[Bored chemist]

someone does not create a new field in science overnight.

And if they ignore the facts, they don't create it at all.

If dark matter is considered as an allotrope, I
have to be aware of this.

Dark matter is not an allotrope.

to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.

To be technically correct, that's you being wrong again.

And that's why there's not much point in me doing this.

Could you please start a discussion based on Einstein's work?
What does his general theory represent? Does it deviate from Newton's work and his missing 43 arc seconds per century of the missing orbit of Mercury?

I could start one (though there are others here better qualified).
But you could't usefully contribute to it because you simply don't know your stuff.

Now, perhaps  you should stop advertising  YT videos and address this.

By the way, do you plan to actually address the fact that you haven't shown that this
"Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops"
actually happens?
Or are you going to continue to argue about why unicorns prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla?

[Deecart]

to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.

To be technically correct, that's you being wrong again.

To be technically correct, he is correct and you are wrong.

I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...) between the "arc second" angle with the time this angle is supposed to describe.
So yes there is a 43 arc second deviation in time for 1 Mercury year revolution (ANGULAR ORBIT) because the deviation apply to the "Mercury year".

Indeed, with general relativity "turned on", the radial oscillation is faster than before.  But so is the angular oscillation, even more so!  The two oscillation periods are unequal, and Mercury completes one 360° revolution in less time than it takes to complete one oscillation radially.

Why is the time to complete one angular orbit reduced so much, and more so than the radial one?

https://spaceengine.org/articles/the-anomalous-advance-of-the-perihelion-of-mercury/
 
 

[The Spoon]

To be technically correct, he is correct and you are wrong.

I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...) between the "arc second" angle with the time this angle is supposed to describe.
So yes there is a 43 arc second deviation in time for 1 Mercury year revolution (ANGULAR ORBIT) because the deviation apply to the "Mercury year".

As pointed out by Kryptid earlier, an arc second is a unit of angular measurement, not time. So you are wrong.

[Deecart]

As pointed out by Kryptid earlier, an arc second is a unit of angular measurement, not time. So you are wrong.

Everyone know that the arc second is a unit of angle.
Try to understand why talking of some arc second when refering to some delay of the orbital year is right.

I am sure you can do it if you think hard enough.

[Bored chemist]

Here's what he said.

to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.

And he's still wrong because the discrepancy of the precession of mercury's orbit is an angular velocity.
That's an angle (43 arcseconds) in unit time (a year).

[Bored chemist]

I am sure you can do it if you think hard enough.

Perhaps you need a mirror to help you see how needs to think harder.

[Deecart]

Here's what he said.

to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.

And he's still wrong because the discrepancy of the precession of mercury's orbit is an angular velocity.
That's an angle (43 arcseconds) in unit time (a year).

No it is just you who is understanding wrong.
I understand well what he say.

[Deecart]

Perhaps you need a mirror to help you see how needs to think harder.

Do you even understand that saying "perhaps" nullify all what you said previously ?

"Perhaps" the moon will disappear today.

You are not right and not wrong saying that.
Thats how mystic people speak.


 

[Bored chemist]

Here's what he said.

to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.

And he's still wrong because the discrepancy of the precession of mercury's orbit is an angular velocity.
That's an angle (43 arcseconds) in unit time (a year).

No it is just you who is understanding wrong.
I understand well what he say.

So, just to make sure, you are saying that Kryptid, The Spoon and I are all wrong, while you (for whom English is not a first language) and  the OP (who believes in perpetual motion machines made of wood) are the ones who understand what was said.

That's brave.


43 arc seconds is still not a time.

[Bored chemist]

Do you even understand that saying "perhaps" nullify all what you said precedently ?

Perhaps you don't understand irony.

[Deecart]

43 arc seconds is still not a time.

And it is not what he said.

... but it is what you want us to believe.
Thats just a typical "straw man" argument used by some people not able to use scientific argumentation.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4]

Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Deecart]

Perhaps you don't understand irony.

Surely you dont know how to produce irony.

[Bored chemist]

And it is not what he said.

You do realise, don't you that this is a discussion forum.
It's easy to flick back and see what he said- and also to quote it.

43 arc seconds is missing time.

So, between you saying the past didn't happen, and the OP saying that he has a perpetual motion machine, it looks like this thread has run out of science.

By the way, I think most of us know what a straw man is.
And, in this case, it is ... irrelevant.

[Bored chemist]

Perhaps you don't understand irony.

Surely you dont know how to produce irony.

So, do you now understand that I was correct?
I was telling you to look in a mirror, in order to see who needs help with thinking.

[Bored chemist]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

[Deecart]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

So what ?

Now the problem is not that i dont understand english ?
Try to stay focused.

[Deecart]

So, do you now understand that I was correct?
I was telling you to look in a mirror, in order to see who needs help with thinking.

Sorry but there is no argumentation here.
Like everytime you say something in fact.

[Deecart]

It's easy to flick back and see what he said- and also to quote it.

Thats why i am pretty sure everyone with a brain will understand that you are wrong.

[Deecart]

So, between you saying the past didn't happen, and the OP saying that he has a perpetual motion machine, it looks like this thread has run out of science.

Laking of arguments yourself you ask mommy to end up the discussion ?
 

[Deecart]

By the way, I think most of us know what a straw man is.
And, in this case, it is ... irrelevant.

Every one that know what a Straw man argument is can recognize this one.