Decoding Mercury's Anomalous Precession: Discovering Pre-GR Explanations | [url]

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dr_venturi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mercury Precession
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the explanation of Mercury's anomalous precession prior to the formulation of General Relativity (GR). A paper claiming to provide a pre-GR explanation was dismissed as lacking credibility due to its reliance on Special Relativity (SR), which is incompatible with Newtonian gravity. The consensus is that GR has been rigorously tested, including through phenomena like gravitational time dilation, which SR cannot account for. The references cited in the paper are deemed unreliable, as they originate from non-peer-reviewed sources or outdated publications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR) and its implications.
  • Familiarity with Special Relativity (SR) and its limitations.
  • Knowledge of Newtonian gravity and its historical context.
  • Awareness of the peer-review process in scientific publishing.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of General Relativity and its experimental validations.
  • Study the limitations of Special Relativity in gravitational contexts.
  • Examine historical papers on Mercury's precession and their scientific reception.
  • Explore the peer-review process and its importance in scientific credibility.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, astronomy enthusiasts, and students of theoretical physics seeking to understand the historical context and scientific validity of gravitational theories.

dr_venturi
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know if anybody had successfully explained mercury’s anomalous precession before GR? The reason I ask is that I recently ran across this paper online. It seems to easy to not have been done after SR but prior to GR.

Link: http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary precession.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a kook paper. Special relativity is not compatible with Newtonian gravity for a variety of well known reasons (e.g., you can't have instantaneous propagation of gravitational forces). Even if the paper's claim were correct, it would be pointless, because GR has been subjected to many other tests, such as gravitational time dilation, which is incompatible with SR. If GR was wrong, your GPS unit wouldn't work. Note that the physics references that the paper cites are ones that either have not been published in peer-reviewed journals or are to papers in Foundations of Physics from before 2007, when it routinely published kook papers.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad New interpretations of the Pioneer effect ?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Are Finkelstein/Kruskal Black Hole Solutions Compatible with Einstein's GR?
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
Undergrad A novel explanation of CKM and PMNS matrix parameters
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
April Fool's Physics Papers 2026
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
488
Chemically regenerating my auto's catalytic converter?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
Graduate Deformation quantization (survey, introduction, sources)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Graduate Which Papers Will Shape Future Quantum Gravity Research?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Graduate Max Tegmark, Lee Smolin-polite conversation at Peter's
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
8K