You are absolutely right, but to answer your next question too. Newton's equation GmM/r2 is accurate to one part in 107. Newtons basic equations may not be 100% accurate but Einstein didn't 'disprove' them either.
I think anyone who doesn't know the difference between two of the greatest scientific ideas of the past century should keep his mouth shut about science.
Kind of hard to argue against that logic :) I just prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt on the date.
I found the hypothesis that a warming environment might ameliorate the weather to be interesting. For some reason I had just bought into the propaganda that a warming climate would create much worse weather. I just assumed that more energy in the system would create more chaos. I need to be more skeptical than I am.
I don't see how that can be true, that the discrepancy can be no larger. The masses can presumably be increased without limit and I bet that for a given r there's some large mass that the error would be larger.
But there are errors in kind too where Newton would predict zero effect but Einstein predicts non-zero and in such a case the error is infinite. For example, if a mass is rotating, it actually makes spacetime rotate too. A test mass falling toward the "equator" of the rotating one would appear to a distant observer to move laterally. Newton would have the test mass fall straight toward the other.
You might find this interesting.
As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.An error of 43 out of 5557 is nearly one part in 10^2. So I guess I'm not sure what you meant.