**CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE THEORETICAL PREDICTION AND ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS OF GR EFFECTS**General Relativity Problem of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance Revisited

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdfThere is a firm consensus among astronomy and physics communities, mass media as well, that the perihelion advance test is the accomplished task. We think, however, that physical reality is more complicated, and the above precision numbers for physicists must seem to be to a great extent fictitious.

Now we state that the Mercury’s relativistic effect has never been directly observed and even not evaluated from circumstantial astronomical evidence. The matter is that the GR theory, at least as it given in literature, does not provide a clue about distinguishing between the classical drag along with the equinoxes precession, on the one hand, and relativistic effect, on the other hand.

Thus, the claimed formula for the perihelion advance 3r

_{g}/r

_{0} is a result of inappropriate mathematical assumption in the equation solution, therefore, the prediction is not valid.

As it seen, both earlier and this evaluation has nothing to do with the above discussed GR framework. Einstein, when working on the perihelion advance problem in 1915, had to be aware of the space-time symmetries, from which the equations of motion (18) and the trajectory for both the particle and the photon were deduced (19), (26). However, his derivation of the light deflection in 1916 was made in the ad hoc approach, outside the above GR framework. The effect about 1.7′′ of deflection was confirmed in a series of observations of total eclipses of the Sun’s, but this confirmation was made against the logic of GR physical foundations rather than in accordance with that. This circumstance remained largely unnoticed (or thought excusable?) in the GR history.

The GR description of the perihelion advance is given in such a form that the effect cannot be discriminated from the huge fluctuating background of classically induced precession. Consequently, astronomers had to identify the effect as a difference of big fluctuating numbers in observed and calculated ephemerides values. As emphasized, they tried “to fit” theoretical ephemerides to the exactly predicted number. This methodology and the corresponding results cannot be termed an observational test.

Rigor of the effect prediction is in a serious doubt. The Einstein’s “approximate” solution, when put back into the original equation, does not fit the equation to the precision better than the effect value. The GR-term, which is thought to be the cause of both the perihelion advance effect and the light bending effect, has no physical sense, as shown by Fock and in our work. The Fock’s work also shows that the equation of light propagation in a vicinity of massive object must have the linear (potential) term instead of the GR-term.

Overall, we conclude that the claimed confirmation of the GR prediction of the relativistic perihelion advance is neither theoretically nor empirically substantiated.

Dr. C.Y. Lo

PhD Mathematics, Queen's University

PhD Physics, MIT

In Newtonian gravity, the two-body problem has a well-defined compact analytic solution. However, in general relativity, the problem is recognized that it cannot be solved analytically. However, many believed that the two-body problem could be solved in the perturbation approach. Their confidence is based on that the linearized Einstein equation has a bounded dynamic solution.

For the dynamic case when gravitational waves are involved, it has been proven in 1995 that the Einstein equation does not have any bounded dynamic solution. This has far reaching consequences.

Thus, Einstein is wrong in claiming his calculation of the perihelion of Mercury is valid, but Gullstrand, Chairman (1922-1929) of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics is right who suspected that Einstein‘s calculation is invalid because it cannot be derived from the approach of a solution for many-body problems.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b505/e829279c6b69556fb37f9e8d90efec2881cf.pdf?_ga=2.108983489.2136939065.1565472133-1824092360.1565472133Comments on Errors of “A simplified two-body problem in general relativity” by S Hod And Rectification of General Relativity

How Einstein modified his formula relating to Mercury's orbit in order to fit the results:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750TGR applies only to the radial component of Newton's equation: F = mg. It cannot capture the gravitational potential term.

Moreover, it cannot be applied to the planetary system, or to calculations pertaining to other galaxies: one has to first prove that the Earth does revolve around its own axis and that it does orbit the Sun. Without these proofs, applying TGR to the aforementioned situations is meaningless.

Dark flow defies TGR on a grand cosmic scale:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995"Maxwell showed in one of his papers that mass can be expressed as length

^{3}/time

^{2} ( L

^{3}/T

^{2}), and if we do that then G loses most of its mystery. G loses all its dimensions."

Article 5 [chapter 1] of Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism

The first physicist to notice this fact was M. Mathis in 2007.

Question: how could Newton possibly have known that mass can be expressed as L

^{3}/T

^{2} in order to mask the fact that G is actually dimensionless?