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

On 10/29/2024 10:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I understand the efforts that Paul and Prokaryotic have taken to develop
programs that show the orbit of planets under Newton's theory, within
the Sun's frame of reference. Both works are based on initial data of
Keplerian and/or State Vectors as provided by the (almost single) source
of information, which is the site of NASA JPL Horizon.
>
I have to tell that such site provides data with modifications BASED ON
GENERAL RELATIVITY.

>
Yes, of course. Their coordinates and time fully are compatible with
general relativity.
>

You can read it in the site "Disclaimer". So, it's
not a pure source of Newtonian information of positions and velocities,
but a site that provide HYBRID INFORMATION (Newton + GR), so it's not a
source to be trusted as one based on Newton-Kepler exclusively.

>
Your ignorance is showing again.
There is no 'Newton-Kepler exclusively' information
in existence anymore. (except as a crude approximation)
>
JPL tracks and computes 'everything' in the solar system,
from probes to planets, to an accuracy of about 10^-10.
At these levels of accuracy anything 'Newton-only'
will immediately and grossly conflict with observations,
>
Jan
>
>
>
>

https://www.google.com/search?q="J.W.+du+Mond"
Parameterized, Post-Newtonian
Anything pull-gravity conflicts with observations,
and galaxies are big enough to rotate themselves,
and it sort of makes sense there's no dark energy also,
where of course both "dark matter: a non-scientific
non-explanation that's sig-sigma's established that
the model of gravity is wrong" and "dark matter: same
as dark matter the other way", are not yet theories
except what the sky survey has invalidated mechanics,
including gravity.
The fall-gravity, then, fall gravity is a great idea.
Mechanics itself though and indeed a revisited mechanical
reduction, mechanics itself needs a thorough re-set as
with regards to some "Zero-eth" laws of physics.
You know why "frame-dragging" is predicted by theories
of relativity? Well it's whether the angular momentum
about the EM field or the field of gravity gets an
arbitrary double bit cast, that also its reverse is.
That is to say both are "predicted", and also their opposite.
The frame-dragging is surely observed, though. Some then
also point out that this makes for a violation of the
equivalency principle or, you know, a weak one.
Also the sky survey has a wide variety of "apparently
super-luminal sources".