Until Einstein proposed his equations, none of the existing theories/laws used for planetary orbits was able to explain why Mercury's orbit wasn't recessing the way it should. If it wasn't for this, Einstein's gravity theories probably wouldn't have been so widely accepted.
This is Einstein’s theory that supposedly “explains” gravity, but which
does no such thing.
Einstein's GR field equations predicts the movement of light and matter when exposed to the force of gravity. It does a pretty good job of it up to a point.
The statement in the article is misleading and not true, and nowhere else in the paper is any explanation of why this statement is truthful.
Until Einstein proposed his equations, none of the existing theories/laws used for planetary orbits was able to explain why Mercury's orbit wasn't recessing the way it should. If it wasn't for this, Einstein's gravity theories probably wouldn't have been so widely accepted.
What math are you referring to?
Thanks for sharing.
The article boasts some baseless claims, however.
Einstein's GR field equations predicts the movement of light and matter when exposed to the force of gravity. It does a pretty good job of it up to a point.
The statement in the article is misleading and not true, and nowhere else in the paper is any explanation of why this statement is truthful.
The motion of the celestial bodies we observe are affected by secondary influences.
I don't see the connection with this question and the baseless claim in the article.