Re: GR predicts precession incorrectly

Strich 9 <Strich.9.2da3fc8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Strich.9.2da3fc8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dirk Van de moortel;1200998 Wrote:
Strich 9 Strich.9.2d8ee48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in message
Strich.9.2d8ee48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The precession of the planet mercury has been touted as one of the
proofs of GR. -

Only an imbecile would talk about "proofs of a theory".
-
However, the discrepancy of the precession in the orbit
of Mercury was a well known fact even prior to GR. -

"However"?
"First there was a problem.
Then someone solved the problem.
*However* the problem was known even prior to the solution."
Brilliant.
Let me guess: self-education?
-
It would have been
a simple matter for Einstein to reverse engineer the value of the
discrepancy into his theory, and then, recompute the discrepancy from
GR, obtaining an excellent result.-

Yes, try it.
Give the list of fudge-factors in general relativity.
-

Hogwash, the monkeys would cheer.

And I'll let them cheer, except for a little known fact. GR does
seem
to predict with great accuracy the precession of the planet Mercury.
*-BUT, GR incorrectly predicts the precession of the planet Earth.-*-

Situation in 1924:
Mercury - Theoretical: 43.03, Observed: 43.11 +/- 0.45
Venus - Theoretical: 8.63, Observed: 8.4 +/- 4.8
Earth - Theoretical: 3.8, Observed: 5.0 +/- 1.2
-

Now, a reasonable scientist would conclude that GR must be an
erroneous
theory. But, of course, a monkey scientist would simply ignore this
fact and restate, without further ado, that GR is a solid theory.-

Now, a reasonable imbecile would run away when he get
hit in the face. But of course, autistic imbeciles simply have
no sense of self preservation.

Dirk Vdm

Eat more bananas, *** van Moron. Your data is a quarter of a century
old. Try to improve those margins of error.

It is your nightmare, not mine, so go right ahead.
And while you're at it, calling 84 years a "quarter of a century"
calls for improving more than margins.

Dirk Vdm

.

Quantcast