Yuri Dunaev NEWTON, EINSTEIN, and MERCURY's PRECESSION

Yuri Dunaev Kyiv, Ukraine ([email protected])

NEWTON, EINSTEIN, AND MERCURY’S PRECESSION PROBLEM

The Summary

A mechanical model is proposed, one of the solar system planets’ apsidal precessions, with which help there is demonstrated that those are provoked not by the gravitational attraction to other planets of the solar system, as it was proposed by Newton and Einstein, but by the activity of that solar magnetic field that is generated by its rotation around its own rotation axis. In the same way the apsidal precession of the Moon is provoked by the terrestrial magnetic field’s activity. Expanding these conclusions onto the apsidal precession of any celestial body, one has all reasons to claim that such precession is a consequence of its central body’s rotation around its own rotation axis.

Apsidal precession of celestial bodies, particularly of the planet Mercury Astronomers have long ago noticed the rotation of celestial bodies’ orbits, or in other words of their apsidal lines connecting perihelion (the closest point of the orbit) with aphelion (the farthest point of the orbit), in the plane and around the center of their rotation that was called orbital, perihelion, or apsidal precession. The apsidal precession of the Moon was known to ancient Greek astronomers, while that of planets was so at the times of Newton, and as it seems just it had incited him to elaborate the Theorem of revolving [1], firstly published in 1687 as a component of his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In 1859 Urbain Le Verrier exhibited that the Mercury’s apsidal precession value calculated based on astronomic observations executed from 1697 to 1848 diverged from that foreseen by the Newton’s theory by 38” (arc seconds) for century [2]. Later this discrepancy was evaluated as 43” (574.1 – 531.6 = 42.5), that is around 7.4%.

Methodology of Newton

The proposed by Newton Theorem of revolving orbits that got interested the scientific community only about 2 centuries later, intended to explain the planetary orbits’ precession with an artificially found mathematical formula that supposedly took into account for the gravitational action of the neighboring planets. Newton had not disclosed the mechanism of this action, likely because as well as while elaborating his Law of universal gravitation he “did not propose hypotheses” [3].

The Newtonian theorem is based on that the orbits’ rotation is a consequence of the addition to the already acting on the planet central force attracting it to the central body in conformity with the Law of universal gravitation, of another central force that had to be an inverse-cube force, one that varies as the inverse cube of the distance to the central body. How does this force appear and how is it transferred to the planet Newton does not explain.

An analogous method Newton applies to the explanation of the precession of the Moon, being convinced that it was caused by a gravitational force, applied to it by the Sun. It is known that the Newtonian calculations substantially diverged from the astronomic observation data.

Methodology of Einstein

The interest displayed in 1915 by Albert Einstein to the precession of Mercury may be explained by his desire to find any proofs in support of then elaborated General theory of relativity. It is worth to reveal that of such proofs he has found only two: the first was his adjustment to the previously found based on the Newtonian formulae value of the apsidal precession of Mercury, and the second – the diversion of the far stars’ light passing near the Sun supposedly under the action of the solar gravitation.

As it seems, the Newtonian physics including the Law of universal gravitation and the calculation formulae for apsidal precession were for Einstein of indisputable authority, which may explain why while elaborating his relativistic conceptions relative the apsidal precession of Mercury, he had fully used the Newtonian methodology just completing it with an adjustment, which the value he knew in advance. Here it would be worth to add that the General theory of relativity itself is fully based on the Newtonian Law of universal gravitation, that one that does not explain neither the nature of gravitational forces, neither their transfer mechanism, nor their interaction with the attracted objects. This Law Einstein had supplemented with adjustments that would have been of perceptible values just for extremely heavy masses that is where the verification of such adjustments in the earthy conditions would imply extensive difficulties.

In his 1915 article entitled “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” [4] Einstein makes a pile of the most complicated mathematical derivations for calculation of not the amount of the precession itself, but just of the proposed adjustment to the Newtonian formulae, one that might help to determine the difference between the results of observations and calculations according to Newton. The numerous value of this adjustment calculated by Einstein with the found by himself formula was 43”, which was a 100% - hit, and which cannot avoid the suspicion that the found adjustment was doctored to the a priori known result.

The second mentioned proof of the General theory of relativity was the deviation of far stars’ light supposedly under the action of the solar gravitation.

In this connection there would be proper to notice that such deviation cannot be caused by the gravitation, the last being able to act only on bodies or particles having mass (or screening area). The photons as it is known are a kind of waves and have no mass at all. There would be better to look for the causes of such deviation in refraction that is in bending light beams by the changing density of the medium that is ether. Such changing of the ether density might be caused by the solar magnetic fields.

Methodology of the physics of ether

For better understanding the proposed conception of apsidal precession of planets, let us start with examining a mechanical model schematically presented in axial section on fig.1a and in top view on fig.1b. that I for more ease have called model А.

4 2 3 1 6 1

6 5 Fig.1a 3

Fig.1b

The proposed model А has a relatively light circular hoop 1 made from thin sheet material, installed with possibility of rotation around a fixed axis 2 mounted on the basis of the structure (not shown). For this purpose, the hoop 1 by means of brackets 3 is fixed on a hub 4 installed with possibility of easy rotation on the axis 2. The interior surface of the hoop 1 may have vertical ribs 5, but in the case of minimum friction in the bearing 2-4 may do without. On the same axis 2 at the level of the hoop 1 there is freely mounted an impeller 6 that has its own drive (not shown) for its rotation on the axis 2.

The impeller 6 driven to rotation, the generated air flows interacting with the ribs 5, or simply with the interior of the hoop 1 enforce the later to rotate around the axis 2.

The described model may be modified, and one may obtain some other models, which the operation nevertheless would not need, any additional drawings. Firstly, the hoop 1 may be made elliptic and mounted on the hub 2 in a way its rotation occur around one of the ellipse’s focuses (model B). Secondly, the hoop 1 may be cut by vertical cuts into some fragments, and each of those one might fixe to its own hub 4a, 4b, etc., mounted independently of other (higher or lower) on the same axis 2 (model C). Finally, similarly effective and instructive would be model D that instead of a full hoop would have only one of the fragments of the model C, even if it length would make only a small part of that of the full hoop.

As one might imagine, during the rotation of the impeller 6 of the model B the hoop 1, though of elliptic form will turn around the axis 2 in the same way as the circular hoop of the model A, the fragments of the model C will turn in the same way as the respective parts of the integral hoop of the model B, and the fragment of the model D will turn in the same way as it did in the model C.

In the described mechanical models one might find much common with the situation around the planets of the solar system.

Firstly, all the parts of the hoops of the mechanical models A and B, as well as the planets are tied, each of them to its own rotation axis, whether through the brackets 3, or thanks to the balance between the acting on the planet gravitational force that attracts it to the Sun, and centrifugal force that repels it therefrom. The balance of the said forces acts fully analogously to mechanic ties, such as the brackets 3.

Secondly, the impeller 6 of the mechanical models repulses away from itself and eccentrically to its rotation axis air flows that drive the hoop 1 of the models A and B, or its fragments of the models C and D and that one might to compare to flows of ether particles repelled away from the Sun in the process of its axial rotation. These ethereal flows generate that of the solar magnetic fields that is created thanks to its rotation about its own rotation axis [4], and that enforces the planet to rotate around the Sun. The rotation direction of the hoop 1 and its fragments, as well as that of the planet owed to the said magnetic field, coincides with the rotation direction of the impeller and that of the axial rotation of the Sun that in the same way coincides with the revolving direction of the solar system planets.

Each point of the top projection of the hoop 1 (as on fig.1a) imitates the respective point of the planetary orbit. The difference is that the points of the top projection of the hoop 1 (circular or elliptic) do not move along these circle or ellipse, whereas the planet revolving around the Sun moves along its orbit, and its deviations in every orbit point under the action of the solar magnetic field that are fully analogous to the deviations of the hoop fragment of the model D summarizing make the effect of rotation around the Sun of the orbit itself.

It is clear that the magnetic field of the Sun is most tangible for the closest plants, especially Mercury, and that more distant from the Sun is the planet, less the apsidal precession would be perceptible. It is also clear that the described astrophysical phenomenon is most noticeable for the planets with the greatest ellipticity.

The above expressed ideas concerning the apsidal precession of planets can be applied to that of the planetary satellites, particularly the Moon, whose precession is without doubt caused by the terrestrial magnetic field generated by the axial rotation of the Earth.

To the above expressed it would be proper to add that based on the described model it would not be difficult to derive appropriate mathematical formulae, which nevertheless goes beyond the scope of my task.

The Conclusions:

1) The cause of the apsidal precession of the solar system planets and particularly Mercury is not their gravitational attraction to other planets as was asserted by Newton and Einstein, but the activity of the solar magnetic field generated by its axial rotation; 2) Apsidal precession of the Moon is provoked by the terrestrial magnetic field; 3) There are reasons to believe that the apsidal precession of any celestial body is a consequence of its central body’s rotation around its own rotation axis.

Bibliography:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newton%27s_theorem_of_revolving_orbits&oldid=5 58499426 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury#Perihelion_precession_of_Mer cury 3) Yuri Dunaev, MASS, GRAVITATION, AND DARK MATTER, /Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/1699; 4) Anatoli Andrei Vankov, Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory, /Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/3213; 5) Yuri Dunaev, SOLAR CYCLES NATURE AND THEIR PREDICTION PROSPECTS /Research Papers- Mechanics / Electrodynamics/Download/4897