Re: Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr century,.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:19:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip Jan irrelevant, delusional crap>

Disingeneous, to put it mildly.
The age when planetary calculations were done
by perturbing instantaneous orbital elements is long past.
Nowadays JPL and friends just do direct integrations.
>
And yes, if you try to parametrise the results in unsuitable ways
the parameters may be inaccurate.
This is completely irrelevant for knowing where Venus actually is,
>
Jan

Keep doing the entire work of the community of retarded, Jan.
You don't know shit about this subject, but still perseveres to pose as
a know-it-all, imbecile.
It's widely known that the precession of Mercury's orbit, as well as of
other planets, have an orbital value that is +/- 500% variation over the
average of 0.43"/year (2.0847E-6 rad/year).
Due to numerous perturbations over its orbit, the projected 100 years
advance, being graphically represented, looks like a pseudo-random noise
mounted over a linear progression with 0.43"/years (derived from
statistical averages). The peak noisy shift in the perihelion advance is
greater than 5"/year, with UNKNOWN PATTERN for its occurrence.
And more exact measurements than those done from Earth are only 35 years
old. The remaining years for the LAST CENTURY were measured from Earth's
observatories, with all the errors that it implies.
Wait till 2025, when the Japanese spacecrafts orbiting Mercury start to
send more reliable data. Then wait 100 years more to know the truth.
You are very convinced about precision of 1 nanosec and 1 micrometer on
the available data for solar system planets. This serves to describe you
as what your posts transpire: You are a gullible idiot.
Cheers.