On Nov 27, 4:58 pm, dr_strangelove triton.net> wrote:

Hmm, your paper concludes with the "discovery" that the "precession
per century is 42.91 arcseconds" .

Last we all checked 43 arcseconds was the DIFERENCE between the
Newtonian prediction on one hand and the GR prediction and
experimental observation on the other hand.

On Nov 29, 10:03 am, Dono comcast.net> wrote:

Dallas,

On Nov 29, 10:19 am, shala...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/855/35092155.JPG

On Nov 29, 1:37 pm, Dono comcast.net> wrote:

Ever brilliant.

- Shawn

On Nov 29, 3:34 pm, shala...@gmail.com wrote:

This is a test of the google posting system. I tried twice to respond
to previous postings but they evaporated some where in cyber space.

In my paper on the first page I clearly state that I use only 2
physical formulas and the rest is math. Neither formula is a potential
scalar field or a force function.

However for those of you who can't think out of the box (we all know
who that is. I doubt he can think in the box), shortly after equation
2.10 I define a potential function. I then multiply it by -m and take
the partial with respect to r. I refrain from calling the function a
potential field and the resultant of the operation a force for the
following reasons:

To be a true potential field in the physical sense it would have to
represent an actual scalar potential. Since it is derived only from a
velocity formula it isn't. However we could add -E to -m times it and
get, call it -V(r), which for all practical purposes could be
considered a scalar potential times mass. Taking the derivative of
this function could be considered a force. However since I never added
the minus total energy I can't really say that.

Since I made it clear in the beginning that I was going to use only 2
formulas and the rest was math, none of this is even relevant.

"dr_strangelove" triton.net> wrote in message
news:3a4dc75c-6410-49d7-a6f6-c2f437a446f5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: In my paper on the first page I clearly state that I use only 2
: physical formulas and the rest is math. Neither formula is a potential
: scalar field or a force function.

You got the wrong answer, 43 when it should be 5600
Nothing more need be said, you flunked.

On Nov 29, 10:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

Yep, you are right. I never thought the day will come when you correct
a bigger and more arrogant crank.Actually you got two cranks with one
hit (include the Shawn Shalayka idiot). A-fucking amazing!

Here's a quote from a site that gives good background information on
the problem:

'http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm'

"when we observe the axis of the elliptical orbit of a planet such as
Mercury (for example) over a long period of time, referenced to our
equinox line, we must expect to find an apparent precession of...

"dr_strangelove" triton.net> wrote in message
news:17cbe48c-c64e-4c62-94ea-2e65846e6352@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
: Here's a quote from a site that gives good background information on
: the problem:
:
: 'http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm'
:
: " we must expect to find an apparent precession of about
: 0.01396 degrees per year, which equals 5025 arc seconds per century

Absolute rubbish, the precession isn't constant. If it we'd have a solution
to the three-body problem.
The idiotic relativist responsible for that site doesn't understand Sagnac
either.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm