All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
among other 'phenomena'. We focus now on that extra precession,
which is observed to be about 43 arsec per century. GR claims that
extra precession is a real extra orbital motion. I'm going to show
that's
not the case, that it is only an apparent extra precession caused by
the gravitational lensing of light emitted by the Sun and reflected
off
by planet Mercury towards us. I will show that there exists only a
real
perihelion precession, that which is predicted by newtonian gravity.
Firstly, we have to see that a gravitational lensing is just a
refraction, that
Fermat's principle must hold for it. We also see that gravitational
refraction
takes place in the same medium (vacuum), so we can regard that
medium
as undowed with a graded refractive index when there is a massive
object
between source and observer. We can easily deduce that the
refractive
index, n, induced by a massive intermediary body with mass M, is
an
exponential function with the form

n = exp (2V_r/c^2),

where
V_r is the newtonian gravitational potential at
distance r,
caused by that intermediary body, and
c is the standard value of speed of light in a
vacuum.

Therefore, we can see that the local speed of light, c_r, in a
differential region.
located at distance r to the center of M, is not exactly c_r = c,
if V_r is non-zero.
We see that local speed of light must be

c_r = c/n = c exp (-2V_r/c^2),

Under newtonian gravity, V_r = - GM/r is defined as a real negative
value,
so we can see that c_r must be a real value, c_r c, for non-zero
V_r.
This means the local speed of light in a region closer to the sun is
higher
than that in a further region. We deduce that the local speed of
light c_r in
Mercury perihelion is higher than those in other points of its orbit,
and that is
the reason why we measure a fictitious "extra" Mercury's perihelion
precession.
What we're actually measuring is the apparent angular position of
Mercury, which
in this case is closer to its real angular position at the perihelion.
Of course,
under GR, you are forced to claim the other way around, that the
local speed
of light in a region closer to the sun is less than that in a further
region, so you
get c_r = n c = c exp (2V_r/c^2). That's true, under GR, in a weak
limit, because
you are forced to claim there exists a real extra perihelion
precession, and you
dismiss the gravitational lensing (i.e. refraction). That's the
typical hallucination of
GR distorting real phenomena and predicting fictitious ones.

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
| All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
| 'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
| among other 'phenomena'. We focus now on that extra precession,
| which is observed to be about 43 arsec per century. GR claims that
| extra precession is a real extra orbital motion. I'm going to show
| that's
| not the case, that it is only an apparent extra precession caused by
| the gravitational lensing of light emitted by the Sun and reflected
| off
| by planet Mercury towards us.

Ahahahahaha!

43 arc seconds in 415 orbits is 43 arc seconds in

415 * 360 degrees * 60 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =

43 arc seconds in 537840000 arc seconds,
or one part in 12,507,907.

Not you, Le Verrier, Einstein or anyone else can be that
accurate with 2 century old astrolabe mounted on a
revolving and rotating platform (the Earth).
Mercury's advance differs for every orbit as the other
planets change position.

I flipped a fair coin 415 times and it came up heads
208 times, tails 207, so the probability is 208/415 =
0.50120481927710843373493975903614 heads,
or 1 part in 832.
The slight discrepancy from 0.5 is caused by GR.

Don't try to be a con artist like Einstein. Like you,
he was never an astronomer, he was an astrologer.

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
among other 'phenomena'.

An we all know that your 'posts' are a load of 'rubbish'

On 15 ene, 14:01, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Albertito" wrote in message

...

All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
among other 'phenomena'.

An we all know that your 'posts' are a load of 'rubbish'

All of you relativists need this sort of rubbish-crap-fertilizer
to make your brains more healthful, escaping from the blind
alley where GR has confined you, ****head.

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
| On 15 ene, 14:01, "Jeckyl" wrote:
| "Albertito" wrote in message
|
| ...
|
| All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
| 'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
| among other 'phenomena'.
|
| An we all know that your 'posts' are a load of 'rubbish'
|
| All of you relativists need this sort of rubbish-crap-fertilizer
| to make your brains more healthful, escaping from the blind
| alley where GR has confined you, ****head.
|
Fecal Jeckyl can't read, he's just another idiot troll.

On 15 ene, 13:48, "Androcles" wrote:
"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
| 'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
| among other 'phenomena'. We focus now on that extra precession,
| which is observed to be about 43 arsec per century. GR claims that
| extra precession is a real extra orbital motion. I'm going to show
| that's
| not the case, that it is only an apparent extra precession caused by
| the gravitational lensing of light emitted by the Sun and reflected
| off
| by planet Mercury towards us.

Ahahahahaha!

43 arc seconds in 415 orbits is 43 arc seconds in

415 * 360 degrees * 60 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =

43 arc seconds in 537840000 arc seconds,
or one part in 12,507,907.

Not you, Le Verrier, Einstein or anyone else can be that
accurate with 2 century old astrolabe mounted on a
revolving and rotating platform (the Earth).
Mercury's advance differs for every orbit as the other
planets change position.

I flipped a fair coin 415 times and it came up heads
208 times, tails 207, so the probability is 208/415 =
0.50120481927710843373493975903614 heads,
or 1 part in 832.
The slight discrepancy from 0.5 is caused by GR.

Don't try to be a con artist like Einstein. Like you,
he was never an astronomer, he was an astrologer.

Dear Androcles,
you are absolutely right. Anyway, are you sure gravitation
is a fair coin?. I'd say it may be biased, depending on the
amount of matter/energy distributed in a given region.

On Jan 15, 5:00 am, Albertito wrote:
crap snipped
I will show that there exists only a
real
perihelion precession, that which is predicted by newtonian gravity.
Firstly, we have to see that a gravitational lensing is just a
refraction, that
Fermat's principle must hold for it.
remainder of crap also snipped

Albert****o,

1. Gravitational lensing is just another prediction of Einstein's
theory. You didn't know that? Apparently.

2. How come this "lensing" affects only Mercury and doesn't affect the
other planets? They all precess. Didn't you know that either?
Apparently, you despicable piece of ****.

On Jan 15, 4:00 am, Albertito wrote:
All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
among other 'phenomena'. We focus now on that extra precession,
which is observed to be about 43 arsec per century. GR claims that
extra precession is a real extra orbital motion. I'm going to show
that's
not the case, that it is only an apparent extra precession caused by
the gravitational lensing of light emitted by the Sun and reflected
off
by planet Mercury towards us. I will show that there exists only a
real
perihelion precession, that which is predicted by newtonian gravity.

You are exceptionally clueless.

The anomalous precession was known about at least forty years before
GR was developed, and that Newtonian gravitational lensing is known to
be off by a factor of two in magnitude.

Plus claiming the precession is due to, in any way, reflected light is
just....stupid. But that is par for the course from you.

Firstly, we have to see that a gravitational lensing is just a
refraction, that
Fermat's principle must hold for it. We also see that gravitational
refraction
takes place in the same medium (vacuum), so we can regard that
medium
as undowed with a graded refractive index when there is a massive
object
between source and observer. We can easily deduce that the
refractive
index, n, induced by a massive intermediary body with mass M, is
an
exponential function with the form

n = exp (2V_r/c^2),

Easily?

Why don't you show the derivation, then?


where
V_r is the newtonian gravitational potential at
distance r,
caused by that intermediary body, and
c is the standard value of speed of light in a
vacuum.

For weak fields, GR predicts the actual effective refractive index to
be n = 1 - 2\phi in c = 1 units.


Therefore, we can see that the local speed of light, c_r, in a
differential region.
located at distance r to the center of M, is not exactly c_r = c,
if V_r is non-zero.
We see that local speed of light must be

c_r = c/n = c exp (-2V_r/c^2),

This too, is wrong. I don't think you are especially concerned though.


Under newtonian gravity, V_r = - GM/r is defined as a real negative
value,
so we can see that c_r must be a real value, c_r c, for non-zero
V_r.

What I fail to see is why you think any of this is relevant since you
aren't explaining what physical theory you are basing this on, or what
experimental evidence you have in support.

This means the local speed of light in a region closer to the sun is
higher
than that in a further region. We deduce that the local speed of
light c_r in
Mercury perihelion is higher than those in other points of its orbit,
and that is
the reason why we measure a fictitious "extra" Mercury's perihelion
precession.

So where is the mathematics supporting this fantastic claim?

What we're actually measuring is the apparent angular position of
Mercury, which
in this case is closer to its real angular position at the perihelion.
Of course,
under GR, you are forced to claim the other way around, that the
local speed
of light in a region closer to the sun is less than that in a further
region, so you
get c_r = n c = c exp (2V_r/c^2). That's true, under GR, in a weak
limit, because
you are forced to claim there exists a real extra perihelion
precession, and you
dismiss the gravitational lensing (i.e. refraction). That's the
typical hallucination of
GR distorting real phenomena and predicting fictitious ones.

As expected, you totally butchered what GR predicts. The precession of
perihelia has nothing to do with the speed of light, outside of the
looser context of GR demanding local constancy of light speed. The
precession directly follows from the equation of motion for an
orbiting particle in the Schwarzschild manifold.

You don't actually show anything you have written.

You make a bold claim about the effect of gravity on the local speed
of light and the effective index of refraction, but you don't present
the derivation.

You then make an even BIGGER claim that the supposed change in light
speed is enough to create the extra precession, yet you don't even try
to show the mathematics supporting that.

In effect, you have absolutely jack to show for it except several
poorly-formatted paragraphs of idiocy.

On Jan 15, 5:29 am, Albertito wrote:
On 15 ene, 14:01, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Albertito" wrote in message

...

All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
among other 'phenomena'.

An we all know that your 'posts' are a load of 'rubbish'

All of you relativists need this sort of rubbish-crap-fertilizer
to make your brains more healthful, escaping from the blind
alley where GR has confined you, ****head.

You are awfully arrogant for someone who can't even relate what GR
predicts without ****ing it up.

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
| On 15 ene, 13:48, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Albertito" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
| | 'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
| | among other 'phenomena'. We focus now on that extra precession,
| | which is observed to be about 43 arsec per century. GR claims that
| | extra precession is a real extra orbital motion. I'm going to show
| | that's
| | not the case, that it is only an apparent extra precession caused by
| | the gravitational lensing of light emitted by the Sun and reflected
| | off
| | by planet Mercury towards us.
|
| Ahahahahaha!
|
| 43 arc seconds in 415 orbits is 43 arc seconds in
|
| 415 * 360 degrees * 60 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =
|
| 43 arc seconds in 537840000 arc seconds,
| or one part in 12,507,907.
|
| Not you, Le Verrier, Einstein or anyone else can be that
| accurate with 2 century old astrolabe mounted on a
| revolving and rotating platform (the Earth).
| Mercury's advance differs for every orbit as the other
| planets change position.
|
| I flipped a fair coin 415 times and it came up heads
| 208 times, tails 207, so the probability is 208/415 =
| 0.50120481927710843373493975903614 heads,
| or 1 part in 832.
| The slight discrepancy from 0.5 is caused by GR.
|
| Don't try to be a con artist like Einstein. Like you,
| he was never an astronomer, he was an astrologer.
|
| Dear Androcles,
| you are absolutely right. Anyway, are you sure gravitation
| is a fair coin?. I'd say it may be biased, depending on the
| amount of matter/energy distributed in a given region.

It doesn't matter, I deliberately chose an odd number to
cook the results and 415 happens to be the number of
orbits Mercury makes as Earth makes a hundred. I laughed
because you are doing much the same thing with your
gravitational lensing of light. Orbits are known to be
chaotic and there is no analytical solution to the three
body problem. If GR could do it then mathematicians
would be delighted. A nice model exists he
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Proje...llection1.html
Of particular interest is example 8, a full orbit is completed
before the system degrades.

What with Jupiter, Earth (and its Moon) and Venus pulling
on Mercury it is quite impossible to analytically prophecy
where its perihelion will be 100 years from now, whatever
the prophet Einstein and his disciples predict. Blind faith
in the holy shaman has been with us since the pyramids and
Stonehenge were built, these neanderthals such as Fecal Jeckyl
of today are no different to their ancestors. In a different
society and a different age they'd be consulting the Oracle
at Delphi.