The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Dec 31, 11:22 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

So, you are not sure if that solution above does not satisfy R_uv =
0. Well, Gisse plugged it into his software program and had verified
so a year ago. There are actually infinite solutions to the field
equations that are static (time invariant), spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat (approaching flat spacetime at r = infinity).
Through Koobee Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of Generality below,
you can find any solution you wish the universe to be including the
accelerated expanding universe that still behaves like Newtonian at
relatively smaller distances.

ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 (1 + 2 K / u) – (1 + 2 K / u) (du/dr)^2 dr^2 – (u +
K)^2 dO^2

Where

** u(r) = Any function of r

For example,

1. If (u = r), then you have the solution above.

2. If (u = r^2 / K), you do not get the Newtonian inverse square law
for gravitation.

3. If (u = (r^3 + K^3)^(1/3) – K), you get Schwarzschild’s original
solution.

4. If (u = K / (K / r + r^2 / L^2)), you get the accelerated
expanding universe at cosmological scales and Newtonian physics at
astronomical scales.

5. If (u = r – K), you get the Schwarzschild metric discovered by
Hilbert.

[...]

Notice all the examples above are static and spherically symmetric.
All are asymptotically flat except (4). Thus, Birkhoff’s theorem is
proven utter nonsense by example. shrug

[...]

Well, either Jebson and Birkhoff are proven to be very shallow minded
mathematicians, or Koobee Wublee is a great genius able to see through
these nonsense. Well, I will leave it up to you to decide. As you
know, yours truly is still a very humble scholar. You, on the other
hand, need to stick to what you do best. That is preaching to the
already religious SR/GR/Einstein worshippers. shrug

Somebody let you out of your playpen tonight Koobee?

Yes. In case, if you are still hiding under a rock, tonight is a new
year’s eve.

On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Nonsense! There is no coordinate transformation. You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. You are just so ignorant. shrug

[snip]

You are just an Einstein worshippers’ prostitute. shrug

On Dec 31 2008, 4:35*pm, wrote:
On 29 déc, 07:40, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Dec 29, 12:49*am, wrote:

THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY
In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion
of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the
gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also
assumed as two points.

What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value
of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational
actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account
and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate?

Have any done these calculations?

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

As fas as I know, the only person dealing explicitly and honestly with
this is the French astrophysicist Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud. Einstein
has made his calculations on the assumption that the mass of the sun
is perfectly spherical, and if it is not, the confirmation of
relativity becomes in fact a refutation:

http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes.
Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de
Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse
à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le
périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du
soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574
s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux
autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique"
inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein
donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à
aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être
rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très
légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de
quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en
réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas
expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."

More explanation he

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite
(ECOUTEZ!)

helo,

Il n'y a aucune erreur dans la théorie d'Einstein, l'avance du
périhélie est correcte, lire l'article :
"NAP applied to gravitation and the implications for Einstein’s theory
of special and general relativity." de la théorie NAP qui confirme ce
résultat.
La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir acec ce phénomène.
l'article se trouve sur le site:
www.new-atomic-physics.com

Amicalement
ACE

C'est parce que Albert le Divin a decouvert la vérité suivante:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

Vous imaginez que "La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir avec ce
phénomène" et cela devient beaucoup plus important que le savoir selon
lequel la distribution de la masse du soleil (spherique ou pas) est un
facteur cricual.

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 31, 8:29*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:20 am, George Hammond wrote:



Koobee Wublee wrote:
Short memory? *You have been told that the following and the
Schwarzschild metric are ones among an infinite solutions to the
Einstein field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat.

ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) – (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2
dO^2

Where

** *K, T = Constants
** *dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

* *It may be "static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat" but I doubt that it satifies R_uv=0

So, you are not sure if that solution above does not satisfy R_uv =
0. *Well, Gisse plugged it into his software program and had verified
so a year ago.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

It is not a valid solution of the vacuum field equations. Feel free to
rationalize why you are right even though you are wrong. Again.

Idiot.

[snip rest]

On Dec 31, 10:37*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Nonsense! *There is no coordinate transformation. *You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. *Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

You never did check those previous two times, either.


The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. *There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. *You are just so ignorant. *shrug

You didn't even look. If you had looked, you would have noticed I was
pointing to the wrong line element.

Arrogant stupidity saves the day again.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png


[snip]

You are just an Einstein worshippers’ prostitute. *shrug

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:32:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse
wrote:

On Dec 31, 10:37*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Nonsense! *There is no coordinate transformation. *You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. *Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

You never did check those previous two times, either.


The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. *There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. *You are just so ignorant. *shrug

You didn't even look. If you had looked, you would have noticed I was
pointing to the wrong line element.

Arrogant stupidity saves the day again.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png


[Hammond]
It's obvious Kooby is a Hype since he's claiming
Birkhoff's Theorem is "wrong" when the entire field
confirmed it 75 years ago... and since it explains why a
pulsating star cannot emit gravitational waves it must have
sent another thousand LIGO physicists back to check it again
more recently.
You seemed to be convinced Kooby was simply making a
(radial) coordinate transformation and doesn't actually know
this can't affect the vanishing of R_uv... which sounds very
likely .... on the other hand I just guessed that his metric
probably didn't solve R_uv=0, even though he says it does.
His claim of an "infinite number of solutions" certainly
sounds like an infinite numbers of coordinate
transformations, on the other hand the URL you cite above
appears to show that Ricci isn't actually zero for his
metric as he claims. Since he says it is, could this be a
programming glitch and actually you were right the first
time?
I personally still suspect you're right about his
"solutions" being merely coordinate transformations and he
doesn't know it ...but...which explanation of "Koober's
Folly" do you think is right at this point?
By the way, I'm not an expert on "Koobology", but as the
world's leading "PSYCHOPHYSICIST" I would diagnose Kooby as
what Wikipedia defines as a "putz".....e.g. "sham contempt
fueled by high levels of ironic wonder at the simple power
of ham fisted intimidation". Unfortunately in this case he
has been neatly snared by Birkhoff!
=====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Jan 1, 4:51*am, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:32:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse



wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:37*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Nonsense! *There is no coordinate transformation. *You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. *Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

You never did check those previous two times, either.

The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. *There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. *You are just so ignorant. *shrug

You didn't even look. If you had looked, you would have noticed I was
pointing to the wrong line element.

Arrogant stupidity saves the day again.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

[Hammond]
* *It's obvious Kooby is a Hype since he's claiming
Birkhoff's Theorem is "wrong" when the entire field
confirmed it 75 years ago... and since it explains why a
pulsating star cannot emit gravitational waves it must have
sent another thousand LIGO physicists back to check it again
more recently.
* *You seemed to be convinced Kooby was simply making a
(radial) coordinate transformation and doesn't actually know
this can't affect the vanishing of R_uv... which sounds very
likely .... on the other hand I just guessed that his metric
probably didn't solve R_uv=0, even though he says it does.
* *His claim of an "infinite number of solutions" certainly
sounds like an infinite numbers of coordinate
transformations, on the other hand the URL you cite above
appears to show that Ricci isn't actually zero for his
metric as he claims. *Since he says it is, could this be a
programming glitch and actually you were right the first
time?

He's made the same stupid claim about a dozen different
representations of Schwarzschild. I got confused and thought he was
talking about a different one.

There is no reason to believe it is a programming glitch. The program
has a codebase that is rather old, and the computation is
straightforward.

* *I personally still suspect you're right about his
"solutions" being merely coordinate transformations and he
doesn't know it ...but...which explanation of "Koober's
Folly" do you think is right at this point?

They almost universally are coordinate transformations from
Schwarzschild. He hasn't even been clever enough to chain a few
transformations together to make something unintelligible but still
Schwarzschild.

The most likely explanation is he ****ed up when he tried to copy from
another source.

* *By the way, I'm not an expert on "Koobology", but as the
world's leading "PSYCHOPHYSICIST" I would diagnose Kooby as
what Wikipedia defines as a "putz".....e.g. "sham contempt
fueled by high levels of ironic wonder at the simple power
of ham fisted intimidation". *Unfortunately in this case he
has been neatly snared by Birkhoff!
=====================================
* * *HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On 1 Jan, 07:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 31 2008, 4:35*pm, wrote:





On 29 déc, 07:40, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Dec 29, 12:49*am, wrote:

THE MOTION OF THE PERIHELION OF MERCURY
In his general relativity calculation of the motion of the perihelion
of Mercury Albert Einstein had only taken into account the
gravitational actions between the Sun and the Mercury, which he also
assumed as two points.

What will be, according to the theory of general relativity, the value
of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury if the gravitational
actions of all the planets in the solar system are taken into account
and also it is taken into account that the Sun is a little oblate?

Have any done these calculations?

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

As fas as I know, the only person dealing explicitly and honestly with
this is the French astrophysicist Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud. Einstein
has made his calculations on the assumption that the mass of the sun
is perfectly spherical, and if it is not, the confirmation of
relativity becomes in fact a refutation:

http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes.
Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de
Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse
à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le
périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du
soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574
s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux
autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique"
inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein
donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à
aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être
rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très
légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de
quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en
réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas
expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."

More explanation he

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...0-histoire-des....
(ECOUTEZ!)

helo,

Il n'y a aucune erreur dans la théorie d'Einstein, l'avance du
périhélie est correcte, lire l'article :
"NAP applied to gravitation and the implications for Einstein’s theory
of special and general relativity." de la théorie NAP qui confirme ce
résultat.
La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir acec ce phénomène.
l'article se trouve sur le site:
www.new-atomic-physics.com

Amicalement
ACE

C'est parce que Albert le Divin a decouvert la vérité suivante:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

Vous imaginez que "La rondeur du soleil n'a rien à voir avec ce
phénomène" et cela devient beaucoup plus important que le savoir selon
lequel la distribution de la masse du soleil (spherique ou pas) est un
facteur cricual.

The sun, like the Earth is an oblate spheroid, largely in the plane of
planetary rotation. In this case Newtonian theory predicts attraction
from a point at the center of the Sun. No shape has nothing to do with
it. It is GTR and the Schwartzchild radius.


- Ian Parker

On Jan 1, 12:32 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:37 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

In the following post, I gave you the following solution to the field
equations that obeys Newtonian law of gravity, but this one exhibits
half of the event horizon than the Schwarzschild metric.

ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 K / r)^2 dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r)^4 – r^2 dO^2 / (1
– K / r)^2

Where

** K = G M / c^2 / 2, HALF OF THE EVENT HORIZON

Reference post:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...162cddce87191f

With this spacetime, the event horizon occurs at (2 K) which if (G M /
c^2)

A couple posts later, you verified that the above spacetime does
indeed satisfy R_uv = 0 by saying:

“A quick re-roll into grtensor showed that you are, in fact, correct.
It does satisfy R_uv = 0.”

Reference post:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...66880d4c24fdc6

Now, the solution we have been talking about is much simpler than the
one above. If I can derive the above solution from Koobee Wublee’s
theorem or the theorem of Generality, just how much more difficult can
I derive the following?

ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + K / r) – (1 + K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2 dO^2

Where

** K = 2 G M / c^2

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

And just like that last time, you don’t even know how to enter the
inputs correctly. What you have entered is wrong. You need to
replace the 2 instances of (2 K) with K. shrug

On Jan 1, 5:51 am, George Hammond wrote:

It's obvious Kooby is a Hype since he's claiming
Birkhoff's Theorem is "wrong" when the entire field
confirmed it 75 years ago...

So, someone believes in a particular of not your liking, and you
believe in the nonsense of Birkhoff’s theorem. Isn’t this all too
familiar? You are doing physics by applying religious teachings.
shrug

and since it explains why a
pulsating star cannot emit gravitational waves it must have
sent another thousand LIGO physicists back to check it again
more recently.

You obviously do not understand the mathematics that gives rise to the
gravitational waves. Hint: Gravitational waves have nothing to do
with Birkhoff’s theorem. shrug

You seemed to be convinced Kooby was simply making a
(radial) coordinate transformation and doesn't actually know
this can't affect the vanishing of R_uv... which sounds very
likely .... on the other hand I just guessed that his metric
probably didn't solve R_uv=0, even though he says it does.

You are making a conclusion way too soon. shrug

You need to understood Koobee Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of
Generality. The derivation is not that difficult if you have the
diligence. shrug

His claim of an "infinite number of solutions" certainly
sounds like an infinite numbers of coordinate
transformations,

Sounds like? Once again, this proves that the great reverend Hammond
is clueless. shrug

on the other hand the URL you cite above
appears to show that Ricci isn't actually zero for his
metric as he claims. Since he says it is, could this be a
programming glitch and actually you were right the first
time?

How about an operator error?

I personally still suspect you're right about his
"solutions" being merely coordinate transformations and he
doesn't know it ...but...which explanation of "Koober's
Folly" do you think is right at this point?

I love it. The great reverend Hammond does physics with gut feelings.

By the way, I'm not an expert on "Koobology",

Hmmm... Just what is Koobology?

but as the
world's leading "PSYCHOPHYSICIST" I would diagnose Kooby as
what Wikipedia defines as a "putz".....e.g. "sham contempt
fueled by high levels of ironic wonder at the simple power
of ham fisted intimidation". Unfortunately in this case he
has been neatly snared by Birkhoff!

Now, you are getting very incoherent. Having a hang over?