Changes

#:

#:

#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]].  Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]].  Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame.  The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame.  The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.

#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame.  The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame.  The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.

#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.

#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.

#::'''REPLY:''' The year 1997 was nearly 20 years ago, and the observed data based on increasingly sophisticated technology was diverging from relativity's predictions even then.  Recent data on this is not published because it would further disprove relativity and embarrass relativists who cling to the theory.

#::'''REPLY:''' The year 1997 was nearly 20 years ago, and the observed data based on increasingly sophisticated technology was diverging from relativity's predictions even then.  Recent data on this is not published because it would further disprove relativity and embarrass relativists who cling to the theory.

#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.

#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.

#:::The results are only partly negative.  The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment.  The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them.  They will continue to search.

#:::The results are only partly negative.  The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment.  The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them.  They will continue to search.

#:'''Update:'''  Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>.  The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.

#:'''Update:'''  Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has been reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>.  The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.

#:This has nothing to do with global warming.

#:This has nothing to do with global warming.

#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''

#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''