Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access July 17, 2008

Relativistic perihelion precession of orbits of Venus and the Earth

Abhijit Biswas EMAIL logo and Krishnan Mani
From the journal Open Physics

Abstract

Among all the theories proposed to explain the “anomalous” perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit first announced in 1859 by Le Verrier, the general theory of relativity proposed by Einstein in November 1915 alone could calculate Mercury’s “anomalous” precession with the precision demanded by observational accuracy. Since Mercury’s precession was a directly derived result of the full general theory, it was viewed by Einstein as the most critical test of general relativity from amongst the three tests he proposed. With the advent of the space age, the level of observational accuracy has improved further and it is now possible to detect this precession for other planetary orbits of the solar system — viz., Venus and the Earth. This conclusively proved that the phenomenon of “anomalous” perihelion precession of planetary orbits is a relativistic effect. Our previous papers presented the mathematical model and the computed value of the relativistic perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit using an alternate relativistic gravitational model, which is a remodeled form of Einstein’s relativity theories, and which retained only experimentally proven principles. In addition this model has the benefit of data from almost a century of relativity experimentation, including those that have become possible with the advent of the space age. Using this model, we present in this paper the computed values of the relativistic precession of Venus and the Earth, which compare well with the predictions of general relativity and are also in agreement with the observed values within the range of uncertainty.

[1] C.M. Will, In: Proceedings of the XXVI SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics, Ed. L. Dixon, 1998, SLAC, Stanford, California (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford 1998), 15 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/meeting/ssi/-1998/manu list.html, arXiv:gr-qc/9811036 Search in Google Scholar

[2] A. Biswas, K.R.S. Mani, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 2, 687 (2004) http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/BF0247556910.2478/BF02475569Search in Google Scholar

[3] A. Biswas, K.R.S. Mani, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 3, 69 (2005) http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/BF0247650710.2478/BF02476507Search in Google Scholar

[4] A. Biswas, K.R.S. Mani, Phys. Essays (in press) Search in Google Scholar

[5] C.W. Gear, Comm. of the ACM, 14, 176 (1971) http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/362566.36257110.1145/362566.362571Search in Google Scholar

[6] T.D. Moyer, In: J. P. L. Tech. Rept., 32-1527, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, USA, 1971) Search in Google Scholar

[7] X.X. Newhall, E.M. Standish, J.G. Williams, Astron. Astrophys. 125, 150 (1983) Search in Google Scholar

[8] L. Iorio, arXiv:0710.2610v1 Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2008-7-17
Published in Print: 2008-9-1

© 2008 Versita Warsaw

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Downloaded on 28.11.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.2478/s11534-008-0081-6/html
Scroll Up Arrow