GR is the most beautiful gravitational theory

Status
Not open for further replies.

TonyYuan

Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves
Registered Senior Member
James R told us that GR is the most beautiful gravitational theory, and we expect him to use GR to calculate the orbits of the planets in the solar system.

If James R can't do it, then I hope he can give other people's orbital data calculated by using GR.

If James R is still unable to do it, then please tell us why GR is the most beautiful theory of gravity, can its beauty level be compared with "Emperor's New Clothes"?
 

Attachments

  • 皇帝的新装.png
    皇帝的新装.png
    585.3 KB · Views: 3
Tony:
James R told us that GR is the most beautiful gravitational theory, and we expect him to use GR to calculate the orbits of the planets in the solar system.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to GR as "the most beautiful gravitational theory".

As for "we" expecting me to calculate some planetary orbits, you really just mean you, Tony, want me to do that.

You must have forgotten what I told you in another thread. A complete GR calculation of planetary orbits in all their gory detail requires a computer to do the calculations. I'm not going to write a programme and do some calculations just to jump through a hoop that you have set up for me. It's not something I want to spend time on. Besides, if I did it and gave you some results, it wouldn't change your mind about anything, would it?

On the other hand, some basic results of GR, as applied to planetary orbits, can be derived without a computer. Read the chapter on the anomalous precession of Mercury in any introductory GR book and you'll find the relevant calculation. I bet it's even available on the internet, if you want to look for it.

I'm not here to teach you the theory of relativity from scratch. I am accustomed to being paid to teach courses.
If James R can't do it, then I hope he can give other people's orbital data calculated by using GR.
Start by reading any introductory GR text.
---

By the way, Tony, don't imagine I'm not aware of what you tried to do by starting this thread. You tried to provoke me, like a troll.

Realise, also, that whether I can or can't do GR calculations says nothing at all about whether your own calculations, using your own pseudoscientific theory, have any value at all.

You waste a lot of time ridiculing Einstein and the theory of relativity, but you've never managed to show that's there's any actual problem with the theory, or to prove any of your disparaging claims about Einstein. You just make yourself look like a jealous fool when you bring nothing of substance to the table.
 
Tony:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to GR as "the most beautiful gravitational theory".
As for "we" expecting me to calculate some planetary orbits, you really just mean you, Tony, want me to do that.
You must have forgotten what I told you in another thread. A complete GR calculation of planetary orbits in all their gory detail requires a computer to do the calculations. I'm not going to write a programme and do some calculations just to jump through a hoop that you have set up for me. It's not something I want to spend time on. Besides, if I did it and gave you some results, it wouldn't change your mind about anything, would it?
On the other hand, some basic results of GR, as applied to planetary orbits, can be derived without a computer. Read the chapter on the anomalous precession of Mercury in any introductory GR book and you'll find the relevant calculation. I bet it's even available on the internet, if you want to look for it.
I'm not here to teach you the theory of relativity from scratch. I am accustomed to being paid to teach courses.
Start by reading any introductory GR text.
By the way, Tony, don't imagine I'm not aware of what you tried to do by starting this thread. You tried to provoke me, like a troll.
Realise, also, that whether I can or can't do GR calculations says nothing at all about whether your own calculations, using your own pseudoscientific theory, have any value at all.
You waste a lot of time ridiculing Einstein and the theory of relativity, but you've never managed to show that's there's any actual problem with the theory, or to prove any of your disparaging claims about Einstein. You just make yourself look like a jealous fool when you bring nothing of substance to the table.
You have said so much, but you have never been able to give your data. If you can bravely admit your incompetence and GR's incompetence, I don't think anyone will laugh at you. You are also one of the victims of GR.
My calculations are all based on classical mechanics, if you think classical mechanics is a pseudoscience, you can write to your country's aerospace department and ask them to stop using these pseudosciences, you can make them use the great GR. Of course you can charge them.
Some scholars have seen your post, and here are some of their replies:
The idea that JamesR can do any actual computations of the planetary orbits, by using a simple hand calculator, is preposterous. Idiotic. Look at the NASA, JAXA, and the Chinese Space Agency, as to the computational tools that they use. Not only do the orbits change, essentially daily to weekly, but they are not stationary, and never were. The actual data can only be seen, by observation. As was done for hundreds of years. If you were to shoot a rocket to Mars, using a hand calculation, you would probably crash into the planet, or worse, never be seen again. These kinds of real-life things can never be left to primitive math, thank God. Real science requires real processes. Making a table on a piece of paper, with orbits, will always be incorrect.

... and JamesR in his thread, pointed that out as well. Orbital Mechanics are dynamical (impossible to approximate much less calculate with appropriate precision using pencil, paper, and a regular computational device) and GR is necessary in significantly high gravitational regimes (i.e., near large masses and BHs). However, I have other significant issues with this article having to do with the general concept of gravitational waves (their speed and dynamics).
 
My calculations are all based on classical mechanics, if you think classical mechanics is a pseudoscience, you can write to your country's aerospace department and ask them to stop using these pseudosciences, you can make them use the great GR. Of course you can charge them.
?? Wow you really don't know much of anything.

Classical mechanics is an excellent approximation that is accurate 99.9% of the time for small systems. It is not accurate when it is scaled up.
This is true for all disciplines. Classic circuit theory using Kirchoff's law and Ohm's law is valid 99.9% of the time. It is taught in every college engineering course in the country. It is used by every electrician and engineer in the country. It is not valid at high frequencies.

Some other engineers/teachers I know have seen your post and they had this to say:

Nothing new here. I have taught people like this for decades. They are closed minded and nothing you or I can say will change that. Often in cases like this I recommend they pursue a non-technical degree like literature, where there is no need for right answers.

. . . in his defense he may simply be lacking the proper critical thinking skills to understand the relevance of each mode of analysis.
 
?? Wow you really don't know much of anything.

Classical mechanics is an excellent approximation that is accurate 99.9% of the time for small systems. It is not accurate when it is scaled up.
This is true for all disciplines. Classic circuit theory using Kirchoff's law and Ohm's law is valid 99.9% of the time. It is taught in every college engineering course in the country. It is used by every electrician and engineer in the country. It is not valid at high frequencies.

Some other engineers/teachers I know have seen your post and they had this to say:

Nothing new here. I have taught people like this for decades. They are closed minded and nothing you or I can say will change that. Often in cases like this I recommend they pursue a non-technical degree like literature, where there is no need for right answers.

. . . in his defense he may simply be lacking the proper critical thinking skills to understand the relevance of each mode of analysis.
Maybe when you see the words classical mechanics, what flashes in your mind is Newton's law of universal gravitation, and the Newton's gravitational equation that has been proven for hundreds of years cannot calculate planetary orbits with very high precision. For example, in the precession of Mercury, there is a 43"/century deviation between the astronomical observation data and the classical mechanical calculation data.

Maybe you should take a look at our paper. We not only correctly calculated the total orbital precession of Mercury, but also calculated the total orbital precession of other planets. These data are basically consistent with astronomical observations.

GR calculated 43"/century, but unfortunately GR has never been able to calculate the total orbital precession of Mercury, let alone other planets.
Of course, my understanding of GR is not enough, so I look forward to James R being able to give the planetary orbit data calculated using GR.
As a gravitational theory, if GR cannot even calculate the orbits of planets, does that mean it is very ridiculous?
 
?? Wow you really don't know much of anything.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves
This paper provides a method of calculating planetary orbits using classical mechanics, and makes a detailed analysis. This paper has been reviewed by many physicists from all over the world, especially a physicist in the Netherlands, who kept asking me questions for more than a month. Finally, I added how gravitational waves are generated, how to estimate the intensity of gravitational waves, etc.
 
The most shameless thing about GR is to insist that it is similar to Newton's theory of gravity in a weak field, which is very shameless!
But James R's reply shocked me even more. James R believed that Newton's theory of gravity is pseudoscience. The fig leaf that the cultists finally put on GR's face was torn to pieces by James R again.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
But James R's reply shocked me even more. James R believed that Newton's theory of gravity is pseudoscience.
He didn't say that. You are a liar.

When you have to resort to rank dishonesty to desperately try to make your point - you have already lost.
 
Realise, also, that whether I can or can't do GR calculations says nothing at all about whether your own calculations, using your own pseudoscientific theory, have any value at all.
He didn't say that. You are a liar.
My theory is classical mechanics, James R thinks my theory is pseudoscientific theory, can't you see? ? ?
 
You are a liar.
Realise, also, that whether I can or can't do GR calculations says nothing at all about whether your own calculations, using your own pseudoscientific theory, have any value at all.
I really don’t know if you are blind or not. I’m posting James R’s reply again. If you still can’t see these words, I suggest you go to an eye hospital for an examination.
 
My theory is classical mechanics, James R thinks my theory is pseudoscientific theory, can't you see? ? ?
No. Your nonsense is pseudoscience. That is what James was saying. Not classical mechanics. Your nonsense, specifically.
I really don’t know if you are blind or not.
Unfortunately for you I can read quite well, thanks. I imagine that someone who has trouble reading might be more tempted to buy your woo.
 
billvon, my theory is based on classical mechanics, which corrects Newton's gravity equation and correctly calculates the orbital precession of the planets in the solar system. We just use data to speak, and there is no point in talking about it.
I expect James R to come up with the orbit data of planets in the solar system calculated by GR. Since GR is a gravitational theory, it should be used for orbit calculation, so please come up with your data! Use your data to prove that GR is not pseudoscience.
 
Tony:
You have said so much, but you have never been able to give your data. If you can bravely admit your incompetence and GR's incompetence, I don't think anyone will laugh at you. You are also one of the victims of GR.
Here's what I have said, because obviously you missed it the first few times:
  • There is no "my data" for planetary orbits. I have not attempted to calculate them, personally.
  • I do not intend to write any software to use GR to calculate planetary orbits, now or in the future.
  • I am not an expert on GR.
  • You have done nothing to show any problem with GR, let alone "incompetence".
  • Your own calculations and your "alternative theory" are both worthless pseudoscience.
Clear?
My calculations are all based on classical mechanics, if you think classical mechanics is a pseudoscience...
Your calculations, by your own admission, are based on your own pesudoscientific theory of gravity. Yes, it is a classical theory, but that doesn't mean anything. GR is a classical theory, and not pseudoscience.
Some scholars have seen your post, and here are some of their replies:
The idea that JamesR can do any actual computations of the planetary orbits, by using a simple hand calculator, is preposterous. Idiotic.
I assume this is a response to a claim you (Tony) made. I have not claimed I can compute planetary orbits with a "simple hand calculator". On the contrary, I told you that a numerical calculation using a computer would be necessary.
Look at the NASA, JAXA, and the Chinese Space Agency, as to the computational tools that they use. Not only do the orbits change, essentially daily to weekly, but they are not stationary, and never were. The actual data can only be seen, by observation. As was done for hundreds of years. If you were to shoot a rocket to Mars, using a hand calculation, you would probably crash into the planet, or worse, never be seen again. These kinds of real-life things can never be left to primitive math, thank God. Real science requires real processes. Making a table on a piece of paper, with orbits, will always be incorrect.

... and JamesR in his thread, pointed that out as well. Orbital Mechanics are dynamical (impossible to approximate much less calculate with appropriate precision using pencil, paper, and a regular computational device) and GR is necessary in significantly high gravitational regimes (i.e., near large masses and BHs). However, I have other significant issues with this article having to do with the general concept of gravitational waves (their speed and dynamics).
This seems like a sensible reply. Obviously, no matter how much criticism of your ideas you receive, or from how many sources - nothing ever penetrates though to you. This is what makes you a pseudoscientist.
Maybe you should take a look at our paper.
I looked. My view is that your work is unfit for publication in any peer reviewed journal.
GR calculated 43"/century, but unfortunately GR has never been able to calculate the total orbital precession of Mercury, let alone other planets.
This is false.
This paper has been reviewed by many physicists from all over the world, especially a physicist in the Netherlands, who kept asking me questions for more than a month.
No doubt, he was trying to get you to see the obvious flaws in your work, just like we did here. It's like hitting your head against a brick wall.
The most shameless thing about GR is to insist that it is similar to Newton's theory of gravity in a weak field, which is very shameless!
Any viable gravitational theory must reproduce the results of Newton's theory of gravity in the appropriate weak-field limits. GR does that.
But James R's reply shocked me even more. James R believed that Newton's theory of gravity is pseudoscience.
That is a flat-out lie you just told, Tony. This is a clear breach of our site's posting guidelines.

Please retract your lie about me and apologise, in your next post to this thread.
 
Tony has run away, apparently. This thread is now closed.

Tony: if you ever decide to come back to sciforums, I will still expect you to apologise for telling that lie about me. You can do it by personal messaging if you like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top