The General Theory of Relativity Is True

I will explain. I. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury Pro continues to ignore my argument. I proved that the sun's loss of mass is basically irrelevant when determining the overall trend of perihelion precession. It has around an 0.0001% effect. I am unfortunately going to have to use some pretty complicated mathematics to prove my point. The apsidal angle is: From this, we can derive that: Thus, the perihelion advances by: . .. radians per revolution due to the general relativistic correction to Newtonian gravity. It follows that the rate of perihelion precession due to the general relativistic correction is: arc seconds per year. Where: = The amount relativity plays in the precessionM = The mass of the sunc= The speed of lightr = The radius of MerucryR= The mean orbital radius of Mercury in mean Earth orbital radii T= The orbital period of Mercury in years F = h/(r)^2h = The angular monemtum per unit mass G = Gravitaitonal attractionHence, the general relativistic contribution to the perihelion advance for Mercury is 0.41 arc seconds per year. It is easily demonstrated that the corresponding contribution is negligible for the other planets in the Solar System. If the above calculation is carried out sightly more accurately, taking the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit into account, then the general relativistic contribution to the perihelion advance becomes 0.43 arc seconds per year. It follows that the total perihelion precession rate for Mercury is 5.32 + 0.43 = 5.75 arc seconds per year. This is in exact agreement with the observed precession rate. Indeed, the ability of general relativity to explain the discrepancy between the observed perihelion precession rate of Mercury, and that calculated from Newtonian dynamics, was one of the first major successes of this theory. [1]The perihelion advance can be illustrated here: [2]As Mercury's orbit moves, so does its perihelion, and this is partially because of relativity. Gravity Probe B did detect relativity around the Earth, looking something like this: [3]No other theory ever formulated fits in with this kind of accuracy on the perihelions. [4][5] "The GTR explains precisely this difference [perihelion] between the Newtonian theory and observation. "[6]II. The Expansion of the Universe My opponent has not read the synopsis of the theory and of the cosmological constant, so I am going to have to elaborate. Einstein first proposed that the universe was static; however, when he formulated relativity, the results of the theory never indicated a static universe - they indicated an expanding universe. Einstein then propsed a "cosmological constant" to make relativity fit with his original hypothesis. However, when Edwin Hubble proved the universe was expanding, Einstein scrapped both his theory for a static universe and the cosmological constant. Relativity only explained a universe expanding at a constant rate. However, when it was found that the universe's expansion is accelerating, the cosmological constant was brought back into play as the cause of this. And it fits very well with the acceleration. "One possible solution is Einstein’s cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological constant back into Einstein’s general relativity equations, then general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the same. "[7]"The value of the [cosmological] constant is responsible for the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. "[8]The general theory of relativity also postulated the existance of dark energy, which is directly responsible with the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (NOTE: Yes, dark energy does exist and Einstein hypothesized it with relativity. [10][11]) : [9]Indeed, looking at the universe's history, the universe did not start an acceleration of expansion until dark energy overtook dark matter around 5 billion years ago: [10]Also, indeed, with dark energy and relativity at the helm, this very well may explain why the universe is speeding up (NOTE: Purple is dark energy and green is relativity (gravity)): [11]"New results. .. confirm that dark energy (represented by purple grid) is a smooth, uniform force that now dominates over the effects of gravity (green grid). "[11]"The universe's acceleration also confirms Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, since the expansion was required by the famed scientist's cosmological constant in that famed equation. "[12]Also, on the fact of eccentricity, I never ignored it. It was never part of this argument. Anyway, it does not disprove relativity. In the words of your source, relativity only doesn't explain it. That's not enough to disprove a theory. III. Gravitational Lensing The term gravitational lensing as we know it today was actually piloted by Einstein. In fact, "Einstein predicted that matter would deflect light. More than a century earlier, John Michell and others had reached the same conclusion. .. but Einstein's theory of 1916 predicts double the rate of deflection. [Studies] show that the general relativistic prediction [of lensing] is correct to 1 part in 1000. "[13]This process can be illustrated with this: [14]Einstein's cross is a wonderful example of this process: [15]"The four separate images have the same redshift of Z= 1.695 . This suggests that they are quasar images, and in fact multiple images of the same quasar. "[16] The reason there are four images is due to strong gravitational lensing. [15]In fact, this can be seen throughout the universe. Here is a near perfect example: [15]And this shows multiple lenses around the same location: [17] Therefore, gravitational lensing does exist and relativity did predict it. Also, my opponent claims that light should be bouncing instead of going off, however, this makes no sense. Gravitational lensing proves relativity. IV. Black Holes "Computer models can predict the number with a 0.7% error rate. " This is in contradiction with my opponent's earlier argument here. In fact, black holes can help to confirm another proof of relativity, frame dragging. [18]Sources:[1]: . http://farside.ph.utexas.edu...[2]: . http://ase.tufts.edu...[3]: . http://www.alberteinsteinsite.com...[4]: . http://aspbooks.org...[5]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: . http://www,relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/[7]: . http://www.decodedscience.com...[8]: . http://physicsworld.com...[9]: . http://dsc.discovery.com...[10]: . http://www.examiner.com...[11]: . http://phys.org...[12]: . http://www.space.com...[13]: Murdin, Paul, and Margaret Penston. The Firefly Encyclopedia of Astronomy[14]: . http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...[15]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[16]: . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[17]: . http://www.nasa.gov...[18]: . http://science.nasa.gov...;