Mercury’s perihelion and Einstein’s General Relativity

Spyros wrote in response to Alberto’s comment that

GR and Brans-Dicke theory are both relativistic theories of gravitation. It is true that BD can explain the precession of perihelia. However i was referring mainly to the impossibility of explaining this precession using Newtonian mechanics.

I realize that physicists can declare any legal physics theory of gravitation to be “General Relativity” if they wish to do so. Even Newtonian mechanics is General Relativity given appropriate semantic conditions. The way a circle is an ellipse with 0 eccentricity any physics theory is General Relativity with a suitably chosen X = Y condition.

1. The difference between GR and other gravitation theories is academic

According to these pages General Relativity differs from RTG and Brans-Dick theory of gravitation in some important ways:

The relativistic theory of gravitation (RTG) disagrees with the Einstein’s general relativity (GR) in the crucial point: it denies the total geometrization and considers the gravitation on the basis of the classical Faraday-Maxwell’s field approach.

In theoretical physics, the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation is a theoretical framework to explain gravitation. It is a well-known competitor of Einstein’s more popular theory of general relativity. It is an example of a scalar-tensor theory, a gravitational theory in which the gravitational interaction is mediated by a scalar field as well as the tensor field of general relativity. The gravitational constant G is not presumed to be constant but instead 1/G is replaced by a scalar field φ which can vary from place to place and with time.

In reality, the difference between these theories and General Relativity is academic. General Relativity is so flexible, malleable, plastic and semantic that it can be molded into any shape to prove anything and everything including the existence of god. Physicists use general relativity to map the mind of god into their own careers. Molding General Relativity into a specific shape to prove a physicist’s preferred doctrine is where physics at.

2. General relativity as cargo cult

When physicists talk about the relationship of General Relativity to Mercury’s perihelion they always repeat standard physics mythology without applying even the smallest amount of scientific skepticism to it. But even a superficial questioning of physicists’ interpretation of the precession of Mercury’s perihelion reveals that we are faced with a cargo cult.

In general, any statement that claims that “General Relativity predicts” a natural phenomena is a lie. Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a rubric for an immense collection of statements. Rubrics cannot make quantitative predictions. To say that “general relativity predicts correctly the perihelion of mercury” is as meaningful as saying that “English language predicts that tomorrow it will rain.” Same thing.

3. Only the final unique single formula used in the computation is relevant to the computation

As a rational scientist I ignore derivations physicists use to navigate between legal physics nodes. I look at the operational equations. Philosophical ruminations invented by physicists to rationalize their derivations or their starting point in legal physics have no practical value. I look at the formula that is used to compute astronomical quantities. An astronomical quantity is not computed with a rubric but with one single formula. In this case the formula used to compute the perihelion of Mercury is the equation of the ellipse with an extra term Delta phi. No vestiges of General Relativity remains in the equation of the ellipse after the derivation.

Equation of the ellipse:


Equation of the “general relativistic ellipse!”

r = \frac{r_0 (1 + e)}{(1 + e \cos(\varphi-\Delta \varphi ))}

The magical Delta phi:

r_0 (1 + e)}

4. Where is General Relativity in the ellipse equation?

To endow this Delta phi with general relativistic properties is charlatanism, shamanism and political doublespeak all combined into one. Or legalese.

And where is the famous spacetime of general relativistic physics in this simple equation of the ellipse with a Delta phi? No such thing exists. Physicists talk about spacetimes and fields and geodesics and so on but they eliminate them in order to obtain a practical geometric formula. Physicists tell us that they’ve discovered a fundamental thing called spacetime but when it comes to calculating astronomical motions they will eliminate their spacetime with all the other philosophical furniture they’ve ascribe to nature.

To repeat: physicists will lie through their teeth to defend their faith. In a professional sense, a physicist is a combination of a politician, a cardinal and a lawyer combined into one! The common characteristic of these professionals is that they are all master wordsmiths using semantics to prove their ideology. Mathematical semantics used by physicists is no different than prose semantics used by the others. This fact can be gleaned from the ugliness of the theories designed by physicists. And human knowledge is entrusted to these professional bureaucrats.

I realize that physicists have the authority to define the equation of the ellipse as a relativistic equation. There is nothing to be done about this at this point because we don’t know to whom to transfer physicists’ illegitimate authority on human reason. Yes, professional physicists will call the geometric equation of the ellipse a general relativistic equation because they added their own constants to it and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Might is right. This is true in politics and also in physics.

Physicists have the monopoly on human reason and they use their monopoly to prove their dogma. Physicists are the Doctors of Philosophy who trace their ancestry to the Medieval Doctors of Philosophy against whom a Scientific Revolution was necessary to emancipate human reason from their monopoly.

Let’s look at how physicists obtain the equation of the ellipse from Einstein’s equations.

5. Derivation of the relativistic ellipse for the purpose of saving Mercury’s perihelion

As usual physicists start by writing down a piece of legal physics, in this case, the legal version of non-linear Einstein’s equations. After displaying Einstein’s authority prominently physicists start to eliminate one by one any term, concept or principle that they do not like; pick and choose solutions; cherry pick spacetimes, and add new terms as necessary. All legally, of course, everything is done according to the book.

In physics, the science of physical semantics, non-linear equals linear. In physics, a non-linear equation is simultaneously a linear equation. So these semantic wordsmiths start by writing non-linear equations and then say “let’s assume that our non-linear equations are linear” and work in the “weak field approximation” which is the semantic justification of the principle of equivalence for linearity. The relativistic ellipse equation is built upon many ad hoc but legal hidden assumptions. It is a piece of polemical semantics.

So after a long string of legal assumptions including linearity, spherical symmetry of Schwartzchild and what not, physicists eliminate all of the functionality of Einstein equations and find the ellipse equation with an ad hoc term Delta phi. The ellipse equation is to Einstein’s equation what a bicycle wheel attached to a New York light pole is to a bicycle. Yet, physicists still claim general relativity saves the perihelion because physicists stripped Einstein equations into the ellipse equation.

6. Same formula was derived by Gerber before Einstein

The same equation associated with Einstein’s name that saves the precession of Mercury’s perihelion was found by Gerber prior to Einstein. Einstein claimed that he never heard of Gerber’s solution. So here we have a formula derived from totally nonrelativistic assumptions by another German physicist and dismissed by Einstein and subsequent physicists because Einstein was on the first page of the New York Times but Gerber was not. This is how physics works.

Charlatanism? Yes. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

7. Le Verrier and Newtonian mechanics

Physics propaganda claims that

1) Nineteenth century French astronomer Le Verrier could not predict Mercury’s small anomalous motion with Newtonian mechanics and

2) Einstein discovered an equation with his miraculous General Relativity and saved Mercury’s precession.

This story of Einstein explaining Mercury’s unexplained precession is mythology. Or fraud. Because we cannot prove the opposite no matter how strong our case is.

Let’s look at what Le Verrier actually wrote. Here’s his theory of Mercury’s motion. What do you see? I see that Le Verrier is not using Newtonian mechanics to model Mercury’s motion. He is just using standard practical astronomy methods to fit observations to a trigonometric model. That’s TRIGONOMETRY. I realize that physicists have the authority to read TRIGONOMETRY as NEWTONIAN MECHANICS but I can’t do anything about that. (Trigonometrical dynamics was invented by Newton himself.) The historical fact is that Le Verrier is not using Newtonian F = GMm/r^2 as physicists assert to compute the precession of Mercury’s orbit. No. He is just fitting observations to trigonometric expansions.

So what does this mean? It means that the cargo cult physics assertion that Einstein’s General Relativity explained something that Newtonian mechanics could not explain is wrong.

Einstein added an ad hoc term to the equation of the ellipse and pretended to derive it from his philosophical principles later to be sanctified under the rubric of General Relativity.

8. Physics is a secular religion

All this proves that physics is a secular religion. Physicists use semantic methods to manipulate mathematical symbols to prove their dogma. General relativistic explanation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury proves this fact.

As mentioned above, Alberto wrote that there are alternative theories that save the observations equally well. There are alternative theories, yes, and also observations are saved best by the usual method of trigonometric expansions. So why do physicists attribute the perihelion of Mercury issue to General Relativity while there are many other ways to save the same observation more precisely? Because they are the faithful with authority to define. And that’s a dangerous combination.

Mercury’s perihelion is an astronomical issue that can be solved by adding an ad hoc term to Kepler’s rule. And this is what Einstein did.

The fact is that there are trigonometric astronomical methods that save Mercury’s perihelion with smallest residuals that the simplistic ellipse equation cannot match. The general relativistic ellipse equation is a physics textbook trope that will be repeated for ever but it has no practical value.

The more I study methods of physics the more it looks like a legal dogma defended blindly and fanatically by physicists. This is the state of science in the 21st century. State of physics rather, not science.

But of course physicists have the authority to save anything by defining new semantics. Physicists will simply say that the arguments above are historical arguments, and that they do physics, not history and they now have new methods to save the perihelion of mercury.

I, as a physicist, am mainly interested in understanding and explaining how physics works. So what mainly interests me is physics and not the history of physics.

Legal physics says that Mercury’s precession of the perihelion is saved by Einstein’s General Relativity. Any statement to the contrary is wrong by definition. No amount of criticism will ever change physicists’ ownership of the perihelion of mercury.

A perihelion of Mercury problem no longer exists in practice. NASA fits orbits into precise astronomical tables with numerical integration but physicists will perpetuate this mythology to eternity because it has become a bureaucratic habit.

About these ads

8 thoughts on “Mercury’s perihelion and Einstein’s General Relativity

  1. Hi Zeynel,

    I’ve just read your post. Unfortunately, I’m not a physicist and I don’t have the appropriate knowledge to challenge some of your arguments. But, Why do you think the physicists don’t use logical arguments to formulate their theories? As you know, they use mathematical frameworks. Why do you ignore this fact?

    Let me remind you that Mathematical Physics is a enormous field and you can see it as Math if you want. Therefore, Physics has a logical consistency. I agree with the fact that nature is rational is very strange. But, fortunately, Nature is rational (at least from a fundamental point of view). And physicists are scientifics that study nature from a completely rational viewpoint.
    I think the results that can be obtained from physical principles are very rationals and objectives. General Relativity has done many predictions which have been confirmed by very precise and difficult experiments. For example, Geodettic effect. Do you think geodetic effect is easy to predict?. I don’t mean to predict it in a qualitative way, which is already very difficult, I’m referring to predict it quantitatively. I think if you don’t use any relativistic field theory, it would be impossible to predict this phenomenon. And the geodetic effect has been measured by a very sophisticated experiment, namely, the Gravity Probe B. I see this like a triumph of human’s mind. You should be proud, because, the humanity has been able to achieve this feat. Thanks to physics, thanks to Physicists.

  2. Hi Alberto,

    Why do you think the physicists don’t use logical arguments to formulate their theories? As you know, they use mathematical frameworks. Why do you ignore this fact?

    In terms of technology it seems like an exciting experiment. But look at this picture. People at NASA are decent enough to put the “spacetime” in quotes. Indeed, the usual, trope of representing spacetime as a grid stretched by a mass at center is nothing more than photoshop physics. It is a metaphor, it is a visualization. Spacetime is fiction. It is fiction because it does not enter the operational formulas.

    I’ve investigated in depth the Cavendish experiment, and Coulomb experiment also in some depth, and I’ve look into other historical physics experiments. In all of them I noticed that physicists interpret results to save their ideology.

    In the case of gravity probe-B I don’t have the data to analyze the experiment in depth. But, is there a term for spacetime in operational formulas? I bet that there is not. So do you think that the residuals that physicists interpret as due to general relativistic spacetime can be interpreted by other models. By actual reality and not by reified virtual reality called spacetime? I think so.

    What Gravity probe-B measures must have simple astronomical explanation.

    So I am not doubting that researchers observe a residual in the period of gyroscopes, I only doubt their interpretations.

    Here too we see physics mixing with politics. I think NASA’s claim must be investigated by independent hostile parties and non-relativistic astronomical explanation must come first. And under the freedom of informaton act NASA I believe must release all of the information in an intelligible format. Maybe, they do, I don’t know in this case, but they usually make everything available. The problem is to have the expertise to analyze the immense dataset.

    Second I don’t believe that “General Relativity predicts” is a logical or rational or mathematical statement. General Relativity is a rubric. It cannot make any predictions. As far as I understand this prediction comes from a philosophical principle included in General Relativity, the equivalence principle, right?

    From NASA Gravity Probe-B fact sheet.

    Changes in the spin axis alignment of the gyroscopes are a direct measurement of the geodetic and/or frame dragging effects of general relativity.

    This does not make sense. Unless they assume what they are trying to measure there is no GR in this measurement.

    According to the laws of Newtonian physics, a perfect gryroscope, which is experiencing no external forces, will not drift. In the GP-B experiment this would mean that once a gyroscope is spinning in alignment with the guide star, it would stay aligned with that star forever.

    This is a lie. First of all that’s not Newtonian physics but Newtonian dogma and Newtonian assumptions.

    In the early 1960s, based on Einstein’s general theory of relativity, Dr. Leonard Schiff, chairman of the Physics Department at Stanford, predicted that the geodetic and frame-dragging effects would slightly change an orbiting gyroscope’s spin axis alignment in relation to the guide star.

    How did he predict? I don’t know. I haven’t read the papers. But the predictions must have come by molding General Relativity into Newtonian mechanics, which means that what is used in essence is Kepler’s rule.

    Here are several examples of scientific fraud and lies committed and perpetuated by physicists. Their method is always the same. If the experiments do not confirm their dogma then 1) define a new experiment and/or 2) fit observations to a mathematical framework and call the framework general relativity (or the dogma they are trying to save).

    1. Newton and Halley fit three observations of a comet into a parabola and claimed to have computed its orbit from Newtonian dynamics. This is fraud. But it established the method of proving ideology by fitting a curve as a legitimate physics method.

    2. Cavendish never observed force or G. But later physicists defined G and started to fit Cavendish data to G. Again, force is not proved. Newtonian mechanics is not proved. Only data is fit to a curve and the fit is called Cavendish experiment.

    3. Coulomb faked his results but physicists built a law of nature on Coulomb’s faked experiment. Later, realizing that Coulomb experiment could not be duplicated, they defined another experiment, the hollow sphere experiment, as the Coulomb experiment. Again, measurements are fit into ideology.

    4. Einstein’s original computation of Mercury’s perihelion was simply the ellipse equation with an ad hoc term. But physicists accepted this as proof of general relativity. Later they invented Parametrized Post-Newtonian framework which is nothing more than a fit of parameters and has nothing to do with General Relativity. Observations are saved by adjusting the parameters. They set (2+2gamma – beta)/3 to unity and defined it as the general relativistic value. It’s all a charade. Once again, general relativity enters the fit in name only. As a brand.

    5. Ligt deflection was not proved by the original observations. But that’s no problem for physicists. They fit subsequent measurement into a mathematical framework and labeled their framework “general relativity.” Nowadays light deflection too is fit to PPN. All these independent fits are associated by marketing methods to General Relativity.

    This is not rationalism but politics and marketing. What we see is always “artist’s renditions” and simulated videos and photoshopped spacetimes.

    In this video Kip Thorne is explicitly lying. He is using the faked spacetime warp effect that has become real by repetition in the media and is telling us as if this was what really happened, as if light rays were indeed bent by warped fabric of spacetime into a potential well of earth. But this is not true.

    A professor of physics, Kip Thorne, is explicitly lying to the public in a NASA press release by showing a photoshopped graphic and claiming that this was what the experiments will measure. If you tell him that he is lying he will refer to one of his papers because this is just a popular account of what happens.

    So it is unfortunate that physicists are lying. They are doing the bidding of politicians who pay them and market General Relativity and Einstein as brands.

    The evidence is overwhelming. Physicists fit observations into a mathematical framework and call their fit General Relativity.

  3. ‘Spacetime is fiction’

    I disagree, Spacetime means that space + time can be described in a unified way using a geometric theory. I agree that space and time seem very different things. For Newtonian mechanics, space and time are different concepts. At the beginning, Einstein didn’t even realize that space and time can be treatise in a same way, from a mathematical viewpoint. Spacetime was a great discovering for human knowledge. Spacetime has a full physical meaning. the curvature of spacetime can be measured. GPB is only a manifestation of this fact.

    ‘I’ve investigated in depth the Cavendish experiment, and Coulomb experiment also in some depth, and I’ve look into other historical physics experiments. In all of them I noticed that physicists interpret results to save their ideology.’

    What are your reasons to think that Coulomb’s law is wrong? Because I could also say that my dog talks with me, and he said that Coulomb’s law is correct. The experiments can be repeated. If you repeat a suitable experiment, you will see that Coulomb’s law is valid. But Coulomb’s law has its own range of validity, although, it wouldn’t mean that Coulomb’s law is wrong.

    ‘In the case of gravity probe-B I don’t have the data to analyze the experiment in depth’

    you can start with this

    ‘But, is there a term for spacetime in operational formulas? I bet that there is not.’

    You bet, you lose, and I win, because I’m going to give you the derivation of the geodetic effect from the Schwarzschild metric. See below.

    ‘As far as I understand this prediction comes from a philosophical principle included in General Relativity, the equivalence principle, right?’

    I think, GR can be derived from the equivalence principle plus the special relativity, but, I am not sure. Therefore, If I am not wrong, the geodetic effect can be derived from this two principles.

    ‘How did he predict? I don’t know.’

    You can see his paper. I think, he started with a Schwarzschild solution and with the equations of motion for this solution
    with this, he could predict the Geodetic effect by means of logical-deductive reasoning, namely, using math.

    ‘In this video Kip Thorne is explicitly lying.’

    My thought is just the opposite. And you can see a nice explanation of the geodetic effect by Thorne, here.

    ‘If you tell him that he is lying he will refer to one of his papers because this is just a popular account of what happens’

    He will probably refer to one of the scientific papers, because, in those papers, you could surely find a rational explanation about what he was talking. Zeynel, I accept that politicians lie, it may be true, I can’t accept that physicists lie, because, It is clearly false. I’ve read that physics has open problems. But open problems don’t imply that physicists have to lie. Why do you think physicists lie us? It’s the first time that I read this, and it seems to me hilarious, although, I respect all opinions.

    ‘Physicists fit observations into a mathematical framework and call their fit General Relativity’

    GR is not a Theory of Everything, GR explains the gravitation from a classical viewpoint. GR doesn’t take into the uncertainly principle and therefore, GR can’t explain the quantum gravity. GR is the best theory of gravitation to date. No more.

  4. Hi Alberto,

    I disagree, Spacetime means that space + time can be described in a unified way using a geometric theory.

    My point is that spacetime is one way of measuring distances, it is a choice. And in solar system astronomy it doesn’t appear to be a practical way to measure distances.

    I think the reason for this is that in astronomy we can use distance and period. We don’t need space, time or spacetime.

    Looking at the links you gave I see that there is no spacetime in practical formulas. That’s why I said that spacetime does not enter this problem.

    Space and time are old scholastic forms physicists love to write philosophical commentary on but in practice these forms are not used, distance and period are enough. This is my opinion and I welcome any objections.

    I agree that space and time seem very different things. For Newtonian mechanics, space and time are different concepts.

    “Newtonian mechanics” is problematic for me. It is a rubric like “General Relativity.” It has no practical meaning. Rubrics are not used to compute astronomical quantities specific formulas are used.

    And I don’t really care what Newton wrote in Principia on space and time as philosophical speculations. He may have said time is absolute, space is absolute or that god created space and time, it doesn’t matter. Those are Newton’s scholastic opinions.

    I look at how Newton computes astronomical quantities not what he says. But physicists do not care how Newton computed astronomical quantities instead they love to read Newton’s scholastic commentary on space and time in the first few dozens of pages in the Principia and react to them.

    Astronomical calculations are in propositions III.4, III.8, I.57, I.58, I.59 and I.60 (more info here). There Newton does not use absolute space or absolute time, he just uses Kepler’s rule to compute simple astronomical quantities. Properties of space and time are not measurable, they are philosophical properties.

    Space and time are not needed in practical astronomy. In practical astronomy there is no room for philosophical concepts.

    Spacetime has a full physical meaning. the curvature of spacetime can be measured. GPB is only a manifestation of this fact.

    But I don’t think GPB is measuring the curvature of spacetime. This is solar system. Weak field. What is measured is the angle of precession.

    Why does the gyroscope precess? Because of the motion of the spacecraft. The way, the bending of light was predicted originally by Newton and (Cavendish?) without General Relativity the precession of the gyroscope must have ordinary causes.

    General relativity is a marketing tool NASA uses to get funding.

    What are your reasons to think that Coulomb’s law is wrong?

    Sorry, but, I din’t mean to say that Coulomb’s law was wrong. I was trying to say that Coulomb’s experiment did not prove that electricity obeyed inverse square law. In other words, Coulomb’s experiment did not prove Coulomb’s law because Coulomb faked his results. He just made three measurements. No one could duplicate his results.

    Do you agree that physicists insist that Coulomb’s experiment proved Coulomb’s law while Coulomb experiment did not prove it because it was faked?

    you can start with this

    Yes, thanks. I just skimmed it, I’ll have to read it more carefully. But what I meant was that the actual measurement, the data points NASA obtains.

    That’s where the art is. How do they obtain the data? What assumptions do they make? I don’t think any outsider can make sense of the data or how it is reduced.

    We have to take their word for it. And that’s fine as long as they don’t assume general relativity and fit the data into general relativity. My impression is that this is what they do. Judging from the press conference and how Thorne explains everything in terms of GR, my impression is that they will fit data to general relativity.

    My thought is just the opposite. And you can see a nice explanation of the geodetic effect by Thorne, here.

    Thanks for the link. I started to watch it. But when I said Thorne was lying I was talking about the fact that he first starts by saying that the experiment is about a property of spacetime, then he produces the standard “rubber sheet analogy” graphic and calls it space – not spacetime.

    And that graphic is a pictorial analogy, it does not represent what is measured. But Thorne explicitly says that radio waves are bent according to his diagram. You don’t think this is lying?

    Maybe I am missing something so correct me if I am wrong and I’ll fix the post.

  5. Hi Zeynel,

    Recently, a paper has been posted to the physics arXiv which claims that, maybe, General Relativity can’t explain the precession of Saturn’s perihelion. As you can see, GR doesn’t fit all experimental observations of the gravitational phenomenons, after all. The precession of Saturn’s perihelion is a gravitational phenomenon in the Solar System. Probably, the physicists will say that there is an error in the data analysis, although, it wouldn’t mean that physicists are lying us.

    More accurate information here.

  6. Recently a paper has been posted to the physics arxiv which claims that maybe general relativity can’t explain the precession of saturn’s perihelion after all.

    The precession of Saturn’s perihelion is a gravitational phenomenan in the solar system.

    Well, this is open to debate if we take the observational database as the final arbiter. Reading Iorio’s paper that you linked I see that, as I have been writing, observational data is reduced using numerical integration and physicists simply call numerical integration Newtonian dynamical effects, because they don’t want to give up their Newtonian faith.

    probably, the physicists will say that there is an error in the data analysis although it wouldn’t mean that physicists are lying us

    As far as I can understand from the paper, the residual error is too close to the observational error. And if you notice, as mentioned here, the paper must be very speculative and not supported by the original researcher Pitjeva, but written by Iorio. He explicitly says that the interpretation is his own, not Pitjeva’s.

    more accurate info here

    Title is misleading too. So far nothing is confirmed.

    In the paper Iorio implies that the effect may be dynamical:

    In this paper I will focus on a recently detected non-standard feature of the motion of Saturn which, if confirmed as a genuine dynamical effect by further, independent analyses, may be added to the list of the Solar System anomalies not explained by known mundane causes.

    But this claim is not supported by his table 2 where he lists “dynamical effects” and their analytical expressions.

    1. N-body. The first dynamical effect is N-body and its analytical expression is “numerical integration.”

    So, Iorio calls numerical integration “Newtonian dyamical effects.” This is a lie. It is true that the tradition goes back to Le Verrier who used trigonometric modelling and called it Newtonian mechanics, as I mentioned in the article. But the fact that it is an old physics tradition to call numerical integration “Newtonian effects” does not make numerical integration Newtonian. This shows how much physics is cargo cult science. In order to save Newton’s authority physicists have been calling numerical integration Newtonian effects caused by the Newtonian force.

    2. Solar quadrupole J-2. Looking at the analytical equation, I see that it is an equation based purely on Kepler’s rule. It is geometric application of Kepler’s rule to Sun’s rotation. It is independent of any kind of dynamical, Newtonian or General Relativistic effect. To call this geometric Keplerian equation a dynamical effect is lying, it is a scientific fraud.

    3. Small asteroid ring too is modified ellipse equation. So these are standard geometric methods to fit errors in the data. This is how observations are fit, I am not objecting to that, I am objecting to labelling these geometric terms with dynamical names in order to make them the property of physics. Again this tradition goes back to the founder of the profession who stole Horrocks’ trigonometric lunar theory and published it under his own name as Newton’s dynamical lunar theory. The tradition of scientific fraud in physics is an old one and it is continuing with increased levels.

    4. TNOs again just an orbital fit.

    5. Schwarzschild-like force turns out to be the modified ellipse equation again, as I mentioned in the article. This has nothing to do with General Relativity. Calling something “Schwarzschild” does not make that something General Relativistic. But it will make physics cargo cult.

    Look at the term n in that equation. Hidden in n are two Parametrized Post-Newtonian Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters gamma and beta. Even adding Eddington-Robertson-Schiff does not make gamma and beta General Relativistic. Even if physicists were to add Einstein’s name as a last resort to gamma and beta they would still be not GTR.

    What are gamma and beta? They are free parameters that physicists adjust to eliminate some errors in the data and then they claim to have tested General Relativity! What a charade. I think this is beyond charlatanism.

    Thank you for letting me know about this paper.

  7. Hello, I really appreciate the preceding comments concerning GR. I am not a trained scientist but have always been skeptical of the claims of SR and GR. My skepticism stems from my belief that time is purely a psychological concept devoid of any physical characteristics. In other words, time exists only in the mind of man.

    Further, I believe that humans have invented the concept of time in order to deal with the inevitability of death. Time and death are really two sides of the same coin.

    If you believe in the hereafter as I do, then in enternity there will no longer be any need for time because death will have been vanquished. Time has no relevance to something that is infinite (eternal life in the hereafter).

    Life on earth is finite and from a mathematical perspective may be viewed as a line segment (it has a beginning and an end). We breakup this line segment into equal intervals that we refer to as years or in some cases smaller units of time. Calibrating the line segment in this way allows us to measure our progress toward death. Measuring this progress serves a psychological purpose – unconscioius no doubt. Perhaps it gives us a sense of comfort to know that we can at least measure our position on the continuum of birth to death.

    In the hereafter, we may view our life more as a ray – it has a beginning but no end. We cannot breakup something that is infinite like a ray into equal parts as we can with a line segment. Therefore, time has no relevance or usefulness in measuring something that is infinite.

    In summary, I believe that time is a human invention that serves a psychological need related to death but has not physical reality. For this reason, I have to be skeptical of any physical theory that incorporates a concept like spacetime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s