Living under Dr. Becky Censorship....:)
We all know that Dr. Paul Ginsparg censors work that disagrees with Einstein's Relativity at the Los Alamos Archives. That is how he received his Einstein Prize in Israel.
WHAT ABOUT DR. BECKY?
Does Dr. Becky censor my work?
The answer is YES....:)
This is Dr. Becky, failing basic Science!
Just because a model predicts something doesn't mean it is the best prediction possible, nor does it mean that the model is the only one capable of making it.
One never uses "Prove" in Physics. One might use it in Mathematics. Even there, it isn't appropriate.
The reason is that our best brains accept or reject proofs, and our best brains might not be good enough.
Often, I see other people (not connected to academia) present "simpler" proofs of a theorem. I am not a Mathematician and will never say I can distinguish one proof from another. That said, that leaves me with a hint of doubt.
I am very suspicious of cliques in academia. I am facing one right now.
Does she censor what I write? YES.
I am writing this article because I wasn't allowed to leave a comment in the channel.
WHAT DID I WRITE THERE?
I wrote that predictions are not proof of anything especially if the prediction is for a single observation and ESPECIALLY if there is a tremendous amount of DATA MASSAGING needed to make the prediction come true.
The Mercury Perihelion Precession OBSERVATION is not 43 arcseconds per century. One doesn't wait a century to measure it.
The Mercury Perihelion Precession OBSERVATION is actually 5.75 arcseconds in a year or 575 arcseconds in a century. From that, one has to subtract the influence of other planets... The calculations for the other planets were done poorly (we didn't have the telemetry of other planets to make precise calculations). Even today, we don't recalculate Einstein's prediction to see if it still holds.
When calculating the other planets' influence, we smear the planet's mass across the orbit and calculate the average influence. That is not precise at all since the observation samples are not the average but the instantaneous influence.
So, it wasn't a "proof" in 1915 and it would never be a proof of anything.
Here is HU LAW OF GRAVITATION:
with
The different components are associated with different assignments to Earth's or the Sun or the Mercury-Sun center of mass reference frame.
HU Laws are written for the Absolute Reference Frame. One can easily convert any reference frame using the Cosmic Microwave Background Dipole (CMB). The Dipole is created by the Absolute Velocity Motion of the CMB detector.
It corresponds to a mere 600 km/s idiosyncratic motion of our Milky Way/Earth around the Sun/Sun around the Milky Way.
It is small with respect to c (lightspeed). So, it is a fair approximation to equate the Sun, or the Sun-Mercury center of mass, or Earth to the Absolute Reference Frame.
If one does that, v2 becomes ZERO. That eliminates all other components and leaves just the Mercury-Perihelion Precession component:
So, the Acceleration (Force divided by Mercury's mass m) is given by the instantaneous Newton's Law of Gravitation (it is instantaneous because of the use of P_2 in the denominator) times HU_factor).
That Acceleration has to be equal to d2r/dt^2 - r (dtheta/dt)^2
You can see this in the code (Python Notebook provided at GitHub https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_MercuryPerihelionCalculation_HU.ipynb)
The resulting Planetary Perihelion Precession Rate Predictions are here:
IN SUMMARY
Just because a model gets one prediction almost correct, that doesn't mean it was "proven" by a single observation.
In the case of the Mercury Perihelion Precession Rate, the observation is 550 arcseconds per century, which somehow became 43 arcseconds per century after the "subtraction of the other planets' influence."
This is how "Scientific Sausage" was made and almost worked, but it didn't:
This is the modeling of the planetary interference by all the other planets on Mercury's Perihelion Precession Rate. It spreads the planets' masses in ellipses and calculates an average interaction:
Here are the results:
NOTICE THAT FOR MERCURY, THE OBSERVED VALUE IS 5.75, AND THE THEORETICAL IS 5.5 ARCSECONDS PER YEAR. THAT IS 25 ARCSECONDS PER CENTURY.
THAT IS WHY I CALLED IT "SAUSAGE MAKING". IT IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT.
EINSTEIN'S FAILURES ON VIEW ON THE PANTHEON SURVEY DATA
Einstein failed everywhere else if you use the scientific method and avoid your biases...:)
Here is HU parameterless predicting the Pantheon Survey SN1a data:
HU predicts that the Absolute Luminosity of SN1a (Type 1a Supernovae) would be G^{-3.0} and that all photometric distances would have to be corrected by a factor of G^{-1/5}.
THE CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY
The Hubble Constant is 69.84 km/(s.Mpc), thus eliminating the Hubble Tension and the CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY!
See, my prediction is dead on with JWST NEW VALUE!!!
I couldn't be more correct if I had faked it...:)
IT IS PATHETIC THAT THIS PERSON DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO POST COMMENTS IN HER YOUTUBE CHANNEL... HOW INSECURE CAN SHE BE...:)