General Relativity and GPS: A long standing physics fable

Note to the editors of Wall Street Journal who forgot to fact check a physicist’s lies:

Sean Carroll wrote referring to General Relativity:

Because of gravity, clocks tick a bit more slowly near the surface of the Earth than they do in outer space. (This esoteric fact is of crucial importance to the functioning of the Global Positioning System, which compares local time with that of orbiting satellites.)

Dear editors: Mr. Carroll knows no more about the “functioning of the Global Positioning System” then you and I. He has not seen any of the operational source code used in GPS and he is not privy to any government or private proprietary source code proving that the functioning of GPS is dependent on General Relativity.

Mr. Carroll is an academic physicist and he is posturing as if he knows it all but in fact he is just repeating a physics fable. Next time make sure you fact check any claims Mr. Carroll makes which does not fall within his narrow specialty which is teaching introductory physics.

The originator of the physics fable that without General Relativity GPS will fail is a physicist called Neil Ashby. He made this claim referring to his work for the government and his claims cannot be verified and never were because they were classified. There are credible engineers (not dogmatic physicists selling a physics theory) who worked on the development of the GPS who claim that General Relativity has nothing to do with GPS. You can find all this online or read the comments here.

Mr. Carroll has no credibility as a scientist because he is repeating fables and hearsay and he will never admit that he is spreading falsehoods by abusing his academic authority. I suggest that you add a disclaimer to this article saying that the opinions Mr. Carroll presents here are his own opinions as a writer and layman regarding anything that falls outside his narrow specialty.

I challenge Mr. Carroll to come clean and publish here the GPS source code that he has seen (not some theoretical propaganda from a general relativity textbook) that contains General Relativistic corrections which are not just the nth term in an expansion that was branded as a relativistic term by some physicist.

Jane Doe v. Board Of Education of the City of New York

Jane Doe is the mother of little Jane Doe who is being taught at a New York City public school the doctrines of a British religious cult. We identify this cult as “Newtonism.”

A quote from a physics textbook (page 101) shows how Newtonian doctrines of occult force and atomic materialism (mass) is taught as true science:

5.6.1 Newtonian Gravity
Gravity is the attractive force between two objects due to the mass of the objects. When you throw a ball in the air, its mass and the earth’s mass attract each other, which leads to a force between them.

Jane Doe is suing NYC Board of Education because textbooks used by the Board indoctrinates little Jane Doe with a British religious cult by teaching that

Gravity is an universal attractive force discovered by the great British physicist Sir Isaac Newton, the mortal closest to Gods, and that this force is proportional to the mass of the bodies.

Jane Doe claims that this is a lie; more than a lie; it is a systematic indoctrination of young minds of our nation with the doctrines of a British religious cult.

Teaching Newtonism is religious indoctrination. But our constitution forbids religious indoctrination in public schools. As a patriotic citizen and as a concerned mother Jane Doe is suing the New York City Board of Education to stop the teaching of the unverified doctrines of an 18th century British occultist to little Jane Doe as a scientific fact.

The occult force supposedly discovered by Newton and taught by the NYC Board of Education as a scientific truth was never observed in nature.

Let’s repeat what Jane Doe is claiming and display it in bold font so that the reader does not miss the point of this case:

The occult force supposedly discovered by Newton and taught by the NYC Board of Education as an absolute scientific truth was never observed in nature.

That this occult force was never observed in nature is proved — by physicists themselves — who claim that

Newtonian force of gravity was superseded by Einstein’s General Relativity theories.

Physicists themselves proved that Newtonian force does not exist in nature.

Repeat in bold:

Physicists themselves proved that Newtonian force does not exist in nature.

Repeat in bold and all caps:


Then why is the Board indoctrinating poor little Jane Doe with the doctrines of a British religious cult that teaches blind acceptance of a nonexistent occult force as the true law of nature?

What does this mean?

It means that physicists themselves concede that experiments such as the famous Cavendish experiment that physicists claim proved the existence of the Newtonian force were — faked — by physicists to save Newton’s sacred authority.

If the Newtonian force were ever measured experimentally with the Cavendish experiment it could not be superseded by Einstein or anybody else.

Physicists concede that they faked experiments that they claim proved Newton’s occult force; because now they claim that Newton’s force does not exist.

How would the court decide this case?

The court does not know anything about the Cavendish experiment or the subtleties of the Newtonian force or if it exists or not.

The court decides that the subject of force belongs to physics and that only a physicist can settle the question of the existence of the Newtonian force and therefore the court orders the parties to bring in physics professors as expert witness to defend their case.


Counsel for Jane Doe hired an impeccable expert witness who is a tenured professor of physics in a brand name university. The prof testifies that “Newton’s force does not exist in nature because it was superseded by Einstein’s General Relativity.”

And this prof is not lying.

Legal and conventional physics teaches that Newtonian force was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. This is textbook stuff.

The prof offers the court to display standard physics equations to prove that Newtonian force does not exist but the court refuses the offer as unnecessary and the prof’s testimony that Newtonian force does not exist enters the records.


The counsel for defense is not worried. He also hired a physics professor from an equally brand name ivy league university. The defense prof is a showman who wrote several popular physics bestsellers and knows how to manipulate the minds of laymen by using the ancient authority of physics.

The prof brings with him an apple and with the confidence of great trial attorneys he shows the apple to the jury and tells them that he will now conduct a physics experiment to prove that the Newtonian force exists and then he drops the apple and asks the jury what they saw.

The plaintiff counsel objects to this blatant manipulation of the jury; but to no avail.

The prof knew that “apple” is a visual pun for “Newton’s force” and that the jury cannot help itself but “see” in this experiment the Newtonian force emanating from the center of the earth pull Newton’s apple and make it fall according to Newton’s force of gravity laws.

The jury members have been indoctrinated since childhood with Newtonism and they believe that they “saw” with their own eyes the force attracting the apple even though there is no such force visible to the jury or to any mortal except to physics profs who are priests of Newtonism.


The jury’s “vision” of a non-existent force is the proof of how successful Newtonism has been as a religious cult shaping our perception of the world.


The prof hired by the defense is confident that he got the jury on his side and testifies that Newtonian force exists and he just proved it. The apple was attracted by the Newtonian force and the jury saw it. He rests his case.


So two profs of physics with equal academic authority come to court; one testifies that Newtonian force does not exist and the other testifies that Newtonian force does exist.


Dear reader, suppose you are the plaintiff counsel. How will you defend your client? Do you mind sharing your strategy with us?


If the same question about the existence of force is evaluated by an independent group of scientists working outside of physics; what would they find?

To me, both profs are wrong. Because both of them actually repeat Newtonian doctrines as legalized in physics. It is true that the Newton’s occult force does not exist – not because it was replaced by General Relativity – but because it was never observed by a proper experiment; and because Newtonian force and mass do not enter orbit computations. How much of these technical issues would the court want to hear?

Do you find the above court scenario realistic? How would you defend this case? Do you know any similar cases?

And finally, what is the most important inducement for you, as a lawyer, to take this case? This is not a pro bono case but you should only take this case for the intellectual satisfaction of solving a new and interesting legal challenge for the good of humanity.


Slides for Jane Doe v. Board of Education of the City of New York

The unit of spacetime

So, say the prof defines a new unit and names it after his other physics god Einstein. This unit of course, measures spacetime, and the prof uses it instead of an inch rule, e.g., he says a given length is 1 Einstein and because he defined a unit and he called it Einstein the prof now claims that any time (or any spacetime) he uses Einstein he proves Einstein’s General Relativity.

Now if you, naively (and honestly) measure the same given length with an inch rule and say that the length is 5 inches; the prof disagrees; he converts 5 inches to Einstein and declares that the length is

The speed of light c is the flag of Einsteinism and G is the flag of Newtonism; by planting the two flags of physics in the land of spacetime the prof claimed the universe and everything in it for his god of all gods Newtoneinstein. The other symbols in the unit do not matter.

By naming a unit after Einstein the prof now owns the concepts of space, time and spacetime; and uses his authority to claim that his unit Einstein is a law of nature proved by General Relativity which is the most frequently proved physical theory ever; physicists invented an academic discipline where the only business of the practitioners is to prove General Relativity over and over again and issue press releases for their latest proof; “Einstein Relativity passes another test” headlines read.

And you believe this charlatanism?

Of course you do. You believe that the prof is measuring the occult Newtonian force when he weighs an apple and says that the apple weighs 1 Newton, why not believe when he measures length with units named after Einstein?


Prof’s previous attempt to define a unit named after Einstein failed and the unit has been deprecated; but if he names Einstein as the unit to measure spacetime it may stick.

Time in physics

A search for “gps general relativity” reveals all kinds of content claiming that without general relativistic corrections your GPS will not give correct results. The entire myth about this GPS and General Relativity has been started by a physicist called Neil Ashby who at the time worked for the government. There is no evidence, except Neil Ashby’s own word which cannot be verified independently that there are general relativistic corrections in the operational code used by GPS satellites. Neil Ashby writes about theoretical General Relativity and like all physicists his papers are yet one more iteration of boilerplate General Relativity fare.

Remember that physics is an unregulated professional industry practiced by individuals who lie and cheat regularly in their work to advance their career. Their lying and cheating is exactly analogous to the lying and cheating of lawyers; because physics too is a legal system. These professionals lie and cheat by selecting favorable legal statements from the official legal body. In the case of physics every statement comes in contradictory triplicates and the physicist can chose the one that works and dismiss the others.

So it is business as usual in physics to enforce an unverified legal speculation about GPS and General Relativity as a natural law discovered by physicists. But here I am concerned more about how physicists abuse the concept of time in the name of physics.

In this case we are against a scholastic army of Doctors of Philosophy aka physicists who spent a lifetime to rationalize that a clock has anything to do with Time, the time with capital T — a clock is an oscillator; nothing more; nothing less.

In other words, physicists are fools (or professional crooks, depending on your point of view) who confuse intentionally the measurement of time with the concept of time.

Such speculations about nature of philosophical Time are the oldest of scholastic speculations.

Why are speculations about Time are scholastic speculations?

Because operational equations used in astronomy do not contain a term for philosophical Time; time t, associated with clocks are for period; and period is essentially a length or an angle.

Physicists load a geometric angle with scholastic philosophy about Time and dilate it, contract it, and mess with it in every mystical and scholastic way possible.

So, a scholastic doctor of philosophy who plied his trade in the time of Galileo, made his career by loading the a geometric line with peripatetic philosophy; Galileo removed peripatetic philosophy and called a line a line. This started the scientific revolution.

Removing the branding of modern scholastic physics from geometry, once again, will lead to a scientific revolution.

Like their professional ancestors, modern scholastic doctors of philosophy aka physicists too use the language of mathematics to practice their trade in the speculative scholastic philosophy (and call what they do “science”. . . obviously).

The cause of Saturn’s perihelion motion

Is the precession of Saturn‘s perihelion caused by the sum of

1) the Newtonian occult force that physicists say do not exist and was replaced by geodesic equation but still included in modelling of data?

2) a modified ellipse equation that has nothing to do with General Relativity or geodesic but it is called classical Einstein effect to honor physics tradition?

3) the Keplerian rotation of the sun called Lens-thirring effect to imply a General Relativistic provenance?

If we take the authority of observational database as the final and only arbiter then none of the above.

In practice observations are reduced by using theory agnostic numerical integration. Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s theories, equations or mechanics have anything to do with modelling observational data. They enter only as cosmetic labels on fit parameters.

Physicists realized that if they called a geometric term “epicycle” that’s bad. If they named a fit coefficient Coefficient X, that’s bad. Such things have negative marketing value. But if they named it dark something, that’s good and marketable. If they named the equation of the ellipse Schwarzschild, that’s good. Schwarzschild sells.

Sanctity of legal precedence

Everything in Physics is based on precedent and tradition and customs and habit because physics is legal not science.

Example: Cavendish experiment is an experimental tradition. Since it is a tradition it can be funded. And if it is funded once it will be funded again. Therefore, physicists build oscillators that do not remotely resemble Cavendish’s pendulum but they call their oscillators Cavendish experiment. This is cargo cult physics.

The same strain exists in equations realm. Once it is established that it is legal to call a modified ellipse equation General Relativity then verifying that planets move on ellipses will be called testing and verifying General Relativity.

No wonder that General Relativity is said to be the most verified theory ever. This is cargo cult physics.

The history of perturbations of orbits goes back, as usual, to Newton. In Principia, in Proposition III.13 Newton studied the perturbation of Saturn’s orbit by Jupiter. Newton, again as usual, used Kepler’s rule, but associated a dynamical story with his application of Kepler’s rule. This means that perturbations too are Keplerian.

Astronomical data is reduced using numerical integration. Numerical integration is theory agnostic. Then where is the evidence that we are living, according to physicists, in a universe that is simultaneously  

  • forceful and geodesic
  • matterful and geometric
  • Newtonian and Einsteinian?

The evidence is only cosmetic and on a case by case as needed basis, in other words, cargo cult physics.

Physicists have been using their ancient authority on theoretical matters to brand geometric, mathematical and observational objects in order to make them their own property. In this sense physics goes beyond being a cargo cult and becomes an evil monopoly on reason.

Ellipse passes the test again

In this paper titled On the recently determined anomalous perihelion precession of Saturn Lorenzo Iorio repeats the usual trope of General Relativity:

At present, the best theory of the gravitational interaction available to us is the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity (GTR) which has passed so far many observational tests concerning orbital motions and propagation of electromagnetic waves in the (inner) Solar system with excellent results.

Physics is cargo cult

Since physics has been known to host cargo cultists willingly for a long time it is in order to question what these cult members mean when they write that their GTR passed “many observational tests.” Looking at Iorio’s table 2 we see that what has been passing tests is not the rubric General Theory of Relativity but the equation of the ellipse and therefore Kepler. Physicists have been proving again and again that Kepler’s laws and geometry are valid in the Solar system but they call what they do testing General Relativity because academic physics is cargo cult of the most primitive type.

Force never arrives

The Newtonian force is the planes that never arrive in this sect of cargo cult. So what do these cultists do? They build elaborate landing fields for force called Newtonian equations of motion and decorate them with Newtonian sounding labels and then cancel all Newtonian decoration when it comes time to save the observational data and use Kepler’s proven laws and something called geometry that has been proven to save celestial motions since the Babylonian times.

The first cargo cultist

How did this cargo cult take over physics and astronomy? We must thank Newton the founder of this cult. He initiated all these cargo cult techniques himself in his Grand Book the Principia.

NASA makes every year more discoveries than Europeans could not make in 2000 years

In this article Lubos Motl talks about Sean Carroll’s Dark Photon paper that I wrote about yesterday. He too remarks that there is nothing new or ingenious in proposing dark species of existing light physical quantities. But I cannot agree with Motl’s first sentence:

Everyone knows that the media help to ruin the quality control in climate science — a discipline that has become extremely politicized. But we can see that glimpses of such dynamics can also be found in disciplines that have not been politicized — cosmology and theoretical physics.

How can a physicist be blind to the fact that cosmology and theoretical physics are so political that you cannot separate political content from scientific content? Big Bang is nothing more than a state-sponsored cosmogonic mythology. Political rulers have always used cosmogonic mythologies to control the ruled. This is still the case.

Global unhuman organisms who own physics and pay for physics research have been very successful in marketing physics as an independent scientific endeavor striving for the well-being of humanity. This is the reason why Lubos Motl is unable to perceive that physics is in the service of political rulers.

One consequence of this is that a theory such as the General Relativity is not a scientific theory. Not anymore. General Relativity is owned by the global Organism who uses it for its marketing purposes. Any change in General Relativity must be paid for and approved by the Organism. Physicists can do nothing but repeat what is legal. This is not science. And academic physicists are fooling themselves and us if they believe that they are discovering fundamental properties of nature to do humanity a favor.

  • Should physics be freed from the domination of unhuman organisms?
  • Can physics be called an independent science as long as theoretical physicists are paid by unhuman organisms to do either military research or to develop mythological scenarios that unhuman organisms use as scientific cover for military research.

There is a dilemma here.

NASA makes every year more discoveries than Europeans could not make in 2000 years. This is an incredible acceleration in the rate of discovery. The success of NASA is the definitive proof that scholasticism invented by Europeans is the true enemy of knowledge. Physics is still controlled by scholastic Doctors of Philosophy — dogmatic and absolutist academic careerist bureaucrats who call themselves theoretical physicists — not by engineers. Doctors of physics are the reason why physics remains a pre-scientific cargo cult.

If Alexander the Great founded NASA instead of bankrolling major temples in Didyma and Priene, among many others, he would have been truer to the scientific vision of his teacher Aristotle. And Alexander was proud of his scientific curiosity and made sure to send Aristotle interesting artifacts from his travels in exotic places. And there is no reason why Alexander could not have founded an organization with the same mission as NASA, that is,

to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.

Maybe first he had to found the US and then Russia to instigate space exploration in the US, but that would have come naturally to him. All the ingredients for space exploration existed on earth then as well as now.

Imagine the state of knowledge today if NASA had 2000 years head start.

By eliminating the domination of modern scholastic doctors of philosophy the physicists on human knowledge and by establishing a truly scientific physics organization not controlled by political rulers and their servants the Newtonian doctors of philosophy we can give future generations a head start.

So what do you think? Is it OK that scientific research is paid for and controlled by political powers? Is this a small price to pay to allow NASA to continue discovering the universe?

What is physical spacetime?

Space and time cannot be considered as separate entities, as Newton had assumed but

must be considered together as a four-dimensional spacetime. Three spacelike dimensions and one timelike dimension account for the four spacetime dimensions. In the above description we considered only the motion of the earth through space. To be completely correct we must also account for its motion in time, i.e., we must consider the earth’s path through spacetime, not just space.

Although it is true that any massive object like the sun warps space in exactly the way described, it also warps time. The end result is that the full story differs in one crucial respect: rather than the earth taking the shortest path in space, it actually takes the longest path in spacetime. Although our discussion above avoids this complicating aspect of the story, it accurately portrays the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful, geometrical theory of gravity.

Physics and polemics cannot be considered as separate entities, as non-physicists usually assume but must be considered together as a four-dimensional physicspolemics. Three semantic-like dimensions and one quantitative-like dimension account for the four physicspolemics dimensions. The three semantic-like dimensions are made of puns, tropes and puntropes. Puns and tropes cannot be considered as separate entitities, as physics noobies assume but must be considered together as a four dimensional puntrope that envelopes the entire physicosphere. Three pun-like dimensions and one trope-like dimension account for the four puntrope dimensions. The saying goes that in physics puns tell tropes how to pun and tropes tell puns how to trope. And this is the best definition of physics that you will ever get.

In general physics discussions we usually neglect the quantitative-like dimension until the last minute and discuss all the semantic-like possibilities while pretending to be absolutely quantitative-like. Once we reach the edge of our semantic-like brinkmanship we break the symmetry and switch instantaneously to quantitative-like mode and of course we tell the world that our quantitative-like results were all obtained from our semantic-like first principles. In physics both modes cannot exist together because any massively absurd semantic-like object such as “space and time cannot be considered as separate entities” warps puns and also warps tropes.

The result is that the full story differs in one crucial respect. Rather than our semantic-like argument taking the shortest path to puns and trops, it actually takes the longest path in puntrope. So it is always good physics to avoid this complicating aspect of the story and claim that our final quantitative-like picture accurately portrays the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful geometrical theory of gravity. You can never go wrong by asserting that you have portrayed the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful geometrical theory of gravity. As you can see, “the basic flavor” is a perfect quantitative-like quantity that all scientist-like physicists like. In fact, you should repeat that you have portrayed the basic flavor of Einstein’s beautiful geometrical theory of gravity even if you are computing your plain vanilla Newtonian force on a billiard ball.

To summarize, physics and polemics cannot be considered as separate entities which means that, just like the space and time cannot be considered as separate entities . . . but they always are. . . you should make a habit of believing what a physicist asserts with great authority as much as you believe what your Congressman tells you with great sincerity in election time. In physics and in politics double and speak can never be considered as separate entities.

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.

The equation of the universe

Emanuel Smejkal:

Whether our children learn relativity theory is not important. It is important to show that humbug is not an avenue to success. I hope there is courage enough in the field of physics to obtain the necessary data, analyze it and determine the validity of one theory or the other.

This can only happen if physics were a regulated industry. There are no professional rewards to be gained by analyzing Eddington’s data. It matters none if physics officially admits that Eddington’s data did not prove or that it did prove General Relativity.

Eddington reported relativity succesfully predicted the bending of light in the vicinity of the sun. But there is a problem: about 15 expeditions repeated his measurements, all without success. Michal Prouza was a member of such an expedition arranged by the Czech Astronomy association in 1999 and was a supporter of GR. Notwithstanding, his writings disclaim Eddington‘s measurement. (in Czech) (English translation by Google.)

It is difficult to measure the bending of light in the sun‘s gravitational field. A ray of light also bends in air and its influence is greater. Here, it is not only “astronomical seeing” but also random “anomalous refraction”. Secondly there is the influence of temperature changes. A solar elipse reduces temperature by more then 3 K. This reduction (about 1%) means there is a change in the refraction index. If the bending of light expected by GR is 8 microradian (1.57′), observational error due to temperature change is at least +/-60 microradian (12′).

But astronomical observations are irrelevant. Einstein’s equations have been branded by physicists as the Equation of the Universe. The official cosmogony of humanity are derived from the Equation of the Universe and the absolute origin of the universe the Big Bang is an off-spring of the Equation of the Universe. This cannot be changed by mere observation.