Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2005 | 3 | 1 | 69-76
Article title

Simulation model for anomalous precession of the perihelion of mercury's orbit

Title variants
Languages of publication
The ‘anomalous perihelion precession’ of Mercury, announced by Le Verrier in 1859, was a highly controversial topic for more than half a century and invoked many alternative theories until 1916, when Einstein presented his theory of general relativity as an alternative theory of gravitation and showed perihelion precession to be one of its potential manifestations. As perihelion precession was a directly derived result of the full General Theory and not just the Equivalence Principle, Einstein viewed it as the most critical test of his theory. This paper presents the computed value of the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit using a new relativistic simulation model that employs a simple transformation factor for mass and time, proposed in an earlier paper. This computed value compares well with the prediction of general relativity and is, also, in complete agreement with the observed value within its range of uncertainty. No general relativistic equations have been used for computing the results presented in this paper.
Physical description
1 - 3 - 2005
1 - 3 - 2005
  • [1] A. Biswas and K.R.S. Mani: “Simulation Model for Shapiro Time delay and Light deflection experiments”,Central European Journal of Physics,Vol. 2, (2004),pp. 687–697.[Crossref]
  • [2] C.M. Will:Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
  • [3] C.M. Will:Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988.
  • [4] C.M. Will: “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment: A 1998 update”, In:Gravity-from the Hubble length to the Planck length, Proceedings of the XXVI SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics, SLAC, Stanford, California, 1998, pp. 15–54.
  • [5] C.W. Gear: “The Automatic Integration of Ordinary Differential Equations”,Comm. of the ACM, Vol. 14, (1971), pp. 176–179.[Crossref]
  • [6] T.D. Moyer: “Mathematical Formulation of the Double-Precision Orbit Determination Program”, In:Jet Propulsion Laboratory Tech. Rept. 32-1527, Pasadena, 1971.
  • [7] X.X. Newhall, E.M. Standish and J.G. Williams: “DE102: a numerically integrated ephemeris of the Moon and planets spanning fortyfour centuries”,Astron. Astrophy.,Vol. 125, (1983),pp. 150–167.
  • [8] I. Ciufolini and J.A. Wheeler:Gravitation and Inertia, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995, pp. 167–173.
  • [9] I.I. Shapiro, G.H. Pettengill, M.E. Ash, R.P. Ingalls, D.B. Campbell and R.B. Dyce: “Mercury's perihelion advance: Determination by radar”,Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 28, (1972), pp. 1594–1597.[Crossref]
  • [10] I.I. Shapiro, C.C. Counselman III and R.W. King: “Verification of the principle of equivalence for massive bodies”,Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 36, (1976), pp. 555–585.[Crossref]
  • [11] J.D. Anderson, M.S.W. Keesey, E.L. Lau, E.M. Standish and X.X. Newhall: “Tests of general relativity using ast-rometric and radiometric observations of the planets”,Acta Astronautica, Vol. 5, (1978), pp. 43–61.[Crossref]
  • [12] I.I. Shapiro: “Solar system tests of general relativity: Recent results and present plans”, In: N. Ashby et al (Eds.):General Relativity and Gravitation, 1989, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 313–330.
  • [13] J.D. Anderson, J.K. Campbell, R.F. Jurgens, E.L. Lau, X.X. Newhall, M.A. Slade III and E.M. Standish, Jr.: “Recent developments in solar-system tests of general relativity”, In: H. Sato et al (Eds.)Proceedings of the 6th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Kyoto, June 1991, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992, pp. 353–355.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.