Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<529fe67714c7360fc366b3cbef639d46@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article. Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:27:22 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <529fe67714c7360fc366b3cbef639d46@www.novabbs.com> References: <db18709b6ba689b9c07245000ff1b094@www.novabbs.com> <53a754e33f8216df2e7882aa63ee8391@www.novabbs.com> <511c68d28f959e6fc1f6e64452fd415d@www.novabbs.com> <6718b186$0$532$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <be287e10cd90f0cbfd70c711873fcea4@www.novabbs.com> <2cbcea74010d65879416d2d1aed4a84b@www.novabbs.com> <ab86444ec806e48f140fd4f40ae3d7f1@www.novabbs.com> <a565a043054152d727f9dbbdd131cddd@www.novabbs.com> <b16549f31a5f9627f2b4a922ea11f872@www.novabbs.com> <509ee3cdf4e3f46de144f88c115fce2b@www.novabbs.com> <9d4409794456d76d2340a3e0e2061e8c@www.novabbs.com> <7766caa54c664f912eb2f5673ab3bc48@www.novabbs.com> <d5ff3d75fcbd66ed75930e3b351bc885@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3678111"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$DDb/0IQzHHNTqvwhKvyhRuaivKOC8chgW7qLMc5nBsOdImavuxMU. X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 3807 Lines: 53 On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:10:23 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > Mr. Hertz: Yes, the 43" is within the margin of error for Newtonian > methods. All that is necessary is refining those as Smulsky does. > There's the oblateness, the Sun's axial spin, and the barycenter orbit > to account for that, so it should suffice easily. NO. You didn't understand me. Regarding Newton's law of universal gravitation, you have to take ONLY that such equations are based on INFINITE SPEED OF GRAVITY. The theory of Gauss, based on gravitational torus, is POST-NEWTON and also ANTI-NEWTONIAN! Gauss was the one who first introduced the concept of GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, 110 years before Einstein. A predecessor of Gauss was Laplace, who imagined gravity as a fluid, but the INSPIRATION for Einstein-Grossman to write Entwurf I and II came from Poisson and his equations for gravity. Actually, the Entwurf I paper OPENS WiTH Poisson equation. This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_equation#Newtonian_gravity I have utter respect for the figure of Gauss and other figure of classic physics (Laplace, Gauss, Euler, Poisson, etc.), but they CHALLENGED Newton's theory of gravitation 120 years after the publication of Principia (questioning actions at a distance). In a way, Gauss and Poisson were closer to Faraday, Maxwell and Einstein by being pioneers in the introduction of gravitational fields and density of spatial matter. Here is some data about Gauss and his law of gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity Don't be misguided by my comments from above. What is wrong with GR and Mercury is that Einstein's developments were based ON A DIFFERENCE of the Newtonian influence over Mercury's perihelion, which (Gauss - Le Verrier - Newcomb) had a missing value of 43"/century over 575"/cy provided by observational astronomy. The FALSE theory of Einstein about Mercury is equivalent to this stupid FALSE equatiom: Large number of chickens (estimated) + some chicken's eggs to be hatched NOT EQUAL (≠) Total number of chickens 532"/cy (badly calculated) + 43"/cy ( calculated) ≠ 575"/cy (MEASURED). Do you understand THE ERRORS embedded in such idiotic equation?