Mercury.

Read this, even when you're Russophobic. You'll see how different values are generated using PURE Newton and a computer:

Gravitation, Field, and Rotation of Mercury Perihelion
Joseph J. Smulsky
Institute of the Earth Cryosphere of the Russian Academy of Sciences

http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/08Smulsky2c.pdf

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:01:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> As described in Appendix B, if the calculation described in the previous section is carried out MORE ACCURATELY, taking into account the slight eccentricities of the planetary orbits, as well as their small mutual inclinations, then the perihelion precession rate of the planet Mercury is found to be 5.32 arcseconds per year. However, the observed precession rate is 5.75 arcseconds per year.

THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE MUST HAVE AN ERROR because "calculated" should read "explained by"

> The difference of 43"/century is calculated by giving gravity the speed c (Gerber, Einstein).
>
> The above table gives results with INFINITE speed of gravity. And this has been so since Le Verrier (1857).
>

I have also read Smulsky and he seems to be a very good source showing Newtonian calculations are sufficient to explain Mercury's advance.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:01:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Read this, even when you're Russophobic. You'll see how different values are generated using PURE Newton and a computer:
>
> Gravitation, Field, and Rotation of Mercury Perihelion
> Joseph J. Smulsky
> Institute of the Earth Cryosphere of the Russian Academy of Sciences
>
> http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/08Smulsky2c.pdf

In this paper Smulsky accounts for the advance by involving the Sun's rotation and in another paper by the oblateness of the Sun, both purely Newtonian. Other scientists have done similar calculations.

[Chaston Kuipers]

whodat wrote:

> Check his patent applications and other economic activities. There is a
> lot of crap included whenever one uses "Einstein" in an internet search.
> The internet has been achieving less as its "dumbing down" progresses.

a patent in not ownership. It's a right you may produce, for a period of
time.

Ye olde Irish proverb: “If two neighbors are fighting, there's an
Englishman that has visited one of them yesterday”.

If this is true, and it seems it is, my question is: Who is Prigozhin
working for? Faction in FSB looking to overthrow the Gov.

and if this is true, then the Wagner group *_was_a_dormant_giuda_agent_*.
The leader must be worn cement shoes, taken for a boat trip and made to
talk.

*_FSB_opens_criminal_case_after_Wagner_boss_calls_for_‘armed_rebellion’__*
https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/578547-prigozhin-fsb-armed-rebellion/

[Richard Hertz]

This is the infamous formula 11, from Einstein's paper (Nov. 18, 1915):

(dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x – x² + α x³ (in geometrical units)

(dx/dɸ)² = 2Am/B² + 2GMm²/B² x – x² + α x³ (in physical units, giving terms in 1/mt²)

N(x) = 2Am/B² + 2GMm²/B² x – x² = - α₁ α₂ + (α₁ + α₂) x – x² (newtonian formula, with α₁ and α₂ inverse of perihelion and aphelion)

E(x) = N(x) + α x³ (the same 1915 formula, with the relativistic cubic term. α = 2GM/c²)

Einstein proposed that 2A/B² + α/B² x – x² + α x³ = 0 has the roots α₁ and α₂ (same as in Newton) PLUS 1/α as the third root.

In doing so, he neglected ANY INFLUENCE of α₁ and α₂ over 1/α. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL!

He continued, using unnumbered equations, with

E(x) = - α (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - α x) [observe the trick of extracting α from (x - 1/α)]

BUT HE NEGLECTED THE CONSEQUENCES OF E(x) = α x³ - x² + (α₁ + α₂) x - α₁ α₂ (now in polynomial form)

He ignored the rules that roots of a cubic polynomial like E(x) MUST FOLLOW, as is shown by elementary comparison.

IF n₁, n₂ and n₃ are THE REAL ROOTS OF E(x), it must verify that

n₁ + n₂ + n₃ = 1/α (elementary rule for roots of cubic polynomials ax³ + b x² +c x + d, because n₁ + n₂ + n₃ = -b/a).

Einstein ERROR, by making n₃ = 1/α, is that he left n₁ + n₂ = 0, OR n₁ = - n₂. But these are, allegedly, inverses of perihelion and aphelion.

But he didn't care about that. He called it "reasonable accuracy".



As for the factor α, that he extracted and put in front of E(x), it's a VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR, which contributed with 2/3 of the result.

E(x) = (dx/dɸ)²

dɸ= dx/√E(x) = dx/√[- α (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - α x)] = 1/√α dx/√[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - α x)]

NOW THE HACK, USING THE ADDITION OF ROOTS: Instead of a null result for n₁ + n₂, WITH THIS FUDGE, he obtained

α(n₁ + n₂) + αn₃ = 1 ; αn₃ = [1 - α(n₁ + n₂)]

and PLANTED THIS INSTEAD OF (1 - α x)

(1 - α x) == [1 - α(n₁ + n₂)] {1 - α x/[1 - α(n₁ + n₂)]} ≈ [1 - α(n₁ + n₂)] (1 - α x)

I EXPECT THAT READERS CAN UNDERSTAND THIS INCREDIBLE FUDGE, WHICH IMPLY THAT [1 - α(n₁ + n₂)] = 1 IN ONE
PART, BUT NOT EQUAL TO 1 IN THE FOLLOWING PART.

Now that he got, fraudulently, (1 - α x) ≈ [1 - α(n₁ + n₂)] (1 - α x), PROCEED WITH THE MASTER COOK:

1/√[1 - α(n₁ + n₂)] = 1/√[1 - α(α₁ + α₂)] ≈ [1 + α(α₁ + α₂)/2] , factor that magically appeared in the front of the integral (2/3 of result).

So, for those who followed up to here, the fudges are (to the least):

1) Use 1/α as a TRUE ROOT, dismissing the influence of the other two roots.

2) Exchanged the two true roots n₁ and n₂ BY THE ROOTS OF THE QUADRATIC EXACT SOLUTION, α₁ and α₂. These newtonian
roots are EXACTLY the inverse of the aphelion and perihelion values of Mercury.

3) Dismissed OR NOT the expression [1 - α(n₁ + n₂)], at the convenience of his FRAUD.

4) COOKED the integral, using α₁,α₂ as limits of integration, instead of true roots of dr/dɸ = 0, which are n₁, n₂.


And I didn't comment anything before his Equation 11, which has no less than SIX FUDGES, COOKING, TRIMMING actions.

Now, who dare to call Einstein an honest man, and his Mercury's solution the real deal?

IT IS A HOAX, easily verifiable even by a KID in high school.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I do not know calculus, only having algebra in High School. I do know that many of these errors have been recognized all along by good scientists including Charles Lane Poor in the 1920s.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

Little wonder that relativity was called, "probably the profoundest single achievement of the human mind," and "probably the most profound and far-reaching application of mathematics to the phenomena of the material universe."

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

Please understand you interrupted me reading The Einstein Delusion." An excellent book written in 1926. (Whodat can shut-up).

[Richard Hertz]

Two analysis are on two books/paper, which I quoted above: Okunov (2009) and Moeller (1953).
Moeller was a relativist, and very forgiving (Chapter XII, page 351). Okunov is a critic also, but made some mistakes on his paper.

Charles Lane Poor, a distinguished astronomer, was very vocal against starlight deflection for many years, until he gave up in 1928.

The center of my critics here is the 43"/cy, written in stone since 1915. And the HOAX is THIS theoretical value and the efforts to
silence any criticism to a new theory that allowed many people to put food on the table. Newton was criticized for more than 200 years,
by many first grade physicists and mathematicians, as well as philosophers.

This didn't happen with Einstein.

[Volney]

On 6/23/2023 3:01 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It's so simple that even you should be able to understand it.
>>
>> The precession of the orbit of Mercury is measured;
>> The precession caused by the other planets etc. is calculated and subtracted from the measured value;
>> The difference is about 43"/century;
>> Einstein's GR predicts about 43"/century. Nothing else predicts it; Therefore, there is supporting evidence for GR.

> RESULTS OF THE APPROXIMATE FORMULA δωᵤ
> Table: Observed and theoretical planetary perihelion precession rates (at J2000). Source: Standish and Williams (1992).
>
> PLANET .......... OBSERVED .......... THEORETICAL
> Mercury .......... 5.75"/year .......... 5.54"/year ................... [5.32"/year, with more accurate formula]

Difference: 43"/century unexplained precession. GR predicts this
additional 43"/century. Support for GR.

NEXT!!!

[J. J. Lodder]

whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> On 6/23/2023 12:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 9:59:55?AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> >> On 6/23/2023 10:37 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> >>> had no thing to do with it either.

> >> Most people forget (if they ever actually knew) that Einstein was
> >> involved in lots of technological research/development other than
> >> the relativity he was most famous for.
> > How could he have contributed anything of real value when relativity is
> > pseudoscience?
> >
> Check his patent applications and other economic activities. There is a
> lot of crap included whenever one uses "Einstein" in an internet search.
> The internet has been achieving less as its "dumbing down" progresses.
>
> It will probably take some time for this phenomena to subside and for
> internet searches to yield academically significant results once more.
> Hopefully all the books will not have been burned in the interim.

We'l get a tsunami of AI-generated nonsense first.
After that, there may be a job market for real people
who really understand something.

Let's hope Wikipedia survives,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> On 6/23/2023 10:37 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Sure. And I'll bet that Einstein was a much beter engineer
than any of those here present.
After all, he -was- an engineer by training.

And being a patent examiner is one of the most demanding jobs
in the engineering profession.
You need to be able to understand the workings
of a very broad range of devices, in technical detail.

According to his boss at the office in Bern
he was the best patent examiner they ever had,

Jan

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Employing the speed of light in calculations for Mercury's perihelion advance without any justification in physics and ad hoc selectively for Mercury alone without using the same method for the other underlying orbital dynamics of the other planets is absurd.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

What effect does the speed of light for gravity have other than jiggering the calculations? According to LaPlace and Van Flandern, it would throw off all orbital calculations because they only work with an assumption of instantaneous speed. Einstein continues to use the instantaneous speed of gravity for all other orbital calculations, including those involved in his Mercury calculations, with the sol exception of Mercury. The man is so ad hoc he just makes things up.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Why would the tiny discrepancy of 43"/century require a huge change in the velocity of gravity to correct and how would that avoid throwing everything off?

[Richard Hertz]

No relativist will answer you, because of:

1) Ignorance.

2) Sheer ignorance.

3) Fanaticism to defend their doctrine, in particular spacetime.

4) More ignorance, in particular about Solar System Dynamics.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I've asked before, and the only answer I got was, don't I know there are other variables to balance that out? My reply: Why take it out to put it back in?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Without justification from physics, it is only meaningless math.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

All they need to explain is why the speed of light for gravity is involved at all in the calculations. What effect does it have physically? Does it only have an effect on the math without any effect on the physics?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 10:30:35 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > Why would the tiny discrepancy of 43"/century require a huge change in the velocity of gravity to correct and how would that avoid throwing everything off?
> No relativist will answer you, because of:
>
> 1) Ignorance.
>
> 2) Sheer ignorance.
>
> 3) Fanaticism to defend their doctrine, in particular spacetime.
>
> 4) More ignorance, in particular about Solar System Dynamics.

The mathematical formulae of relativity amount to no more than a wizard's cloak.

[Richard Hertz]

Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Newton's INFINITE speed of gravity has been working perfectly since 1676, and they HATE THIS.

Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Laplace's nebular theory explain perfectly the formation of the Solar System, and they HATE THIS.

Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Einstein's GR CAN'T EXPLAIN the rotation of spiral galaxies like ours, and Newton/Poisson/Gauss CAN, and they HATE THIS.

Relativists HATE any critic or refutation over the three mystic predictions done by Einstein, YEARS BEFORE he stole GR equations from
Grossman, Levy-Civita and Hilbert/Schwarzschild.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

"all the essential traits of the theory can be made clear without the aid of mathematics" - Thirring "The Ideas of Einstein's Theory" p. v. If so, why can't we be told why the speed of light is invoked in the calculations?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Here is something amusing about the accepted cosmology involved with relativity nonsense: Our galaxy is no more than 13.8 billion years old, and our Sun orbits it four times every billion years. Then we are to believe our Sun has only orbited the galaxy 56 times! I think it would be far more likely to have orbited 60 million times.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:21:38 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > > > Why would the tiny discrepancy of 43"/century require a huge change in the velocity of gravity to correct and how would that avoid throwing everything off?
> > > No relativist will answer you, because of:
> > >
> > > 1) Ignorance.
> > >
> > > 2) Sheer ignorance.
> > >
> > > 3) Fanaticism to defend their doctrine, in particular spacetime.
> > >
> > > 4) More ignorance, in particular about Solar System Dynamics.
> > All they need to explain is why the speed of light for gravity is involved at all in the calculations. What effect does it have physically? Does it only have an effect on the math without any effect on the physics?
> Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Newton's INFINITE speed of gravity has been working perfectly since 1676, and they HATE THIS.
>
> Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Laplace's nebular theory explain perfectly the formation of the Solar System, and they HATE THIS.
>
> Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Einstein's GR CAN'T EXPLAIN the rotation of spiral galaxies like ours, and Newton/Poisson/Gauss CAN, and they HATE THIS.
>
> Relativists HATE any critic or refutation over the three mystic predictions done by Einstein, YEARS BEFORE he stole GR equations from
> Grossman, Levy-Civita and Hilbert/Schwarzschild.

"Professor Eddington endorses the observation that a mathematician is never so 'happy' as when he 'does not know what he is talking about' (p. 185). He is not disturbed by the fact that he is talking nonsense because he is not aware of it." - The Einstein Delusion p. 23. The math alleged to explain Mercury's perihelion advance is nonsense.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:21:38 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > > > > > >>>>>> Einstein was a pacifist; he would not want to work on anything
> > > > > > >>>>>> military-related.

Yet he signed thev petition for the atmoic bomb.

> > > > Why would the tiny discrepancy of 43"/century require a huge change in the velocity of gravity to correct and how would that avoid throwing everything off?
> > > No relativist will answer you, because of:
> > >
> > > 1) Ignorance.
> > >
> > > 2) Sheer ignorance.
> > >
> > > 3) Fanaticism to defend their doctrine, in particular spacetime.
> > >
> > > 4) More ignorance, in particular about Solar System Dynamics.
> > All they need to explain is why the speed of light for gravity is involved at all in the calculations. What effect does it have physically? Does it only have an effect on the math without any effect on the physics?
> Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Newton's INFINITE speed of gravity has been working perfectly since 1676, and they HATE THIS.
>
> Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Laplace's nebular theory explain perfectly the formation of the Solar System, and they HATE THIS.
>
> Relativists just DON'T KNOW why Einstein's GR CAN'T EXPLAIN the rotation of spiral galaxies like ours, and Newton/Poisson/Gauss CAN, and they HATE THIS.
>
> Relativists HATE any critic or refutation over the three mystic predictions done by Einstein, YEARS BEFORE he stole GR equations from
> Grossman, Levy-Civita and Hilbert/Schwarzschild.

I Googled relativity theory is unnecessary and found this:


The Simplicity of Disproving the Theory of Special Relativity
Denis Thomas

Abstract

Einstein’s theory of Special relativity is founded on an error made by Hendrick Lorentz. It is not necessary to expose the mathematical inconsistencies of special relativity, since the theory collapses by simply exposing the error made by Lorentz. In doing so, it not only causes special relativity to collapse, but also general relativity, and the many theories built upon these two deceptive theories.

There are many claims of tests made which supposedly prove SR or GR, such as the eclipse of 1919, the Hafele-Keating experiment, GPS, the orbit of Mercury, and muons. The error of these will also be shown as well as an area of astronomy which has been negatively impacted by SR.

The epistemology approach to special relativity: you can know it is a false theory when the theory requires deceiving the student for acceptance and the tests which support the theory can be proven false.

[J. J. Lodder]

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Einstein's theory of Special relativity is founded on an error made by
> Hendrick Lorentz.

So you cannot even spell a name correctly.
It is -Hendrik- Antoon Lorentz.

Ten points on the crackpot index for you,

Jan

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

That's a quote and not my spelling. That is your carelessness.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Who's impressed by you other than by your stupidity and carelessness? If you were capable of reasoning it would be different but relativity is an ideology and they are not defended by reason.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

"Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am
inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle" - L Essen, Relativity Joke or Swindle?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

“ I contend that the Einsteinian preference for the Principle of Relativity is based in the final count
- not on scientific or empirical grounds - but on ideological premises. ”
—Mathematician and physicist Wolfgang Smith

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

How do you tell who's telling the truth?
The ones trying to silence the others are lying.

[J. J. Lodder]

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote miners, like you, never tell the truth.
They quote mine for the purpose of lying,

Jan

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 1:53:27 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 2:47:38?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Einstein's theory of Special relativity is founded on an error made by
> > > > Hendrick Lorentz.
> > > So you cannot even spell a name correctly.
> > > It is -Hendrik- Antoon Lorentz.
> > >
> > > Ten points on the crackpot index for you,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > How do you tell who's telling the truth?
> > The ones trying to silence the others are lying.
> Quote miners, like you, never tell the truth.
> They quote mine for the purpose of lying,
>
> Jan

Dumb over-generalization. Once again, you're guilty of fallacious reasoning.

[Richard Hertz]

What is not told to anyone in 100 years: How Einstein & Besso failed miserably trying to calculate Mercury's perihelion
advance from Grossman's Entwurf, between June and August 1913, obtaining - 0.0012"/cy (as corrected in 2003), while
using Nordstrom's theory, they obtained +7"/cy.

Everything available in the LOST 53 pages Einstein-Besso manuscript, which surfaced in 1989, now available online with
249 notes from different scholars, that analyzed the 376 formulae. The manuscript was purchased for $398,500 by the
scientific book dealer Jeremy Norman & Co in 1993. and named "Einstein's Dirty Laundry".

The manuscript, thoroughly analyzed by dozen of researchers since then, signals why Einstein abandoned the development
for more than 2 years, after being convinced that nor him or Besso would ever find a correct value (until he fudged the math
since October 1915, to match Nordstrom's and Gerber's formulae, by hacking the factor of SIX (6) that was missing.

Besso wasn't acknowledged in any way, in his Nov. 18, 1915 paper.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/485

[Eq. 331] δθ = -πSok/(2fr) = - 4πKM (Rs²/Rm³) (Tm/Ts)/(10 c²)
[Eq. 331] δθ = - π . So.k/2f . 1/r = -0.8 . 10E16 k = -1.4 • 10E-11 rad/orbit = -5.6 . 10E-9 rad/cent = -1.2 • 10E-3 " (2000 times lower)
[Eq. 331, correcting several mistakes 80 years later] δθ = -5.6 . 10-7 rad/orbit = - 2.3"/century

(Equation 376, using Nordström) Ψ = π (1 + ½ 4π²a²/((1 – e²).T².c²)))
ΔΨ = 2Ψ - 2π = 0.8 × 10-7 rad/orbit = 7.2 ′′/century

(Equation 376, using Nordström 1913) ΔΨ = 6π³a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] , 7.2 ′′/century

(Einstein, Nov. 1915): 𝜖 = 24π³a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] = 6 x Nordström 1913 = Gerber1898 , 43′′/century

One of the important changes between 1913 and 1915 is the abandon of relativistic angular momentum, which was NOT CONSERVED,
and was a function of the gravitational potential. Other was to abandon the calculation of the influence of other planets and just adopt
the 43" value from Newcomb, provided by his assistant, the astronomer Freundlich (who was his hub with Newcomb).

But the most important change was to FUDGE the approximations using GR, in order to obtain a satisfactory cubic polynomial, instead
of the quadratic polynomial in which they invested 100 of hours in 1913.

The sadness and impotence to solve the problem in 1913, without extreme fudging, made Einstein abandon his GR for more than 2 years.

Then, since July 1915, he started to receive HELP from first rank scientists, like Schwarzschild and Hilbert, and voilá.

But the attempts of him and Besso, in 1913, remained SECRETIVE until 75 years later, when descendants of Besso sold the
manuscript.

I have a vast amount of details, that can't be posted here, due to its volume.

His solution of the problem of Mercury, theoretically, is AN HOAX.

There is a clash between observational astronomy and LAME theoretical calculations to justify the 56"/YEAR advance of
Mercury's perihelion. CALCULATIONS vs. OBSERVATIONS collide.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Here's a good source for free: Einstein and the Perihelion Motion of Mercury
Michel Janssen, Jürgen Renn https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11238

[Volney]

On 6/27/2023 12:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> There is a clash between observational astronomy and LAME theoretical calculations to justify the 56"/YEAR advance of
> Mercury's perihelion. CALCULATIONS vs. OBSERVATIONS collide.
>

That's right. Anyone who believes there is an anomalous 56"/year
precession needs to be kicked out of astronomy, since the measured
anomalous precession is only 43"/century. Which just happens to be the
value predicted by GR. Suck on that, loser.

[Richard Hertz]

This is because you are a charlatan IGNORANT, Volney.
You should fact-check things before being opinionated.


Total Mercury's perihelion advance.
Amount (arcsec/Julian century)......... Cause

1) 5028.83" ........................ Coordinate (due to the precession of the equinoxes)
2) 530" ............................... Gravitational tugs of the other planets
3) 42.98" ............................ General relativity
4) 0.0254" .......................... Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5603.24" ............................. Total
5599.7" ............................... Observed
−3.54" ................................. Discrepancy

https://www.scirp.org/html/4679.html

[Richard Hertz]

Not good enough. Protect the role of Einstein, and is shy of showing the MANY ERRORS and IDIOCIES that contain.
Don't reflect the criticism of plagiarism of Nordstrom's work. Made up calculations 100 years after them.

Besides, it deals only 12 pages, and support the relativistic claim of 18"/cy, as corrected by Besso alone, in early 1914.

They fixed errors applying Eq. 101:

ε = π 5/8 (Ac₀/F)² , Eq. 101

Einstein: ε = π 5/16 (Ac₀/F)² = 1,068E-05 radians ; error of 100 X

Fixing by authors:

F = 2π a² √(1 - e²)/T
A = 8π² a³/(c₀² T²)

ε(1913) = π 5/8 [A/[a(1 - e²)] = 17,92"/cy

ε(1915) = π 3/2 [A/[a(1 - e²)] = 43"/cy

ε(1913)/ε(1915) = 5/12

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values:
The current best observed value
is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement
with the post-Newtonian prediction.
(yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays)

The precession has also been measured in the meantime
for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement
with the general relativistic predictions.

So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun
(like oblateness) must also be abandonned,

Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values:
> The current best observed value
> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement
> with the post-Newtonian prediction.
> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays)
>
> The precession has also been measured in the meantime
> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement
> with the general relativistic predictions.
>
> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun
> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned,
>
> Jan

You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant!

Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298").

They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole!

The theoreticians, specialists in celestial mechanics, are who BREAK DOWN the yearly perihelion advance in their
ALLEGED COMPONENTS.

Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives.

And this has been for more than a thousand years. Remember Ptolomei and Copernicus?

Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43".

Got it?

[Volney]

On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values:
>> The current best observed value
>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement
>> with the post-Newtonian prediction.
>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays)
>>
>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime
>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement
>> with the general relativistic predictions.
>>
>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun
>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned,
>>
>> Jan
>
> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant!
>
> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298").
>
> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole!

Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the
sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the
theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is
wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which
matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is correct?

> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives.

And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations,
the calculations in total are supported.

> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43".

We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these
days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century.
Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small
and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR
component should be anything other than 43"/century.
>
> Got it?
>
Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this
but you can't.

[Richard Hertz]

Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior
of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial mechanics and astronomy due to this fact.

Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old
EE folks here surely had. But you behave as a woke snowflake that got his degree 10 years ago, in a declining educational system.

The average value of 55.997"/year is AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, and the effect of equinox. Illustrate better, ignorant!

Think in this way: If you OBSERVE the advance of the perihelion of Mercury from a distance of 10 million Km ABOVE the Sun,
and normal to the ecliptic plane, you then DISCOUNT the observational effect caused by watching it from Earth.

Given that case, the MEASURED perihelion advance is about 575" per century. Standard newtonian CALCULATIONS can explain
only about 532"/cy. STANDARD CALCULATIONS that are 43"/cy short of that value.

GR claims that the missing 43"/cy can be explained by its stupid theory of space bending and twisting under Sun's mass.

But this is THEORETICAL, and hyped by the relativists.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER CAUSES, much of them due to UNKNOWN physics.

Do you think that physics is done, once GR has been adopted?

Asshole, it can't even explain the motion of planets in the Solar System, even less the Milky Way rotation, not to mention
the behavior of the "observable" universe (with its 94% of baryionic mass MISSING).

Get another hobby, or retire to an elder care center.

[J. J. Lodder]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04?PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values:
> > The current best observed value

> > is 4"2"."9"8"0"?"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement

> > with the post-Newtonian prediction.
> > (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays)
> >
> > The precession has also been measured in the meantime
> > for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement
> > with the general relativistic predictions.
> >
> > So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun
> > (like oblateness) must also be abandonned,
> >
> > Jan
>
> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant!
>
> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance
> (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298").
>
> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole!
>
> The theoreticians, specialists in celestial mechanics, are who BREAK DOWN
> the yearly perihelion advance in their ALLEGED COMPONENTS.
>
> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as what
> OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives.

Would it surprise you greatly to learn that theoretical computations
(including GR effects of course) and observational astronomy
agree with each other these days to about 10^-10?

So -all- the components of the precession are known to an accuracy
of about a milliarcsecond/century.

There is no point in citing obsolete sources that are far less accurate,

Jan