Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jsaldea12 on 12/02/2019 13:25:33

Do you know how Dr. Albert Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury of 42.9 arc/sec. century.? This query is not directed to anyone in particular. Why some astrophysicists at that time were amazed there is room for adjustment solution of Dr. Einstein. . It was perfect! For more that 50 years, since 1864 up to 1915, all the astronomical societies of the world were hard pressed how to solve the anomalous precession which no one can deny was there 42.9 arc/sec. century. All astonomical tdelescopes attested that there is that ACTUAL anomalous precession of 42.9 which cannot be solved.l Until Dr. Einstein entered into the picture and he solved it perfectly..

Why is this the New Theories section?

Why is this the New Theories section?
No doubt due to where jsaldea12 is intending to take the topic.
The precession is not unique to Mercury. All orbiting objects have it, but it is most apparent in Mercury, having the greatest dilation due to gravitational effects. The effect is even more noticeable in other objects whose orbit can be monitored with some reasonable accuracy such as S2, but S2 hasn't got the clutterfree orbit that Mercury does, so it's motion is hardly Keplerian.
The solution to Mercury's orbit fell out of general relativity. GR was not adjusted in any way to account for it

Do answer my query. jsa

Do transfer this topic to astronomy

Do you know how Dr. Albert Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury of 42.9 arc/sec. century.? This query is not directed to anyone in particular. Why some astrophysicists at that time were amazed there is room for adjustment solution of Dr. Einstein. . It was perfect! For more that 50 years, since 1864 up to 1915, all the astronomical societies of the world were hard pressed how to solve the anomalous precession which no one can deny was there 42.9 arc/sec. century. All astonomical tdelescopes attested that there is that ACTUAL anomalous precession of 42.9 which cannot be solved.l Until Dr. Einstein entered into the picture and he solved it perfectly..
(1) Alby solved nothing. His SR & GR are complete krapp. They are goodish mathtricks at best. But a mathtrick cannot solve anything or explain anything, ie giving a real or actual basis.
(2) Alby solved nothing. His GR solution was derived working backwards from the needed number (its called fraud).
(3) Alby solved nothing. The 43 arcsec number has not been well established. It is difficult to measure. It varies so much from year to year.
(4) Alby solved nothing. At least two sources say that numerical methods for solving the equations give nonsense orbits (the orbits end up off the page).
(5) Alby solved nothing. His equations give bad precessions for other precessions. So bad that not only are the numbers bad, but they are in the wrong direction.
(6) Alby solved nothing. His equation is word salad. Crothers & Robitaille have shown that his equation does not even obey the law of intensity on one side needing to be matched by intensity on the other side.
(7) Alby solved nothing. He gives no explanation for how a sun can affect the precession or give precession to a planet under his GR. Excluding tidal effects, which do not enter his GR anyhow. Remember, we are not talking here of whether a sun can somehow affect precession, we are talking about whether Alby's silly GR equation makes sense, & more than that we are talking about whether it explains anything.
(8 ) Dr Alby solved nothing. Because he wasnt a Dr.
(9) Alby solved nothing. I mean nothing. Ever. Not precession, not bending of light, not Brownian motion. Nothing. All of his stuff was flawed or nonsense, or if smelling anything like nice it was plagiarised.
(10) The secondary precession of Mercury was not solved untill 2019, by myself. The 43 arcsec or whatever it really is is due to the primary precession of Mercury. All primary precessions must create a secondary precession. I think i have explained this in another thread.
(10 cont) My discovery was undoubtedly a monumental breathtaking miracle of brainpower, one of the cleverest ideas in physics, the epitome of the rise of logic, of consciousness itself even, but unfortunately not likely to lead to any worthwhile spinoff kinds of advances. Its not much more than being just of interest, not the sort of thing that deserves consideration for a Nobel, but very smart anyhow.
Imagine what i might have been able to do had i ever spent time inside a University. I would have been brainwashed like all of u fellows, good at math, & happy to be a member of a dictatorial cult.

You really dig deep. Please show the equation of Dr. Einstein which is amazing. But you know!!

The secondary precession of Mercury was not solved untill 2019, by myself.
My discovery was undoubtedly a monumental breathtaking miracle of brainpower, one of the cleverest ideas in physics, the epitome of the rise of logic, of consciousness itself even
::)
You really dig deep. Please show the equation of Dr. Einstein which is amazing. But you know!!
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything you see mad aetherist say: he's a science denialist. He seems to believe that the majority of physicists are either stupid, brainwashed or part of a conspiracy.

Please do show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein how he solved the anomalous precession of Mercury..how he outwitted the whole astronomical world who knew astronomy much, much much more than Dr. Einstein who knew little but because of his GR, he was sure that that anomalous precession of mercury could be one big answer to his concept of spacetime.

Please do show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein how he solved the anomalous precession of Mercury..how he outwitted the whole astronomical world who knew astronomy much, much much more than Dr. Einstein who knew little but because of his GR, he was sure that that anomalous precession of mercury could be one big answer to his concept of spacetime.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. The astronomers of the time could measure the precession of Mercury. They also knew how much Mercury should precess given the known factors and using Newtonian physics. Their measurements showed a larger precession for Mercury than they could account for.
For a while it was assumed that there was another planet closer to the the Sun that we had not found yet ( they even gave this hypothetical planet the name "Vulcan"), that was the cause. But as time went by it became apparent that no such planet existed.
Einstien's General Relativity theory for gravity introduced another effect to Mercury's precession. The extra precession predicted for Mercury matched the extra precession that could not be accounted for by Newton. This has nothing to do with Einstein knowing any more about astronomy than the astronomers of the time, just that when his theory of gravity was applied to that problem it provided a solution.

Please show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein how he solved the anomalous precession of Mercury,..how he outwitted the whole astronomical world who knew astronomy with 100% accuracy, much more than Dr. Einstein (who knew little) but because of his GR, his concept of spacetime (which is real) he was sure could explain that anomalous precession of mercury . As commented amazingly by astrophysicts at that time." there is no allowance or error in the solution of Dr. Einstein" , ecause it was perfect mathematical solution.. How did he do it. All astronomical telescopes confirmed: there was that anomalous precession of Mercury. of 42.9 or rounded 43 arc/sec century., whether 42.9 or 43 figure, arrives at perfect the solution . . jsaldea12 Feb. 14, 2019

Do you know how Dr. Albert Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury of 42.9 arc/sec. century.?
... . It was perfect!
It's wasn't totally perfect...
 There was still a difference between the measured value of Mercury's precession, and the prediction from Einstein's special relativity corrections
 But it was still a lot more accurate than predictions based on Newton's theory of gravity
 If there was only Mercury and a neutron star, it would be relatively easy to calculate
 However, all the other planets exert small tugs on the orbit of Mercury over the course of a century, and these must be taken into account (not so easy, in the days before computers!)
 And the Sun is not a gravitational point source, but has a distinct equatorial bulge due to centrifugal force which also tugs on the orbit of Mercury
 The mass of the Sun was known, but the internal distribution of that mass was not known so well
 No doubt the orbit of mercury exerts small tidal effects in the Sun which interacts with the orbit of Mercury
So, like all messy physical phenomena, the reality does not agree perfectly with the basic theory, and you need all sorts of corrections.
 But modern helioseismology gives us a more detailed picture of the internal structure of the Sun, so the value calculated from relativity is closer today (43 seconds of arc per century).
Please show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession#General_relativity

Please show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession#General_relativity
How does Einstein's relativity give precession? I reckon that no kind of relativity Einsteinian or Lorentzian can give precession (unless invoking some kind of tidal effect)(which Einstein doesnt).

Please show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession#General_relativity
How does Einstein's relativity give precession? I reckon that no kind of relativity Einsteinian or Lorentzian can give precession (unless invoking some kind of tidal effect)(which Einstein doesnt).
If you assume an ideal situation of a planet orbiting a perfectly spherical Star, with no other planets introducing any additional gravitational effects, Then that planet if put in an elliptical orbit, it would not precess according to Newton's Laws of gravity. This is due to the fact that Newtonian gravity falls off exactly by the square of the distance. If gravity however falls of by anything else but by the square of the distance, a precession will result.
Einstein's GR theory of gravity predicts that gravity doesn't fall off exactly by the square of the distance. This difference increases as you get closer to the Sun, and thus is enough to produce a measurable additional precession beyond that produced by other influences for Mercury, with it being close to the Sun and having a relatively eccentric orbit.

Please show the AMAZING EQUATION of Dr. Einstein
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession#General_relativity
How does Einstein's relativity give precession? I reckon that no kind of relativity Einsteinian or Lorentzian can give precession (unless invoking some kind of tidal effect)(which Einstein doesnt).
If you assume an ideal situation of a planet orbiting a perfectly spherical Star, with no other planets introducing any additional gravitational effects, Then that planet if put in an elliptical orbit, it would not precess according to Newton's Laws of gravity. This is due to the fact that Newtonian gravity falls off exactly by the square of the distance. If gravity however falls of by anything else but by the square of the distance, a precession will result.
Einstein's GR theory of gravity predicts that gravity doesn't fall off exactly by the square of the distance. This difference increases as you get closer to the Sun, and thus is enough to produce a measurable additional precession beyond that produced by other influences for Mercury, with it being close to the Sun and having a relatively eccentric orbit.
How does relativity change the 1/RR for smaller R's?
If there is such a change, wouldnt it be symmetrical, ie wouldnt it apply equally for the inbound & outbound parts of each orbit (ie no precession)?
A separate point. I am also thinking that the 1/RR is not as critical as one might think, i think that we would have a functioning solar system if gravity was a 1/R thing, ie we would have orbits (& precessions).
After all, the Milky Way has a 1/R thing (which the Einsteinian mafia says is a 1/RR thing with lots of Dark Matter mixed in to make it look 1/R).

BUT PLEASE SHOW THE AMAZING SOLUTION OF DR. EINSTEIN IN SIMPLE MATH EQUATION. HERE IS ANOTHER CLUE: WHETHER THE ANOMALOUS PRECESSION OF MERCURY IS 42.9 OR 43 ARC/SEC CENTURY, THE SOLUTION IS PERFECT. I think you know the answer, just circling. jsaldea12 feb 15, 2019

BUT PLEASE SHOW THE AMAZING SOLUTION OF DR. EINSTEIN IN SIMPLE MATH EQUATION. HERE IS ANOTHER CLUE: WHETHER THE ANOMALOUS PRECESSION OF MERCURY IS 42.9 OR 43 ARC/SEC CENTURY, THE SOLUTION IS PERFECT. I think you know the answer, just circling. jsaldea12 feb 15, 2019
U can find papers that explain that the arcsec cant possibly be measured or known to better than 3.0 arcsec.
And furthermore that the annual arcsec varies by miles from year to year.
And furthermore that they dont actually work with the position of Mercury, they work with the observed position using old light that is say 449 sec old & has been bent to boot.
And the obs are done near the Sun's limb (a hi jinx area).
And that the majority of the arcsec is a pseudoarcsec due to Earth's wobble, which is not well understood & for which the numbers are not well established.
And much much much more.
Did u know that Einstein's silly nonsensical wordsalad equation says that the arcsec for Mars is 1 arcsec per century when we know that it is 10 arcsecs. Hey everyone, look over there, its a black hole.
PLEASE SHOW FOR MARS THE AMAZING SOLUTION OF DR. EINSTEIN IN SIMPLE MATH EQUATION, THE SOLUTION IS PERFECT, IT IS 1 ARCSEC OR 10 ARCSEC. Until Dr. Einstein entered into the picture and he solved it perfectly..

Quoted "Einstein's GR theory of gravity predicts that gravity doesn't fall off exactly by the square of the distance. This difference increases as you get closer to the Sun, and thus is enough to produce a measurable additional precession beyond that produced by other influences for Mercury, with it being close to the Sun and having a relatively eccentric orbit. Here is another clue. jsaldea121 Feb. 15, 2019

BUT PLEASE SHOW THE AMAZING SOLUTION OF DR. EINSTEIN IN SIMPLE MATH EQUATION. HERE IS ANOTHER CLUE: WHETHER THE ANOMALOUS PRECESSION OF MERCURY IS 42.9 OR 43 ARC/SEC CENTURY, THE SOLUTION IS PERFECT. I think you know the answer, just circling. jsaldea12 feb 15, 2019
The equation is in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

There is no equation in your referred article.. The solution of Dr. Einstein can be reduced to simple math equation that everyone can understand and say, it us a very beautiful equation but what is th simple math equation.."Mad Aetheist" I think has good inkling of the amazing simple equation. The solutions pertains not only of Mercury, but of all the planets but did not SHOW THE CORRECT SIMPLE MATH EQUATION. Maybe, the veteran briliant author, not Mad Aetheist, has another equation, the common astronomical parlance equations, lengthy and difficult to understand but arrive at the same result..
Now, we know what is this anomalous precession. It is just that planets, like Mercury, is inching , orbiting, closer to the sun. Just like GPB. that no matter what, satellites in space within range of gravity of earth, will eventually fall fo earth, makes no difference whether it will take a decade, a hundred years, a thousand or million years. That is the anomalous precession.. jsaldea12 Feb. 16, 2019,

There is no equation in your referred article.
You didn't look very hard, did you? Look at the attached file:

The exact same equation is in the link provided by Evan earlier up.

Saw it but can you translate it to simple math equation that is very easy to understand to KNOW how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury..jsaldea12 February 15, 2019

Saw it but can you translate it to simple math equation that is very easy to understand to KNOW how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury..jsaldea12 February 15, 2019
It's a bit late for me to do this tonight, but I'll try to do so tomorrow when I get the chance (assuming no one else does it first).

Saw it but can you translate it to simple math equation that is very easy to understand to KNOW how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury..jsaldea12 February 15, 2019
It's a bit late for me to do this tonight, but I'll try to do so tomorrow when I get the chance (assuming no one else does it first).
And also show how it works, ie how it changes the 1/RR relationship, or how it drags the frame, or something (ie something mechanical)(ie not an equation).

Quoted:"It's a bit late for me to do this tonight, but I'll try to do so tomorrow when I get the chance (assuming no one else does it first).." That is what I want to know. But please show us how Dr. Einstein did it, outwitting the whole astronomical societies for 5o years !!!.. jsaldea Feb. 17, 2019

Saw it but can you translate it to simple math equation that is very easy to understand to KNOW how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury..jsaldea12 February 15, 2019
This is what the symbols in the equation represent:
“σ” represents the precession in radians per revolution
“L” represents the semimajor axis in meters
“T” represents the orbital period in seconds
“c” represents the speed of light in meters per second
“e” represents the orbital eccentricity (a value between 0 and 1)
So now I will put in the values known for Mercury:
σ = (24π^{3}L^{2})/(T^{2}c^{2}(1e^{2}))
σ = (24π^{3}(57,909,050,000 m)^{2})/((7,600,530.24 s)^{2}(299,792,458 m/s)^{2}(1(0.20563^{2}))
σ = ((744.1506)(3.3534581 x 10^{21}))/((5.776806 x 10^{13})(8.9875518 x 10^{16})(10.0422836969)
σ = (2.4954779 x 10^{24})/((5.1919343 x 10^{30})(0.9577163031))
σ = (2.4954779 x 10^{24})/(4.9724001 x 10^{30})
σ = 5.0186587 x 10^{7} radians/revolution
Since 1 radian equals 206,265 arcseconds, that would be 0.10351736367 arcseconds per revolution. Since a revolution for Mercury lasts 87.9691 days, that would be 0.00117674687 arcseconds per day. A century lasts 36,525 days, so that would be 42.98 arcseconds per century.
Quoted:"It's a bit late for me to do this tonight, but I'll try to do so tomorrow when I get the chance (assuming no one else does it first).." That is what I want to know. But please show us how Dr. Einstein did it, outwitting the whole astronomical societies for 5o years !!!.. jsaldea Feb. 17, 2019
I don't know exactly how he went about deriving the precession equation, unfortunately. All I know is that he used relativity to do it.
And also show how it works, ie how it changes the 1/RR relationship, or how it drags the frame, or something (ie something mechanical)(ie not an equation).
Unfortunately, I don't really understand it myself. I've seen different explanations online, one implying that it's because massive objects can't reach the speed of light (perhaps meaning that planets always orbit at least slightly more slowly than Newtonian equations predict, with the difference becoming larger the closer the planet is to its star). Another said that it had to do with the fact that the space that the planet travels through is curved.

I am also thinking that the 1/RR is not as critical as one might think, i think that we would have a functioning solar system if gravity was a 1/R thing, ie we would have orbits.
It is true that if you have a 2body system (eg Earth and Sun), that you could have a stable circular orbit.
However, it is the precise interconversion of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy that makes stable elliptical orbits possible. If the strength of gravity was as extreme as 1/R, the Earth's orbit would not be an ellipse  but Kepler worked out observationally that the orbit is an ellipse. And Newton worked out mathematically that this demands that gravity is an inversesquare law.
The solar system with multiple planets is only stable because gravity is an inverse square law  the tugs of other planets transfer angular momentum back and forth between the planets (energy is conserved)  but conservation of energy does not occur if gravity is not an inverse square law.
There are people who think that gravity might differ slightly from 1/R^{2}: For example 1/R^{2.0000001}, and we may not have noticed that deviation.
But NASA would have  they measured the Sun's gravitational tug on the Pioneer spacecraft, and if gravity had differed from an inverse square law even a tiny bit, some NASA scientist would have a Nobel Prize by now.
I have tinkered with planetary simulators on the web that allowed you to tweak the law of gravity  but unfortunately I can't find one at present :(
also show how it works, ie how it changes the 1/RR relationship, or how it drags the frame, or something (ie something mechanical)(ie not an equation).
My qualitative understanding of the precession is this:
 Mercury has an exactly elliptical orbit (from the viewpoint of someone on Mercury)
 However, from the viewpoint of someone far from Mercury (eg Earth or Alpha Centauri), when Mercury is closest to the Sun, time slows down for any residents of Mercury
 This means that Mercury travels very slightly further around the Sun before swinging outward to the more distant parts of its orbit.
 This means that the point on Mercury's orbit which is closest to the Sun (perihelion) moves very slowly relative to the distant stars, when measured from year to year.
 This effect is rather subtle to pick up in a single year with an optical telescope, but easy when you look over a period of a century or more
 And is easy to detect when you have a space probe orbiting Mercury which returns very accurate distance measurements to Earth (as the Messenger space probe did from 20112015)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER

I am also thinking that the 1/RR is not as critical as one might think, i think that we would have a functioning solar system if gravity was a 1/R thing, ie we would have orbits.
It is true that if you have a 2body system (eg Earth and Sun), that you could have a stable circular orbit.
However, it is the precise interconversion of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy that makes stable elliptical orbits possible. If the strength of gravity was as extreme as 1/R, the Earth's orbit would not be an ellipse  but Kepler worked out observationally that the orbit is an ellipse. And Newton worked out mathematically that this demands that gravity is an inversesquare law.
Hmmm  i am thinking that the conservation & interconversion of kinetic & potential energy would work ok for any sort of 1/R^** gravity. But of course such orbits would not be elliptical (altho that stuff is over my head).The solar system with multiple planets is only stable because gravity is an inverse square law  the tugs of other planets transfer angular momentum back and forth between the planets (energy is conserved)  but conservation of energy does not occur if gravity is not an inverse square law.
No i am still thinking that conservation is ok under any regime.
But i can see that a 1/R must be very unstable. But anyhow in the end it would be stable but praps with only one planet remaining (praps a big fat one), praps with lots of dust spreading all throo the system. If only dust remained then praps the dust would take on the form of lots of spiral arms, & the Sun would play the role of a blackhole.There are people who think that gravity might differ slightly from 1/R^{2}: For example 1/R^{2.0000001}, and we may not have noticed that deviation.
But NASA would have  they measured the Sun's gravitational tug on the Pioneer spacecraft, and if gravity had differed from an inverse square law even a tiny bit, some NASA scientist would have a Nobel Prize by now.
I wonder about that. NASA dont know G to better than say 0.3%, & NASA dont know the mass of Mercury to better than say 0.3%, but they know Gm for Mercury to say 0.0000001%. But praps even so despite this apparently fatal ignorance praps u are correct that NASA would nonetheless see anything straying from 2.0000000.I have tinkered with planetary simulators on the web that allowed you to tweak the law of gravity  but unfortunately I can't find one at present :(
Yes i would be good to see how say Earth might orbit under some funny 1/R^**.

also show how it works, ie how it changes the 1/RR relationship, or how it drags the frame, or something (ie something mechanical)(ie not an equation).
My qualitative understanding of the precession is this:
 Mercury has an exactly elliptical orbit (from the viewpoint of someone on Mercury)
 However, from the viewpoint of someone far from Mercury (eg Earth or Alpha Centauri), when Mercury is closest to the Sun, time slows down for any residents of Mercury
 This means that Mercury travels very slightly further around the Sun before swinging outward to the more distant parts of its orbit.
 This means that the point on Mercury's orbit which is closest to the Sun (perihelion) moves very slowly relative to the distant stars, when measured from year to year.
But i am thinking that that ticking dilation effect must be symmetrical, ie it applies equally on approach & then on departure, & then ditto in the 2nd half of the orbit. And if symmetrical then the ellipse might not be an ellipse but (whatever it is) there aint no precession.
My own theoryexplanation is that the 43 arcsec is a secondary precession due to the primary 532.3 arcsec. I have come up with say 4 possible effects potentially giving a precession, but all of them fail because when looked into in detail i could see that they all suffer symmetry. But my primaryprecessionmakessecondaryprecession effect is not symmetrical, hencely it works. And it aint relativistic (not important)(just saying).This effect is rather subtle to pick up in a single year with an optical telescope, but easy when you look over a period of a century or more
 And is easy to detect when you have a space probe orbiting Mercury which returns very accurate distance measurements to Earth (as the Messenger space probe did from 20112015)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER
Yes there might be an observationreading showing XX arcsec of precession, & everyone might agree on that number, & the number might be true & accurate, but, it is another question altogether as to what is the root cause of that number.
But i have seen graphs showing how the precession varies so much from year to year that a simple annual analysis can suggest an advance of anywhere tween say zero arcsec to 200 arcsec per century. Hencely a measured advance of 0.43 arcsec in any one year can only be a lucky coincidence.

The astronomical equation is for those who want to master in astronomiy, hard to understand and it beclouds HOW Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury and all other planets. There, that is the clue. But the astronomical equation can translated into simple high school math equation and will disclosed how creative Dr. Enstein solved it. jsaldea12 Feb. 17, 2019aswefv

hard to understand
It's just algebra. How is that hard to understand?
But the astronomical equation can translated into simple high school math equation
Please tell me how you would make it any simpler than it already is.

Can we just kill off this thread?
"Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?"
Like this
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/papers/Genrel.pdf
Strictly speaking, that's not Einstein's actual work but its a nice clear summary of the classical, and relativistic solutions and it shows that the predicted disparity is pretty close to the observed value.
Relativity works.

The importance of the Mercury perihelion explanation appears in a completely different light if one considers the perihelion motion that occurs in the case of all of the planets of the solar system, these being of different
magnitudes and, in the case of Venus, even negative, i.e. a retreating perihelion. These are values that the GTR cannot explain.

These are values that the GTR cannot explain.
Even in the case of mercury, the relativistic part of the precession isn't very big.
"For Mercury, the perihelion precession rate due to general relativistic effects is 43″ (arcseconds) per century. By comparison, the precession due to perturbations from the other planets in the Solar System is 532″ per century, whereas the oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment) causes a negligible contribution of 0.025″ per century"
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
So, obviously GR isn't going to explain everything.

These are values that the GTR cannot explain.
Even in the case of mercury, the relativistic part of the precession isn't very big.
"For Mercury, the perihelion precession rate due to general relativistic effects is 43″ (arcseconds) per century. By comparison, the precession due to perturbations from the other planets in the Solar System is 532″ per century, whereas the oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment) causes a negligible contribution of 0.025″ per century"
Fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
So, obviously GR isn't going to explain everything.
When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation spit out a desired number then it wont work in any other case, ie every other case, eg Venus.
Re GR not explaining everything, it duznt explain anything. Where is the explanation of the mechanics, ie of the cause.

When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation
If that was what they were doing then they could simply make up some other nonsense.
And then the data would all fit beautifully.
But it doesn't.
And that's because they don't.
Didn't you realise that your own observations contradict your assertion?

Mad aetherist is not far how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury. reworked backward, Thus do show us the simple math equation that is easy to understand. That equation is right.. jsaldea Feb. 17, 2019

Thus do show us the simple math equation that is easy to understand. That equation is right.
And again, I ask, how would you make the equation I posted any simpler than it already is?

There is no equation in your referred article..
Yes there is
and, as these things go, it's fairly simple.

When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation
If that was what they were doing then they could simply make up some other nonsense.
And then the data would all fit beautifully. But it doesn't. And that's because they don't. Didn't you realise that your own observations contradict your assertion?
Who are they?  Alby & ??.
How does data for precessions of Venus & for Mars fit perfectly??
What observations of mine??

Who are they?  Alby & ??.
Well, it's more reasonable to blame an anonymous "they" than, as you did, to blame us.
When u fraudulently work backwards
So, who do you think it was?

Who are they?  Alby & ??.
Well, it's more reasonable to blame an anonymous "they" than, as you did, to blame us.
When u fraudulently work backwards
So, who do you think it was?
I am referring to Alby, back in 1915 or whenever, he already knew the answer 43 arcsec, & so he played around with the menu to get the number.
And now of course that recipe dont work for any other planet, badly, in the case of Venus Alby's precession aint even in the correct direction. And for Mars he gets 1 arcsec instead of 10 arcsec. Actually i cant now find a good list of the GR contributions to planet precessions, & actual, & Newtonian precessions.
But as i keep saying, i would like to see a good explanation of what the GR explanation is for GR affecting precession. Some sort of pseudo time dilation?, or what?, frame dragging of some kind? Where does gamma enter the explanation?

Please do not call the equation of Dr. Einstein a “fraudulent”, such relativistic equation which agree with observed (at that time) is the only way to compute the anomaly. Reiterating whether the solution is 42.9, 43. Or 44. the solution will always be perfect. But repeating, Dr. Einstein solution/equation is very amazing. At that time, Dr. Einstein was hailed by the veteran astronomers who knew their job most accurately, commenting:” There is no room for allowance (plus or minus) in his equation. Can we translate his equation in simple math equation very understandable to all. Please do. Jsaldea FEB 17, 2019

When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation spit out a desired number
so he played around with the menu to get the number.
Do you have evidence that this is what Einstein did? The perihelion precession of the HulseTaylor binary wasn't known by Einstein (the system wasn't even discovered until 1974), so obviously he couldn't have based any kind of equation on working backwards from that particular information. We have measured the precession of that system at 4.2266 + 10^{5} degrees per year: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991SvAL...17..301I and I just got done calculating the precession using the earlier equation at 4.230853 degrees per year (I can post my workings if you're doubtful). So your "fraud" claim is nonsense.
then it wont work in any other case, ie every other case, eg Venus.
And now of course that recipe dont work for any other planet, badly, in the case of Venus Alby's precession aint even in the correct direction. And for Mars he gets 1 arcsec instead of 10 arcsec.
This is news to me. Do you have a source for these claims of the other planets not matching relativistic predictions?
Can we translate his equation in simple math equation very understandable to all. Please do.
This is the best I can do:
Precession = (744.15 x (semimajor axis)^{2})/((orbital period)^{2} x (speed of light)^{2} x (1(eccentricity)^{2}))
If that isn't simple enough, then I think it's time you try to learn more math.

Quoted:Precession = (744.15 x (semimajor axis)2)/((orbital period)2 x (speed of light)2 x (1(eccentricity)2)". Please translate that into simple math equation that every one can follow. jsaldea Feb. 17, 2019.

Quoted:Precession = (744.15 x (semimajor axis)2)/((orbital period)2 x (speed of light)2 x (1(eccentricity)2)". Please translate that into simple math equation that every one can follow. jsaldea Feb. 17, 2019.
You really need to do some learning.
I'm not sure if your problem is with language or maths, but there's no way we can solve it for you.
You say that this highschool maths is too difficult for you.
What can we do about that?

Please translate that into simple math equation that every one can follow. jsaldea Feb. 17, 2019.
If that isn't simple enough, then I think it's time you try to learn more math.

I assure you there is a way how to translate that amazing equation of imaginative Dr. Einstein into simple math that high school students can understand. The astronomical equation you presented with speed of light is way way off itself. jsaldea Feb. 18, 2019

I assure you there is a way how to translate that amazing equation of imaginative Dr. Einstein into simple math that high school students can understand.
High school students can already understand algebra. Or at least they can in the United States. I admittedly don't know what high school is like in the Philippines.
Of course, if you think you can make the equation simpler while still retaining its accuracy, please show us how to do it.

I assure you there is a way how to translate that amazing equation of imaginative Dr. Einstein into simple math that high school students can understand. The astronomical equation you presented with speed of light is way way off itself. jsaldea Feb. 18, 2019
I worked with more complicated equations when I was at high school.
If there is a problem, it lies with you.
Go and ask a maths teacher for help.

I assure you there is a way how to translate that amazing equation of imaginative Dr. Einstein into simple math that high school students can understand. The astronomical equation you presented with speed of light is way way off itself. jsaldea Feb. 18, 2019
So, you claimed to be a physicist but cant understand simple maths???

Computation A (reference actual Annex A)
(arcsec)(arcseccentury)
ActualPrec Rev. perGR anomalous
Annex Aper rev century – .percession arc/sec/century.
Mercury36/36—x .1035.8 x 414.94= 42.98
Venus 36/67.25 x..1035.8 x162.60 8.6186
Earth36/92.95 x.1035.8 x100.00=  3.8345
Mars36/141,65 x .1035.8x 53.191  1.3502
Jupiter36/483.75 x .1035.8x 8.4317  .0682
Saturn 36/886.9 x .1035.8—x 3.3944.0172
Uranus36/1758.36x.1035.8—x1.1903 . 0037
Neptune 36/2795 x.1035.8—x.606. 0008
Pluto  36/3655.5 x.1035.8 x .4132 =  .0004
Annex A
Planetary comparative distances from sun
Distance (mega miles)
Perihelion Aphelion Average .
Mercury28.6 43.436
Venus 66.867.767.25
Earth 91.494.592.95
Mars 128.4154.9141.65
Jupiter460.3507.2483.75
Saturn 837.6936.2 886.9
Uranus1699.01868.0 1758.35
Neptune2771.0  2819.0 2795
Pluto2756.0 4555.0 3655.5
Based on above computation A, anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent. is actual, is given and is worked back to the problem, the precession per revolution. This is computed and supplied!!.re 42.98/ 414.94= .1035.8 This arc/sec per revolution is the missing item!!! Must b supplied. Why? The anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent is actual , is unquestionable as all the veteran astronomers of the time adamantly insistEd there is anomalous precession.. Dr. Einstein knew this is not the problem, thus, it appears, he approached the problem by starting from 42.98!!! and worked back.. How can we be sure this is the correct relativistic computation., refer to Computation B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Computation B Based on Semilatus Rectum Annex B
Semilatus Prec. per rev.Rev.per century Prec. per century
Rectum(arc sec) (arc sec)
Mercury.55.44 .1034 414.937 42.9195
Venus108.19 .0530 162.60168.6186
Earth149.55. .0383  100.000 3.8345
Mars225.92 .0254 53.1915 1.3502
Jupiter776.50 .0074 8.4317 .0623
Saturn 1422.52.00403.3944 .0137
Uranus 2863.26 .00201.1903.0024
Neptune4496.23 .0013.6068 .0008
Pluto5531.25.0010.4032 .0004
Annex B
Based on the elements of the planetary orbits we can construct the following table of relativistic precession.
It dawns that whatever figure is anomalous precession of Mercury, 41, or 43, or 44 arc/sec/cent, based on semimajor axis, semilatus rectum will arrive at the exact figure of anomalous precession.. No wonder, astronomers were amazed and commented: Einstein’s solution does not leave room for adjustment..(plus 5, minus 5). But note, the equation of Eminent Scientist Dr. Albert Einstein is very beautiful, THE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..
Jsaldea12
Roxas City
Feb. 19, 2019

Annex B will follow.

Computation A (reference actual Annex A)
(arcsec)(arcseccentury)
ActualPrec Rev. perGR anomalous
Annex Aper rev century – .percession arc/sec/century.
Mercury36/36—x .1035.8 x 414.94= 42.98
Venus 36/67.25 x..1035.8 x162.60 8.6186
Earth36/92.95 x.1035.8 x100.00=  3.8345
Mars36/141,65 x .1035.8x 53.191  1.3502
Jupiter36/483.75 x .1035.8x 8.4317  .0682
Saturn 36/886.9 x .1035.8—x 3.3944.0172
Uranus36/1758.36x.1035.8—x1.1903 . 0037
Neptune 36/2795 x.1035.8—x.606. 0008
Pluto  36/3655.5 x.1035.8 x .4132 =  .0004
Annex A
Planetary comparative distances from sun
Distance (mega miles)
Perihelion Aphelion Average .
Mercury28.6 43.436
Venus 66.867.767.25
Earth 91.494.592.95
Mars 128.4154.9141.65
Jupiter460.3507.2483.75
Saturn 837.6936.2 886.9
Uranus1699.01868.0 1758.35
Neptune2771.0  2819.0 2795
Pluto2756.0 4555.0 3655.5
Based on above computation A, anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent. is actual, is given and is worked back to the problem, the precession per revolution. This is computed and supplied!!.re 42.98/ 414.94= .1035.8 This arc/sec per revolution is the missing item!!! Must b supplied. Why? The anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent is actual , is unquestionable as all the veteran astronomers of the time adamantly insistEd there is anomalous precession.. Dr. Einstein knew this is not the problem, thus, it appears, he approached the problem by starting from 42.98!!! and worked back.. How can we be sure this is the correct relativistic computation., refer to another Computation B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Computation B Based on Semilatus Rectum Annex B
Semilatus Prec. per rev.Rev.per century Prec. per century
Rectum(arc sec) (arc sec)
Mercury.55.44 .1034 414.937 42.9195
Venus108.19 .0530 162.60168.6186
Earth149.55. .0383  100.000 3.8345
Mars225.92 .0254 53.1915 1.3502
Jupiter776.50 .0074 8.4317 .0623
Saturn 1422.52.00403.3944 .0137
Uranus 2863.26 .00201.1903.0024
Neptune4496.23 .0013.6068 .0008
Pluto5531.25.0010.4032 .0004
Annex B
Based on the elements of the planetary orbits we can construct the following table of relativistic precession.
It dawns that whatever figure is anomalous precession of Mercury, 41, or 43, or 44 arc/sec/cent, based on semimajor axis, semilatus rectum will arrive at the exact figure of anomalous precession.. No wonder, astronomers were amazed and commented: Einstein’s solution does not leave room for adjustment..(plus 5, minus 5). But note, the equation of Eminent Scientist Dr. Albert Einstein is very beautiful, THE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..
Jsaldea12
Roxas City
Feb. 19, 2019

I don't understand what you are trying to say with those tables. What do "Annex A" and "Semilatus Rectum Annex B" mean?
THE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..
Go back and read reply #44. Einstein had no way of knowing what the precession rate of the HulseTaylor binary would be, yet his equation predicts it accurately. You can't work backwards from data you don't have.

Annex B pertaining to schedule of semilatus rectum, please refer to:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s602/602.htm
jsa

When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation spit out a desired number
so he played around with the menu to get the number.
Do you have evidence that this is what Einstein did?
Here is some good wordage re this. The link for COSMOS doesnt seem to work so i have pasted the wordage below. VanFlandern reckons that Einstein cheated by working backwards. Others in there say that there is no possibility of working backwards because the theory is as white as snow & unambiguous. But i say that the theory is never explained. And i say that the third contribution, ie the change in mass, is bogus. And i say that the first & second contributions are bogus too.
Was Einstein a fake?
By John Farrell
There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein a fake?
Was Einstein a fake?
If you’re tired of hearing about ‘Intelligent design’ creationists and the court wars against Darwin’s theory in the U.S., you might be surprised to learn that another pillar of modern science, Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, is under attack.
A burgeoning underground of ‘dissident’ scientists and selfdescribed experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against ‘the temple of relativity’. According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it’s an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was no less than a cheat.
A quick glance at antirelativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works – very few of them in agreement with each other. But despite their many differences, common themes among these selfdescribed iconoclasts do emerge: resentment of academic ‘elites’, suspicion of the entire peerreview process in mainstream scientific journals and a deepseated paranoia about the extent of government involvement in scientific projects.
An aethrokinematics website (www.aethrokinematics.com) claims to refute relativity by resurrecting René Descartes’ theory that the Earth and all the planets are carried around the Sun by an “Aether vortex”. Another site points to the work of one Stefan Marinov, a selfdescribed dissident, who apparently threatened to immolate himself in front of the British Embassy in Vienna, Austria, because he was so incensed by the refusal of the respected journal Nature to publish his ‘proofs’ against relativity.
This is just a taste. A visit to Google reveals the extent of the phenomenon. Is this a new front in the war on science? Can we expect a new Discovery Institute, armed with millions of dollars from eccentric fundamentalists, spoiling for a rematch in school boards across the U.S. — this time attacking Einstein and not Darwin?
Hopefully not, according to Bryan Gaensler, a professor of physics at the University of Sydney. “The antirelativity cranks are not nearly as wellorganised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along well enough to form a serious threat to science.”
Having said that, he adds, “there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by antirelativity cranks, called ‘Crisis in Cosmology’. I think the first one was held in Spain and they’re planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane.”
The conference planners sent out invitations to Gaensler and hundreds of other physicists. “Before registering,” he says, “you had to fill out this 10point, bulleted manifesto, agreeing to all sorts of propositions from the start. For example, ‘I do not accept that the universe is expanding’, and so on, the kind of thing you would never see at a real scientific conference. It was hilarious.”
The antirelativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein’s first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of almost every crank theory since.
Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and offered a radically new explanation for gravity.
A number of Germans, many of them antiSemites, despised Einstein’s socialist views and envied his fame. Outside Germany, however, Einstein’s theory also met resistance. Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the failed MichelsonMorley experiment to detect aether, the invisible medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.
Like many physicists and astronomers, Gaensler routinely hears from individuals claiming to have proven Einstein’s theory false. “I have a boxload of material from cranks,” he says, “but currently it’s in storage aboard a ship somewhere between the U.S. and Sydney.” A native Australian, Gaensler has just completed an eightyear stint in Boston, teaching at Harvard University and conducting research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the HarvardSmithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.
“But there is a pattern,” he says. “They’re always male — never female. Normally professionals of some kind, doctors, pilots, engineers. And they’re always retired and have years to spend on their pet theory.
“Whenever the observatory sends out a press release, they read it and send out massmailings to every scientist listed as having anything to do with the event.”
Antirelativity agitators even call the front office at the observatory, and the unspoken general practice for many institutes is to have the grad students field the calls. According to Gaensler, it gives them a chance to deal with cranks and also to get experience explaining the scientific method to wouldbe Einsteins.
“What’s common to all of them, I find,” says Gaensler, “is their failure to appreciate the distinction between cosmologists and astronomers. Now, I’m an astronomer, and I work on stars and gases inside the galaxy. And when they talk to me, present their theory, and then ask me, ‘Don’t you care that your field could be completely undermined by my theory?’ They don’t understand that, whether the Big Bang turns out to be misguided or wrong, it has little to do with objects I study inside the galaxy. They fail to appreciate that.”
Most of those arguing against Einsteinian relativity are simply not trained in the scientific method. “And they’re not interested in hearing what their mistakes are … so they don’t get it,” says an exasperated Gaensler.
Some antiEinstein crusaders do have professional scientific training, and this makes them more interesting, even if no more convincing, than the general lot. Over the past few years, for example, American astronomer Tom Van Flandern, who once worked for the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington and runs a website (www.metaresearch.org) with a newsletter that promotes interest in scientific ideas “outside of the mainstream of theories in Astronomy”, claims to have discovered a dirty secret.
Van Flandern was hired to do some consulting work for the physics department at the University of Maryland on the global positioning system (GPS), the ring of 24 satellites circling the Earth, which, among other convenient attributes, are able to pinpoint precise locations for befuddled automobile drivers and bushwalkers anywhere on the planet. According to him, the confusing “rigmarole” of relativity isn’t needed to maintain the GPS, even though in theory it should be.
Einstein’s theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they’re not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don’t need relativity. “They have basically blown off Einstein,” Van Flandern said.
Is this true? Could this be a real crack in the ‘temple’ of Einstein’s theory? Neil Ashby, a professor of physics who works at the University of Colorado and specialises in theoretical general relativity with practical applications, doesn’t think so.
“It is incorrect to claim that no relativistic corrections are used after launch. Actually, because GPS satellites are in eccentric orbits, they suffer frequency variations due to their varying speeds and varying heights above the Earth’s surface. Information is transmitted down to the receivers from each satellite, which enables receivers to make a relativistic correction, which accounts for these effects.”
He adds: “Einstein has not been ‘blown off’. On the contrary, a great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if they are predicted to be big enough to be important.”
But the most interesting aspect of Van Flandern’s objections to relativity bears directly on Einstein himself and his professional integrity. According to Van Flandern, Einstein cheated. Van Flandern told Bethell that he has reason to believe Einstein manipulated his field equations for one of his most momentous predictions.
Astronomers have long observed that Mercury’s orbit is elliptical and that the point where the planet draws closest to the Sun moves, like the oval end of an ellipse drawn with a spirograph. Over the years this ‘perihelion’ point revolves around the Sun just like the planet itself. It was assumed to be due to gravity and the proximity of the planet to the Sun, but Newtonian theory could never predict its advance accurately. It was a classic problem by the time Einstein came along, and his General Theory of Relativity solved it immediately.
Too brilliantly, for some. According to the Bethell’s account, Van Flandern “asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how, in his opinion, Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, ‘knowing the answer,’ Einstein had ‘jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value’.”

Curious as to why the source for this remarkable claim was never named, I contacted Bethell, who told me he was not given permission to name the source. Van Flandern was even more mysterious: “There’s a reason,” he emailed, “why that person was not quoted by name.” He then suggested I send him any queries, which he could forward to the source for consideration.
Instead, I went to the University of Maryland website, where a search revealed five working physicists who received their doctorates from Princeton within a decade of Einstein’s death. One of them was Carroll Alley, who received his degree in 1962. He told me he had once hired Van Flandern to do some work in celestial mechanics. As for knowing Einstein personally, Alley recounted how he had had the pleasure of attending the last lecture given by the great physicist before his death in 1955.
When asked about the claim that Einstein manipulated his equations to get a correct prediction, Alley, acknowledging that he was indeed the mystery man quoted in Bethell’s article, told me: “That was not an accurate quote.” He went on to say that Einstein knew that Mercury’s observed perihelion was 43 arc seconds per century more than Newton’s theory predicted. “A lot of people say that he didn’t know it, but he did,” said Alley.
Indeed, the burning question at the time Einstein was working on general relativity was not what the perihelion figure was, but how to account for it without making special assumptions. This is a key point, because cranks offer all sorts of countertheories that rely on nothing but special assumptions.
In short, to say that Einstein knew what the correct prediction should be and that he ‘jiggered’ his multipliers to get it are two very different allegations. When I contacted Van Flandern for clarification about the quote he had given to the Spectator regarding Einstein’s alleged tampering, he answered, “Basically, the choice of coefficients of potential phi in the spacetime metric is arbitrary. Einstein knew the unmodelled perihelion motion of Mercury, and therefore confined his attention to metrics that predicted this quantity correctly.”
I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain this statement to me. “It makes no sense at all,” he said. “Van Flandern seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists. There is one free parameter, but it’s just Newton’s gravitational constant, G, and is fixed completely by the requirement that the theory reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weakfield, lowvelocity limit. Once you’ve fixed that, everything else is completely determined.” According to Carlip, “Van Flandern seems to be under the impression that there are a bunch of adjustable parameters in general relativity that can be fiddled with. This is certainly not true.” He added, “As far as I can tell, Van Flandern simply doesn’t understand the Einstein field equations.”
Other physicists I queried also flatly reject the notion that Einstein ever fooled with his figures. “I doubt very much that Einstein had any problem calculating [the perihelion],” wrote Ted Jacobson, a gravitation specialist at the University of Maryland.
Michel Janssen and John Stachel both worked on the Einstein Papers Project at Boston University, reviewing the letters and papers of the scientist for publication in a new series. Janssen, in particular, worked closely on a review of Einstein’s Mercury paper, and he was not amused about the accusation that there may have been fudging: “Not to put too fine a point on it, that is crap.”
Lee Smolin, a specialist in general relativity at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada and author of The Life of the Cosmos, goes so far as to vouch for the figures, “I have … personally checked the calculations about the perihelion of Mercury, as have, I’m sure, thousands of other people.”
According to Smolin, enthusiastic proponents of eccentric theories are just a fact of life for working physicists. “Several of us have speculated that there must be a particular psychosis that results in people believing that they have disproved relativity,” he says. “Any of us who are in relativity and at all visible get several communications a month from such people, sometimes in the form of selfpublished books, sometimes letters, sometimes email.” He adds, “usually they are innocuous, but a few times I have been threatened.”
Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University, told me about a character who used to stalk around the Harvard physics department some years ago. “He was a giant hulk of a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some of the folks over there. I wish I could remember his name, but he was really exercised about special relativity being wrong, and since he has left here he has organised several conferences that seem widely attended by antirelativity nuts.” Gerald Holton, Gingerich’s colleague and author of Einstein, History and Other Passions, told me: “Yes, I recall the fellow, as described, but happily have suppressed the memory of his name, and not seen him for years.”
“In most cases it is a sad story,” says Smolin. “Sometimes someone has been working for many years on an idea, and has clearly a huge investment in it. Sometimes it literally comes from someone living on a park bench in Rio or in a homeless shelter in New York.
“In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other members of the public who are interested in science and even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory about physics … Such people are not surprised when you tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested to have the reasons explained to them.”
Not so with most cranks. In his book Cranks, Quarks and the Cosmos, science writer and physicist Jeremy Bernstein points out that one of the criteria that always defines crank ‘science’ is its lack of correspondence with the body of scientific knowledge that has gone before it.
“I would insist that any proposal for a radically new theory in physics, or in any other science, contain a clear explanation of why the precedent science worked,” he writes. Einstein did this, as the first page of his paper on special relativity, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, illustrates perfectly.
In contrast, “the crank,” Bernstein writes, “is a scientific solipsist who lives in his own little world. He has no understanding nor appreciation of the scientific matrix in which his work is embedded … In my dealings with cranks, I have discovered that this kind of discussion is of no interest to them.”
It doesn’t seem to make any difference to point out to antirelativists that, second to quantum mechanics, relativity is the most tested theory on the books. In fact, in one famous case, as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose pointed out, it meets predictions to an accuracy “to one part in 1014 (and this accuracy has apparently been limited merely by the accuracy of clocks on Earth).”
This is the famous case of the HulseTaylor binary pulsar, PSR 1913+16, whose orbital decay met predictions based on the General Theory of Relativity, to the accuracy quoted above, during a period of 20 years. Both scientists who conducted this longterm experiment, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor, were awarded Nobel prizes in 1993.
And the testing hasn’t stopped. None of the physicists I spoke to pretend that relativity is somehow sacrosanct, as dissenters typically complain. Smolin, for example, is working on a quantum theory of gravity. But as it stands, relativity is essential to quantum physics, as Harvard astrophysicist David Layzer told me. And quantum electrodynamics, which accounts for electromagnetic interactions at the atomic level, is not possible without the Special Theory of Relativity. To say nothing of the other daily confirmations of the theory’s consequences provided by atomic accelerators, the GPS and, of course, the equivalence of mass and energy derived from special relativity in Einstein’s most famous equation, E=mc2.
But this makes no impression on crackpots. They insist it can all be explained with an aether theory or some fiddling with Newton’s gravitation. A review of any of these theories (for example, on the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup) inevitably reveals an array of special assumptions that must be called upon to get the same results as Einstein. Apparently this is to be preferred at all costs. It is interesting that cranks almost never dispute the accuracy of relativity’s predictions; they just insist there must be a ‘simpler’ way.
Bryan Gaensler notes what appears to be the largely American nature of the antirelativity phenomenon. “I mean, you have some nutters over here in Australia, too, but nothing like what you find in the United States. And you don’t really find them in Europe either.”
It would be a mistake, however, he adds, to draw a connection between the antiEinstein types and the antiDarwin Intelligent Design movement in the States, “which is definitely more sinister, with more organised financial backing and a religious motivation for their attacks on evolution”.
In the end, Gaensler says, “I feel sorry for these people — because, after all, there might be someone out there now like Einstein, working in obscurity, who does have some truly new insight, but scientists just won’t take him seriously because of all these other crackpots we’ve had to deal with.”
John Farrell is a writer and media producer in Boston and the author of The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology.

Here is what VanFlandern said (BF means basic function)......
In GR, the correct multiplier of BF is arrived at by combining three contributions.
The first is the effect of "time dilation", which contributes +4BF .
The second is the effect of "space contraction", which contributes 2BF.
The third is the effect of mass or momentum increase with speed, which contributes+1BF .
The sum of these three contributions gives the observed amount, +3BF.
Einstein, of course, knew the observed amount in advance, and had the opportunity to combine various effects in various ways until the correct answer was obtained. It is curious that Einstein required a combination of three effects, with one of them canceling 40% of the contribution of the other two. Clearly, there was ample room to argue for a different combination if Mercury's actual perihelion motion had been different.
Earlier i said........ Here is some good wordage re this. The link for COSMOS doesnt seem to work so i have pasted the wordage below. VanFlandern reckons that Einstein cheated by working backwards. Others in there say that there is no possibility of working backwards because the theory is as white as snow & unambiguous. But i say that the theory is never explained. And i say that the third contribution, ie the change in mass, is bogus. And i say that the first & second contributions are bogus too.
As u can see Einstein invoked change of mass, that is the main fraud (ie apart from all of SR & GR being wrong).
And the whole notion that the ticking of clocks on Mercury & the length of rods on Mercury are affected by Mercury's motion (which they are)(but not exactly as per SR or GR) & that this can in some way affect Mercury's orbit is nonsense.

When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation spit out a desired number
so he played around with the menu to get the number.
Do you have evidence that this is what Einstein did? The perihelion precession of the HulseTaylor binary wasn't known by Einstein (the system wasn't even discovered until 1974), so obviously he couldn't have based any kind of equation on working backwards from that particular information. We have measured the precession of that system at 4.2266 + 10^{5} degrees per year: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991SvAL...17..301I and I just got done calculating the precession using the earlier equation at 4.230853 degrees per year (I can post my workings if you're doubtful). So your "fraud" claim is nonsense.
That sort of agreement is indeed impressive. I wonder whether there is a circular argument in there somewhere. But in any case all it takes is one disagreement to sink the equation, & i believe that Mars or Venus does just that.
And it reminds me that Alby didnt believe in quadrupolar GWs, & in any case didnt believe that they could carry energy (ie dampen orbits). Later Einstein didnt put up any resistance to his army of frothing at the mouth followers  "didnt u see his miracle of the juniper bush?".

That is the only way the anomalous precession of Mercury can be resolved, by working back. Dr. Einstein did it.. Forum King mentioned this working back in this forum... jsa feb. 20, 2019

American astronomer Tom Van Flandern, who once worked for the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington and runs a website (www.metaresearch.org) with a newsletter that promotes interest in scientific ideas “outside of the mainstream of theories in Astronomy”, claims to have discovered a dirty secret.
...
According to him, the confusing “rigmarole” of relativity isn’t needed to maintain the GPS, even though in theory it should be.
Einstein’s theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they’re not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don’t need relativity. “They have basically blown off Einstein,” Van Flandern said.
If Van Flandern says this, then he is very mistaken indeed. GPS fails in seconds without adjustments for relativity. They don't keep the various clocks in sync since they're not in the same place and there is no way or reason to do this. So the clocks up there run fast and get ever further ahead of the ones on the ground, which is fine since they're not up there to give the exact time of day. The software knows the exact position and speed of each satellite and computes the relativistic adjustments needed in order to compute the exact distance to the satellite in question. Without those software adjustments, the user would not be able to locate himself. So the claim that GPS programmers don't need relativity is utter nonsense. Relativity is all through the GPS software. This is pretty poor form for somebody supposedly working for the Naval Observatory, but perhaps he just cleaned the floors there or something.

Astronomers have long observed that Mercury’s orbit is elliptical and that the point where the planet draws closest to the Sun moves, like the oval end of an ellipse drawn with a spirograph. Over the years this ‘perihelion’ point revolves around the Sun just like the planet itself. It was assumed to be due to gravity and the proximity of the planet to the Sun, but Newtonian theory could never predict its advance accurately. It was a classic problem by the time Einstein came along, and his General Theory of Relativity solved it immediately.
Too brilliantly, for some. According to the Bethell’s account, Van Flandern “asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how, in his opinion, Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, ‘knowing the answer,’ Einstein had ‘jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value’.”
The jiggered answer was known far earlier than Einstein's time, since it was exactly twice the value predicted by Newton. Nobody jiggered that number since doing so contradicted the rest of the theory. Similarly the GR equation derives from the basic principles in the theory, else a jiggered value would never have passed peer review, just like it never did with Newton's theory.

American astronomer Tom Van Flandern, who once worked for the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington and runs a website (www.metaresearch.org) with a newsletter that promotes interest in scientific ideas “outside of the mainstream of theories in Astronomy”, claims to have discovered a dirty secret.
...
According to him, the confusing “rigmarole” of relativity isn’t needed to maintain the GPS, even though in theory it should be.
Einstein’s theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they’re not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don’t need relativity. “They have basically blown off Einstein,” Van Flandern said.
If Van Flandern says this, then he is very mistaken indeed. GPS fails in seconds without adjustments for relativity. They don't keep the various clocks in sync since they're not in the same place and there is no way or reason to do this. So the clocks up there run fast and get ever further ahead of the ones on the ground, which is fine since they're not up there to give the exact time of day. The software knows the exact position and speed of each satellite and computes the relativistic adjustments needed in order to compute the exact distance to the satellite in question. Without those software adjustments, the user would not be able to locate himself. So the claim that GPS programmers don't need relativity is utter nonsense. Relativity is all through the GPS software. This is pretty poor form for somebody supposedly working for the Naval Observatory, but perhaps he just cleaned the floors there or something.
No u are wrong. GPS doesnt need any relativity of any sort, not Einsteinian, not Lorentzian. They apply a clock correction before launch, & then make clock adjustments each day as needed. I believe that the prelaunch corrections are not needed but that they make the daily corrections simpler (by being smaller).
Aether theory, & aetherwind theory, applied to the Lorentz gamma, would work best. However i reckon that neoLorentz Relativity is wrong because i think that the Shapiro Delay is real (Alby gotpredicted something right, albeit for wrong reasons).

Astronomers have long observed that Mercury’s orbit is elliptical and that the point where the planet draws closest to the Sun moves, like the oval end of an ellipse drawn with a spirograph. Over the years this ‘perihelion’ point revolves around the Sun just like the planet itself. It was assumed to be due to gravity and the proximity of the planet to the Sun, but Newtonian theory could never predict its advance accurately. It was a classic problem by the time Einstein came along, and his General Theory of Relativity solved it immediately.
Too brilliantly, for some. According to the Bethell’s account, Van Flandern “asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how, in his opinion, Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, ‘knowing the answer,’ Einstein had ‘jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value’.”
The jiggered answer was known far earlier than Einstein's time, since it was exactly twice the value predicted by Newton. Nobody jiggered that number since doing so contradicted the rest of the theory. Similarly the GR equation derives from the basic principles in the theory, else a jiggered value would never have passed peer review, just like it never did with Newton's theory.
I doubt that the bending of light stuff re GR helps here. Re the jiggering, this was i think the invoking of relativistic mass. I dont think that relativistic mass comes into the bending of light near the Sun. Einstein somehow came up with the correct number, a true prediction, unlike Mercury which is an antiprediction. But Einstein didnt use relativistic mass in his doubledbending calcs (i think).

Here is some good wordage re this.
Just as I thought, no evidence, just a bunch of unverified suspicions...
I wonder whether there is a circular argument in there somewhere.
Explain how.
But in any case all it takes is one disagreement to sink the equation
Which is not evidence that such a disagreement actually exists.
i believe that Mars or Venus does just that.
I don't what you "believe". Give me a link to a reputable source showing that the precession of Mars and Venus clash with relativity's predictions.
That is the only way the anomalous precession of Mercury can be resolved, by working back.
Just because you can't understand how he worked it out doesn't mean that working backwards is the only way he could have done it.

You have doubt that this is the work of a fraud? Refer to Table B, semilatus rectum and compare the anomalous precession of all planets with the Computation B using simple math equation. Same/exact anomalous precession on both!!. Reiterating, this is the only way Dr. Einstein saw the problem., by working back and he did it. That is not fraudulent. Jsa 2.20.19

Reiterating, this is the only way Dr. Einstein saw the problem., by working back and he did it.
Saying it more than once doesn't make it true.

No u are wrong. GPS doesnt need any relativity of any sort, not Einsteinian, not Lorentzian. They apply a clock correction before launch, & then make clock adjustments each day as needed. I believe that the prelaunch corrections are not needed but that they make the daily corrections simpler (by being smaller).
If they make daily corrections to the satellites, that would be poor engineering. But you are contradicting yourself. If GPS didn't need any relativity of any sort, then such clock corrections (if they are done, which I deny) would not be needed.
Most of the absolutist crackpots at least have an interpretation of physics that works, but you don't even back anything workable.

Having said that, he adds, “there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by antirelativity cranks, called ‘Crisis in Cosmology’. I think the first one was held in Spain and they’re planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane.”
I think somebody has figured out that there are enough of these types that one can hold organized events for the sole purpose of separating these fools from their money. Certainly no scientific progress is coming from these events.

I doubt that the bending of light stuff re GR helps here. Re the jiggering, this was i think the invoking of relativistic mass. I dont think that relativistic mass comes into the bending of light near the Sun.
Relativistic mass comes into play in the precession equation, as stated in your quoted bit. It wasn't talking about light bending.

No u are wrong. GPS doesnt need any relativity of any sort, not Einsteinian, not Lorentzian. They apply a clock correction before launch, & then make clock adjustments each day as needed. I believe that the prelaunch corrections are not needed but that they make the daily corrections simpler (by being smaller).
If they make daily corrections to the satellites, that would be poor engineering. But you are contradicting yourself. If GPS didn't need any relativity of any sort, then such clock corrections (if they are done, which I deny) would not be needed. Most of the absolutist crackpots at least have an interpretation of physics that works, but you don't even back anything workable.
I didnt say that the daily (or twice daily) corrections were not because of relativity, i said that the daily corrections did not use relativity (ie they didnt use some kind of an equation with a gamma of some kind). And they dont use gamma for their clock correction before takeoff.

I doubt that the bending of light stuff re GR helps here. Re the jiggering, this was i think the invoking of relativistic mass. I dont think that relativistic mass comes into the bending of light near the Sun.
Relativistic mass comes into play in the precession equation, as stated in your quoted bit. It wasn't talking about light bending.
Yes & using some kind of relativistic mass increase to help get a number is fraud. Altho i might be happy to go along with a relativistic momentum increase, but definitely not a mass increase, the momentum increase being due to length contraction & or ticking dilation (not due to any silly kind of mass increase). Especially bearing in mind that re momentum (& everything else) u can probly have a true momentum, & an actual momentum, & a measured momentum (three possible momentums), but re mass u can have a true mass & a measured mass (but not an actual mass)(the actual mass never changes)(its the true mass).

Here is some good wordage re this.
Just as I thought, no evidence, just a bunch of unverified suspicions. Yes.I wonder whether there is a circular argument in there somewhere.
Explain how.
I think that even good theories etc can have a circular argument, as long as u know, but not knowing can i think lead to a bloody war. The main circular argument in SR & GR is that much of GR is modeled around ensuring that the constancy of the speed of light is retained, eg near mass, eg invoking time dilation & length contraction near mass to yield the slowing of light near mass. But in any case all it takes is one disagreement to sink the equation
Which is not evidence that such a disagreement actually exists.i believe that Mars or Venus does just that.
I don't what you "believe". Give me a link to a reputable source showing that the precession of Mars and Venus clash with relativity's predictions.
It would be handy to have easy access to such a list of precessions for all the planets. But so difficult to find. I wonder why. Must be a good reason. Thinking thinking thinking.

What I feared actually is what if somebody might come up and claim the same translation to simple match equation the anomalous precession of Mercury. COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK. Now what is the question? Jsa feb. 20, 2019

I think that even good theories etc can have a circular argument, as long as u know, but not knowing can i think lead to a bloody war. The main circular argument in SR & GR is that much of GR is modeled around ensuring that the constancy of the speed of light is retained, eg near mass, eg invoking time dilation & length contraction near mass to yield the slowing of light near mass.
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking specifically how an equation derived in advance being so highly accurate when new data is used with it has anything to do with circular reasoning. Either an equation makes accurate predictions or it doesn't. There's nothing circular about it.
It would be handy to have easy access to such a list of precessions for all the planets. But so difficult to find.
So when you claimed that Venus and Mars don't match relativistic predictions (such as when you said that the anomalous perihelion precession of Mars is ten arcseconds instead of one), you were pulling numbers out of thin air?
I wonder why. Must be a good reason. Thinking thinking thinking.
Because there's a conspiracy to hide that obviously troubling data, of course. ::)
COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK.
Nonsequitur. How does it prove that he worked backwards?

Computation A (reference actual Annex A)
(arcsec)(arcseccentury)
ActualPrec Rev. perGR anomalous
Annex Aper rev century – .percession arc/sec/century.
Mercury36/36—x .1035.8 x 414.94= 42.98
Venus 36/67.25 x..1035.8 x162.60 8.6186
Earth36/92.95 x.1035.8 x100.00=  3.8345
Mars36/141,65 x .1035.8x 53.191  1.3502
Jupiter36/483.75 x .1035.8x 8.4317  .0682
Saturn 36/886.9 x .1035.8—x 3.3944.0172
Uranus36/1758.36x.1035.8—x1.1903 . 0037
Neptune 36/2795 x.1035.8—x.606. 0008
Pluto  36/3655.5 x.1035.8 x .4132 =  .0004
Annex A
Planetary comparative distances from sun
Distance (mega miles)
Perihelion Aphelion Average .
Mercury28.6 43.436
Venus 66.867.767.25
Earth 91.494.592.95
Mars 128.4154.9141.65
Jupiter460.3507.2483.75
Saturn 837.6936.2 886.9
Uranus1699.01868.0 1758.35
Neptune2771.0  2819.0 2795
Pluto2756.0 4555.0 3655.5
Based on above computation A, anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent. is actual, is given and is worked back to the problem, the precession per revolution. This is computed and supplied!!.re 42.98/ 414.94= .1035.8 This arc/sec per revolution is the missing item!!! Must b supplied. Why? The anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent is actual , is unquestionable as all the veteran astronomers of the time adamantly insistEd there is anomalous precession.. Dr. Einstein knew this is not the problem, thus, it appears, he approached the problem by starting from 42.98!!! and worked back.. How can we be sure this is the correct relativistic computation., refer to Computation B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Computation B Based on Semilatus Rectum Annex B
Semilatus Prec. per rev.Rev.per century Prec. per century
Rectum(arc sec) (arc sec)
Mercury.55.44 .1034 414.937 42.9195
Venus108.19 .0530 162.60168.6186
Earth149.55. .0383  100.000 3.8345
Mars225.92 .0254 53.1915 1.3502
Jupiter776.50 .0074 8.4317 .0623
Saturn 1422.52.00403.3944 .0137
Uranus 2863.26 .00201.1903.0024
Neptune4496.23 .0013.6068 .0008
Pluto5531.25.0010.4032 .0004
Annex B
Based on the elements of the planetary orbits we can construct the following table of relativistic precession.
It dawns that whatever figure is anomalous precession of Mercury, 41, or 43, or 44 arc/sec/cent, based on semimajor axis, semilatus rectum will arrive at the exact figure of anomalous precession.. No wonder, astronomers were amazed and commented: Einstein’s solution does not leave room for adjustment..(plus 5, minus 5). But note, the equation of Eminent Scientist Dr. Albert Einstein is very beautiful, THE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..
Jsaldea12
Roxas City
Feb. 19, 2019

Here is the simple math equations:that is uncannily the same with theastronomical
Equations:
Computation A (reference to Annex A)
(arcsec)(arcseccentury)
ActualPrec Rev. perGR anomalous
Annex Aper rev century – .percession arc/sec/century.
Mercury36/36—x .1035.8 x 414.94= 42.98
Venus 36/67.25 x..1035.8 x162.60 8.6186
Earth36/92.95 x.1035.8 x100.00=  3.8345
Mars36/141,65 x .1035.8x 53.191  1.3502
Jupiter36/483.75 x .1035.8x 8.4317  .0682
Saturn 36/886.9 x .1035.8—x 3.3944.0172
Uranus36/1758.36x.1035.8—x1.1903 . 0037
Neptune 36/2795 x.1035.8—x.606. 0008
Pluto  36/3655.5 x.1035.8 x .4132 =  .0004
Annex A
Planetary comparative distances from sun
Distance (mega miles)
Perihelion Aphelion Average .
Mercury28.6 43.436
Venus 66.867.767.25
Earth 91.494.592.95
Mars 128.4154.9141.65
Jupiter460.3507.2483.75
Saturn 837.6936.2 886.9
Uranus1699.01868.0 1758.35
Neptune2771.0  2819.0 2795
Pluto2756.0 4555.0 3655.5
Based on above computation A, anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent. is actual, is given and is worked back to the problem, the precession per revolution. This is computed and supplied!!.re 42.98/ 414.94= .1035.8 This arc/sec per revolution is the missing item!!! Must b supplied. Why? The anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent is actual , is unquestionable as all the veteran astronomers of the time adamantly insistEd there is anomalous precession.. Dr. Einstein knew this is not the problem, thus, it appears, he approached the problem by starting from 42.98!!! and worked back.. How can we be sure this is the correct relativistic computation., refer to Computation B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Computation B Based on Semilatus Rectum Annex B
Semilatus Prec. per rev.Rev.per century Prec. per century
Rectum(arc sec) (arc sec)
Mercury.55.44 .1034 414.937 42.9195
Venus108.19 .0530 162.60168.6186
Earth149.55. .0383  100.000 3.8345
Mars225.92 .0254 53.1915 1.3502
Jupiter776.50 .0074 8.4317 .0623
Saturn 1422.52.00403.3944 .0137
Uranus 2863.26 .00201.1903.0024
Neptune4496.23 .0013.6068 .0008
Pluto5531.25.0010.4032 .0004
.
Annex B pertaining to schedule of semilatus rectum, please refer to:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s602/602.htm
It dawns that whatever figure is anomalous precession of Mercury, 41, or 43, or 44 arc/sec/cent, based on semimajor axis, semilatus rectum will arrive at the exact figure of anomalous precession.. No wonder, astronomers were amazed and commented: Einstein’s solution does not leave room for adjustment..(plus 5, minus 5). But note, the equation of Eminent Scientist Dr. Albert Einstein is very beautiful, THE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..
Jsaldea12
Roxas City
Feb. 19, 2019

Why do you fiercely dishonor Dr. Einstein?

Semilatus Prec. per rev.Rev.per century Prec. per century
Rectum(arc sec) (arc sec)
Mercury.55.44 .1034 414.937 42.9195
Venus108.19 .0530 162.60168.6186
Earth149.55. .0383  100.000 3.8345
That 100 figure can't be right. Earth goes around only 99.996 times per century since a century on Earth (but not on other planets) is measured by 100 callendar years, not sidereal years which is what should be in this chart.

i believe that Mars or Venus does just that.
You can believe what you like.
But the evidence does not support you.HE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..
And again.
How did he work back to get the right answer for data that he didn't have?
Go back and read reply #44. Einstein had no way of knowing what the precession rate of the HulseTaylor binary would be, yet his equation predicts it accurately. You can't work backwards from data you don't have.

Einstein’s theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they’re not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don’t need relativity. “They have basically blown off Einstein,” Van Flandern said.
The clocks are deliberately set to run at the "wrong" rate when on Earth.
That was carefully set up so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
"To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.[17] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a realworld environment.[18] Placing atomic clocks on artificial satellites to test Einstein's general theory was proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 1955.[19]"
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity
GPS is one of the best known proofs that relativity is right.

Einstein’s theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they’re not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don’t need relativity. “They have basically blown off Einstein,” Van Flandern said.
The clocks are deliberately set to run at the "wrong" rate when on Earth.
That was carefully set up so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
"To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.[17] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a realworld environment.[18] Placing atomic clocks on artificial satellites to test Einstein's general theory was proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 1955.[19]" From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity
GPS is one of the best known proofs that relativity is right.
Rubbish. It is evidence not proof. It is evidence for an infinite number of postulates, especially for aetherwind & neoLorentz Relativity, but not so much for Einsteinian Relativity. Hatch mentions this. We have been throo all of this before. However i might have changed my tune since then.
What i now reckon is that both Rs are wrong, i reckon that ER correctly includes the slowing of light near mass, ie i am now thinking that Shapiro Delay is correct (but for wrong reasons), & that (1) slowing must affect LC & TD (in addition to the V of the aetherwind affecting gamma & affecting LD & TD (2)). Einstein's relativev we know does not work in Lorentz's gamma (see the Twins Contradiction)(it aint a paradox).
This 2nd aspect of LC & TD is what made me invent Photaenos, the cause of em radiation (& the cause of refraction)(& the cause of the double bending of light near the Sun etc).

Because it was not there anymore, please show the computations I posted that proved Einstein’s astronomical computation of the anomalous precession of Mercury can be translated into simple match equation any high school student can understand. Jsaldeza12 Feb. 22, 2019

Sorry, the computations are posted. jsa

Einstein’s theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they’re not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don’t need relativity. “They have basically blown off Einstein,” Van Flandern said.
The clocks are deliberately set to run at the "wrong" rate when on Earth.
That was carefully set up so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
"To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.[17] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a realworld environment.[18] Placing atomic clocks on artificial satellites to test Einstein's general theory was proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 1955.[19]" From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity
GPS is one of the best known proofs that relativity is right.
Rubbish. It is evidence not proof. It is evidence for an infinite number of postulates, especially for aetherwind & neoLorentz Relativity, but not so much for Einsteinian Relativity. Hatch mentions this. We have been throo all of this before. However i might have changed my tune since then.
What i now reckon is that both Rs are wrong, i reckon that ER correctly includes the slowing of light near mass, ie i am now thinking that Shapiro Delay is correct (but for wrong reasons), & that (1) slowing must affect LC & TD (in addition to the V of the aetherwind affecting gamma & affecting LD & TD (2)). Einstein's relativev we know does not work in Lorentz's gamma (see the Twins Contradiction)(it aint a paradox).
This 2nd aspect of LC & TD is what made me invent Photaenos, the cause of em radiation (& the cause of refraction)(& the cause of the double bending of light near the Sun etc).
Given that your view point has been experimentally determined not to agree with reality, I suggest that you stop espousing predictions based on it.
Or, to put it another way; we know you are demonstrably wrong; keep quiet

especially for aetherwind
Your aetherwind hypothesis makes numerical predictions for time dilation?

especially for aetherwind
Your aetherwind hypothesis makes numerical predictions for time dilation?
Aetherists dont believe in time nor time dilation, or, we do, we believe in a universal time, ie this present instant, & it is universal. And we believe in ticking dilation, not time dilation.
I follow the neoLorentz Relativity of Reg Cahill (in his process physics) & Conrad Ranzan (in his DSSU), which are based on a dynamic aether. Ranzan is a semiEinsteinologist actually. They believe in an aether & an aetherwind, & believe that to get gamma for LC & TD (ticking dilation) u insert the velocity of the aetherwind (V) blowing throo the rod or clock into Lorentz's equation for gamma.
This way aetherists can calculate the real or absolute ticking rate (in the preferred frame)(V=00 kmps), & the actual ticking rate, & the perceived ticking rate.
The first hurdle is that u need to know the velocity of the aetherwind. The background aetherwind blowing throo Earth blows at say 500 kmps south to north about 20 deg off Earth's spinaxis. And this is modified by aether inflow into Earth where it is annihilated.
Demjanov using a twin media MMX in 1970 showed that the horizontal component of the aetherwind at Obninsk varied from 140 kmps to 480 kmps during a day. His 1st order DMMX was about 1000 times as sensitive as the old fashioned 2nd order inair MMXs. I rate this as the best & cleverest & praps the most important X in history. Modern laser or maser or etalon etc vacuum MMXs are 3rd order, about 1000 times less sensitive than inair MMXs, & the modern calibration of these quasiMMXs is complete krapp, they measure what they think is say 0.1 kmps (which they attribute to systematic noise)(i can show u), but with proper calibration this can be shown to be say 500 kmps (Reg Cahill explains).
Einsteinologists plug the relative V into the equation for gamma, much simpler, but hardly ever accurate enuff in this modern age.
One major problem with both Einsteinologists & aetherists is that Einsteinologists ignore their own GR slowing of light near mass & its effect on LC & TD, & the aetherists dont believe in that there slowing of light near mass.
My own aether theory re the calculation of LC & TD lays in between, i allow for the V of the aetherwind, & i allow for the nearness of mass slowing the speed of light from 1c kmps down to 1c' kmps (but not for GR reasons)(i have my own theory). But i am still working on how slowing affects the equation for gamma. I think it will be very simple. I might work it out tomorrow.

COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK. jsa
Quote:Nonsequitur. How does it prove that he worked backwards? Because the comparative figures match perfectly.

COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK. jsa
Quote:Nonsequitur. How does it prove that he worked backwards? Because the comparative figures match perfectly.
Did it not occur to you that they might match because he's correct?
(It's not the only other explanation, but it's an obvious one)

Aetherists dont believe in time nor time dilation
Well, time dilation is an experimentally demonstrated fact, nd it has been so for decades
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/16/hafelekeatingexperimenttwoatomicclocksflewtwicearoundworldeastwardwestwardbackhomeshoweddifferenttimes/
so what you are saying is that you don't believe in reality.

COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK. jsa
Writing your answer in all caps doesn't make it more correct.
Quote:Nonsequitur. How does it prove that he worked backwards? Because the comparative figures match perfectly.
How does them being a match prove that he worked backwards?

Aetherists dont believe in time nor time dilation
Well, time dilation is an experimentally demonstrated fact, nd it has been so for decades
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/16/hafelekeatingexperimenttwoatomicclocksflewtwicearoundworldeastwardwestwardbackhomeshoweddifferenttimes/so what you are saying is that you don't believe in reality.
There is only one time, it is the present instant, & it is universal. There is no such thing as time, what we have is ticking, & we have ticking dilation of clocks.
Mostly it is only a semantic argument. However i daresay that Einsteinologists might be upset about this, i am thinking that SR & GR dont work if depending on ticking only, i think SR & GR do need time. I havent looked into that, it would be futile, what with SR & GR being just a mathtrick model, hencely SR & GR are entitled to say what they like within their model, but they are not happy with that, they go one step further & insist that time is real. Idiots.

Quoted: "Writing your answer in all caps doesn't make it more correct".
Do translate into simple math equation easily understood by all, that relativistic astronomical computation of Dr. Einstein how he solved that anomalous precession of Mercury (jsa 2.24.19)

Do translate into simple math equation easily understood by all, that relativistic astronomical computation of Dr. Einstein how he solved that anomalous precession of Mercury (jsa 2.24.19)
You're assuming that such a thing can even be done. The mathematics of relativity are complicated, hardly the kind of thing that can be "easily understood by all". If you can't understand the algebra equation I posted earlier, I don't see how you could ever understand the math of relativity. I don't understand most of it either.

Quoted:You're assuming that such a thing can even be done. The mathematics of relativity are complicated, hardly the kind of thing that can be "easily understood by all". If you can't understand the algebra equation I posted earlier, I don't see how you could ever understand the math of relativity. I don't understand most of it either.
Jsaldea12: I don’t assume. I did it, translate that complicated astronomical math of relativity into simple algedric equation a high school student can understand. Feb. 24, 2019

Jsaldea12: I don’t assume. I did it, translate that complicated astronomical math of relativity into simple algedric equation a high school student can understand. Feb. 24, 2019
If you already did it, then why were you asking me to do it?

Again, here is the saimple math equation (Please do not delete):
Computation A (reference actual Annex A)
(arcsec)(arcseccentury)
ActualPrec Rev. perGR anomalous
Annex Aper rev century – .precession arc/sec/century.
Mercury36/36—x .1035.8 x 414.94= 42.98
Venus 36/67.25 x..1035.8 x162.60 8.6186
Earth36/92.95 x.1035.8 x100.00=  3.8345
Mars36/141,65 x .1035.8x 53.191  1.3502
Jupiter36/483.75 x .1035.8x 8.4317  .0682
Saturn 36/886.9 x .1035.8—x 3.3944.0172
Uranus36/1758.36x.1035.8—x1.1903 . 0037
Neptune 36/2795 x.1035.8—x.606. 0008
Pluto  36/3655.5 x.1035.8 x .4132 =  .0004
Annex A
Planetary comparative distances from sun
Distance (mega miles)
Perihelion Aphelion Average .
Mercury28.6 43.436
Venus 66.867.767.25
Earth 91.494.592.95
Mars 128.4154.9141.65
Jupiter460.3507.2483.75
Saturn 837.6936.2 886.9
Uranus1699.01868.0 1758.35
Neptune2771.0  2819.0 2795
Pluto2756.0 4555.0 3655.5
Based on above computation A, anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent. is actual, is given and is worked back to the problem, the precession per revolution. This is computed and supplied!!.re 42.98/ 414.94= .1035.8 This arc/sec per revolution is the missing item!!! Must b supplied. Why? The anomalous precession of 42.98 arc/sec/cent is actual , is unquestionable as all the veteran astronomers of the time adamantly insistEd there is anomalous precession.. Dr. Einstein knew this is not the problem, thus, it appears, he approached the problem by starting from 42.98!!! and worked back.. How can we be sure this is the correct relativistic computation., refer to Computation B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Computation B Based on Semilatus Rectum Annex B
Semilatus Prec. per rev.Rev.per century Prec. per century
Rectum(arc sec) (arc sec)
Mercury.55.44 .1034 414.937 42.9195
Venus108.19 .0530 162.60168.6186
Earth149.55. .0383  100.000 3.8345
Mars225.92 .0254 53.1915 1.3502
Jupiter776.50 .0074 8.4317 .0623
Saturn 1422.52.00403.3944 .0137
Uranus 2863.26 .00201.1903.0024
Neptune4496.23 .0013.6068 .0008
Pluto5531.25.0010.4032 .0004
Annex B The table for semilatus rectum is not anymore appear in the internet.But whateve is the solution will always be correct. Dr. Einstein did not not do wrong by starting from the solution and work back, the only way the aomalous precession is settled. jsa 2.28.19

How can we be sure this is the correct relativistic computation., refer to Computation B
You still have yet to explain how this proves that Einstein worked backwards. Please explain it already.