Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Actually You Initially...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on February 1, 2004 07:58:17 UTC

told Harv...

"I just gave you one. Their definitions are circular. Someday they will discover that! Also, just
as an aside, my result for general relativistic solutions of celestial orbits is slightly different
from Einstein's. The problem is, the difference is not detectable within the accuracy of current
measurements. Check out part III of chapter 4. Now, I will cavil that no one has checked my
math so I could very well have an error in that section. With regard to that comment, I will
also point out that Newton's original solutions deviated from the experimental observations of
celestial orbits at the time and that he originally attributed the difference to a possible error.
Turned out he was wrong; his answers were correct, not the experimental values. So, I could
be right, I could be wrong! Only time will tell."

The post to Harv is linked from my post.

Maybe you just forgot Dick.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins