Astronomy - General Relativity (7 of 17) Proof of Theory: Precession of Mercury

To donate:

We will proof existence of the theory of the precession of Mercury which Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted a precession of 43 arc seconds. (The calculations for sigma=43 seconds is video 15 of 17: Precession of Apsides Calculated for Mercury.

Next video in this series can be seen at:

[roypahlck]

I love this. I don't pretend to fully understand this, but you show the beauty and elegancy of the process of science. Like a great musician explaining Mozart or Beethoven to someone who does not play or read music but loves and appreciates it. You enhance the experience. Thank you.

[Shreymani]

can't believe how physicists are able to pull it off 🔥🔥🔥 totally mind blowing

[TheHoodGuru]

I really love this stuff. Every other day Im looking up another video like this one.

[rhoddryice]

Professor, you must have some super powers stepping into the sun like that(2:53) over and over again.

[rguimatorres]

Amazing! The piece that I was missing. Thank you so much!

[gually]

This is one of the very few videos where it is correctly indicated that it is time stretch, and not space stretch, the part of the space-time that has to be taken in account from general relativity to explain mercury precession discrepancy (and GPS corrections, and the fall of the objects on Earth, etc.). And what a pleasure to don't see the wrong, annoying, rubber sheet example.

[wendlt]

Doctor, A number of papers have been written showing that a theory based on two premises, 1) a flat space, and 2) that light slows when traversing a gravitational field, can also explain the observed precession of Mercury. I believe Robert Dickey was one such proponent. What do you think of such theories?

[TheNewPhysics]

Needless to say, this video about Einstein's General Relativity shows the sausage-making that was involved in faking this success of General Relativity. There is an unaccounted effect, but the effect is not due to General Relativity because the whole of Physics is incorrect. It is based on a 3D Spatial Manifold. General Relativity doesn't go beyond that and simply dresses Minkowski Spacetime with some variable components while keeping the built-in Lorentz Transformation. The metric is then fitted to reproduce Keplerian Orbits. No wonder it works and has Lorentz Transformations' Time Dilation in it.
That said, it is a rigamarole. I provided a simple FORCE that is written on an Absolute Reference Frame that is only visible if you understand the universe as a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface embedded in a 4D Spatial Manifold.
In other words, I replaced 4D Spacetime with a 4D Spatial Manifold and wrote the laws of nature on the 4D Absolute Reference Frame that included the vector perpendicular to the hypersphere. I call that the "Radial Direction".
In other words, in 3D, we think that all Inertial Reference Frames are equivalent. In 4D, we know they aren't, and we know that the velocity to be used in Lorentz Transformation is the Absolute Velocity (all rotations are applied to the Radial Direction).
If you have a brain, it becomes easy to understand why the Earth Twin ages faster than the traveling twin. The reason is that all galaxies are like dots on an expanding balloon (small idiosyncratic Absolute Velocity).
So, the Time for Earth is the Absolute Time, while the Time for the Traveling Twin is the rotated time.
Einstein was wrong about everything he said about Time, Spacetime, Time Dilation etc.
Time Dilation is a proxy of what really happens. The Force driving dynamics goes to zero when the Absolute Velocity goes to c.
The Physics behind that is "all forces are carried by the Dilaton Field - metric waves created by the Fundamental Dilator).
Search the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory in Quora, GitHub, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, SSRN... Preprint.com
The theory has been censored for 20 years. By censored, I mean it has been rejected without a peer review or reason. It has been precluded from appearing in preprint repositories.

Scientists (even Professor Biezen) will not ask questions and will pretend it doesn't exist.
Dear Professor Biezen, Please, prove me wrong.

[tgcprasanna]

Thank you sir, i got your message correctly.

[edsonlopez]

Hello. Is there a way that I contact you for a special matter. I really need help with some topics about thick lenses for applied engineering uses. I will pay for the service. Thank you.

[SteenWinther]

You wrote 'Mystery since early 1980's' on your whiteboard. Shouldn't the year be 1780s or 1820s or some other earlier point in time?

[atomicplanets]

Professor, please rework the equation yet consider that Mercury is Venus' moon and that it is Mercury's perigee to Venus that is precessing similarly to how the Moon's perigee precesses around Earth.

[SansPur]

Your videos are awesome. However, is there a playlist of this series? If so, would you (or anyone else reading this) mind providing a link—or—please consider this a request to make one. Mucho Dankes.

[FreshBeatles]

All things considered, this is based on Earth's point of view right? If I was on Mercury, would I experience this precession?

[anglosaxon]

So time slows down at perhelion but the object increases in speed does it not too?

[tahycoon.]

could you please make a playlist of physics that review all the topics in a nutshell
i will almost finish the whole physics and i really need a review 👏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
please reply so i know you saw this🙏!

[TheNewPhysics]

One does not learn anything by being given only the 531 arcsecond number. You have to derive it and show that it is a valid prediction. I say that because I know that is not a valid prediction. The derivation doesn't use actual orbits (reality). Instead, it smears the planets around the orbits and calculates an "average" influence...:)
That might have been the best we could do 100 years ago. We can do better now, but I don't see our best modeling anywhere.
The reason is simple. The prediction is incorrect by at least 10%. The correct value is 39 arcseconds.

[simamkhan]

Plzzz sir upload lectures f EMT and laser...

[rhoddryice]

The eccentricity of Mercurius is 0.2, isn't it? You said 10%.

[mkevilempire]

I think it's ap-helion, not a-phelion... 🤓