The precise calculations of the constant terms in the equations of motions of planets and photons of general relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general relativity, the values of constant terms in the equations of motions of planets and light have not been seriously discussed. Based on the Schwarzschild metric and the geodesic equations of the Riemann geometry, it is proved in this paper that the constant term in the time-dependent equation of motion of planet in general relativity must be equal to zero. Otherwise, when the correction term of general relativity is ignored, the resulting Newtonian gravity formula would change its basic form. Due to the absence of this constant term, the equation of motion cannot describe the elliptical and the hyperbolic orbital motions of celestial bodies in the solar gravitational field. It can only describe the parabolic orbital motion (with minor corrections). Therefore, it becomes meaningless to use general relativity calculating the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It is also proved that the time-dependent orbital equation of light in general relativity is contradictory to the time-independent equation of light. Using the time-independent orbital equation to do calculation, the deflection angle of light in the solar gravitational field is <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1.7</mml:mn> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>″</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . But using the time-dependent equation to do calculation, the deflection angle of light is only a small correction of the prediction value <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>0.87</mml:mn> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>″</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> of the Newtonian gravity theory with a magnitude order of <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . The reason causing this inconsistency was the Einstein's assumption that the motion of light satisfied the condition <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> in gravitational field. It leads to the absence of constant term in the time-independent equation of motion of light and destroys the uniqueness of geodesic in curved space-time. Meanwhile, light is subjected to repulsive forces in the gravitational field, rather than attractive forces. The direction of deflection of light is opposite, inconsistent with the predictions of present general relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity. Observing on the earth surface, the wavelength of light emitted by the sun is violet shifted. This prediction is obviously not true. Practical observation is red shift. Finally, the practical significance of the calculation of the Mercury perihelion's precession and the existing problems of the light's deflection experiments of general relativity are briefly discussed. The conclusion of this paper is that general relativity cannot have consistence with the Newtonian theory of gravity for the descriptions of motions of planets and light in the solar system. The theory itself is not self-consistent too.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".