Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- From: shalayka@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:38:00 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 30, 5:16 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:48 pm, dr_strangelove <da...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 3:39 pm, some %^&* A$% wrote:
"But this is NOT what you claim in YOUR paper. In your paper you
claim
that the accumulated precession is 43 arcseconds."
The word "accumulated" does not appear anywhere in my paper. In the
very first sentance I speak of the anomalous precession.
You are not only an imbecile, you are also a pathological liar, a
common trait amongst crackpots. Here is your very own "discovery",
from the end of your paper:
"The precession per revolution in radians is 5.014717113745×10
radians
Converting to arc seconds the precession becomes: 0.103435965
Mercury orbits the sun 414.9378 times in one earth century, so the
precession per century is: 42.9195 arc seconds per century in
excellent agreement with observation and GR"
The precession per century is 5600 arcseconds, imbecile. 43 arcseconds
is the difference between the Newtonian prediction and observation,
dumbass. The "dumbass" applies to your sidekick , Shawn Shalayka as
well . :-)
Dallas,
I didn't say he was correct. What I said was that you have absolutely
nothing to stand on other than petty arguments. Speaking of sidekicks,
where was your master AlphaNumeric when I was showing you up? Perhaps
it's because he's smart enough to know when to fight and when to fly?
- Shawn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- From: Dono
- Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- References:
- Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- From: Dono
- Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- Prev by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by Date: Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- Previous by thread: Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- Next by thread: Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|