This paper compares the post-Newtonian approximation (PNA) to general relativity (GR) for the relativistic perihelion shift calculations. Nelson’s PNA predicts 5/6 of GR’s perihelion shift. Using the original Universal Time (UT), Shapiro’s accurate, highly elliptical orbit for Icarus corroborates PNA while GR exceeds the error boundary. The Icarus result was λ = 0.75 ± 0.08 where λ=1 for GR and λ=0 for Newtonian theory. Studies of Mercury’s perihelion shift used timescales equivalent to lunar Ephemeris Time (ET) with the present Système International (SI) second, the basic time unit for all atomic timescales like International Atomic Time (TAI). Atomic timescales run faster than UT, because the SI second is 2.468E-8 s shorter than the original UT second. This is confirmed by the two observational reports using the original calibration data of 1955-1958, by the Improved Lunar Ephemeris used in the original calibration, by the linear divergence of TAI versus UT during 1958-1998, and by the 2.1 ms mean excess between a UT day and TAI day during 1958-1998. Time dilation was not included in the lunar theory, which is confirmed by timekeeping authorities. So, the undilated lunar ET second is shorter than Earth’s proper UT second. An ET timescale creates an additional, artificial perihelion shift for Mercury of 6.433”/cy. Other renowned relativists used a 1973 update for Earth’s general precession that now excludes the GR prediction while including the PNA prediction if the artificial Mercury shift is included in the calculations. Apparently, Nelson’s PNA is more accurate than GR.
Published in | International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (Volume 3, Issue 3) |
DOI | 10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14 |
Page(s) | 61-73 |
Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Timescales, Perihelion Shift, Post-Newtonian Approximation, Relativity
[1] | Miller, A. K., Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence and Early Interpretation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1981. |
[2] | Einstein, A., Jahrb. Radioakt, 4, 411 (1907). |
[3] | Planck, M. Stizungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., (1907) p. 542. |
[4] | Einstein, A., Ann. Phys. Leipzig, 26 (1908). |
[5] | Weinberg, S., Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Application of the General Theory of Relativity, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972. |
[6] | Einstein, A., Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., (1914) p. 1030 and (1915) pp. 778, 799, 831, 844. |
[7] | Einstein, A., Annalen der Phys., 49, 769 (1916). |
[8] | Will. C. M., Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, Revised Edition, Cambridge University Press (1993) ISBN 978-0-521-43973-2. |
[9] | Deines, S. D., “Timing in Simultaneity, Einstein’s Train Scenario, and Precise Clock Synchronization”, Int. J. of App. Math. and Theor. Phy., 2, Issue 3 (2016) p. 31-40. |
[10] | Deines, S. D., “Noninertial Freely Falling Frames Affected by Gravitational Tidal Forces”, Int. J. of App. Math. And Theoretical Phys., 3, Issue 1(2017) p. 1-6. |
[11] | Shapiro, S. S., Davis, J. L., Lebach, D. E., and Gregory, J. S. “Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Data, 1979-1999”, Physical Review Letters, (2004) 92, No. 12, p. 121101-1 to 4. |
[12] | Deines, S., D., “Classical Derivation for the Total Deflection of Light”, Int. J. of App. Math, and Theor. Phys., 2, 3 (2016) p. 52-56. |
[13] | Shapiro, I. I., Smith, W. B., Ash, M. E. and Herrick S., “General Relativity and the Orbit of Icarus”, Astronomical Journal, 76, No. 7 (Sep 1971) p. 588-606. |
[14] | Seidelmann, P. K. (ed.), Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, U. S. Naval Observatory, University Science Books (1992). |
[15] | International Meridian Conference, Proceedings of the International Conference for a Prime Meridian and a Universal Day, (October 1 through November 1, 1884) Washington, D. C., Gibson Bros. Publishing, p. 1-213. |
[16] | Chandler, S. C., “On the Variation of Latitude”, Astron. J. (1891) 248, p. 59-61. |
[17] | Newcomb, S., Astronomical Papers Prepared for the Use of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, Vol. 6, Part I: Tables of the Sun, Washington, DC: U. S. Govt. Printing Office, (1895). |
[18] | Newcomb, S., The Elements of the Four Inner Planets and the Fundamental Constants of Astronomy, Washington, DC: U. S. Govt. Printing Office, (1898) Chapter 2. |
[19] | Clemence, G. M. “On the System of Astronomical Constants”, Astron. J. (1948) 53(6), p. 169-179. |
[20] | Seidelmann, P. K. [ed.], Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, U. S. Naval Observatory, University Science Books (1992). |
[21] | Spencer Jones, H., Ann. Cape Obs. (1932) 13 (3), p. 1. |
[22] | De Sitter, W., Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, (1927) 4 (124) p. 21. |
[23] | Spencer Jones, H., MNRAS (1939) 99, p. 541. |
[24] | Deines, S. D. and Williams, C. A., “Determination of Earth’s Rotational Deceleration Independent of Timescales” Astron. J. (2016), 151 (4), article 103, p. 1-12. |
[25] | Deines, S. D. and Williams, C. A., “Time Dilation and the Length of the Second: Why Timescales Diverge”, Astron. J. (2007) 134, p. 64-70. |
[26] | Improved Lunar Ephemeris 1952-1959, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., (1954) {prepared jointly by Nautical Almanac Offices of the United States of American and the United Kingdom}. |
[27] | Markowitz, W., Hall, R. Essen, L., & Parry, J. V. L., Phys. Rev. Lett. (1958) 1 (3), p. 105. |
[28] | Markowitz, W., in IAU Symp. 128, The Earth’s Rotation and Reference Frames for Geodesy and Geodynamics, eds. A. Babcock and G. Wilkins (Dordrecht: Kluwer), (1988), p. 413. |
[29] | McCarthy, D. D. and Seidelmann, P. K., Time—From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmBH & Co. Weinheim (2009). |
[30] | Essen, L., Parry, J. V. L., Markowitz, W., and Hall, R. (1958) “Variation in the Speed of Rotation of the Earth since June 1955”, Nature, 181, 1054. |
[31] | Markowitz, W. (1959) “Variations in the Rotation of the Earth: Results Obtained with the Dual-Rate Moon Camera and Photographic Zenith Tubes”, Astron. J., 64, 106-113. |
[32] | Markowitz, W. (1968) in Telescopes, Chapter 7, Kuiper, G. P. and Middlehurst, B. M. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, p. 88-114. |
[33] | Clemence, G. M., “The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions”, Rev. of Mod. Physics, 19, No. 4, (Oct 1947), p. 361-364. |
[34] | Clemence, G. M., “The Motion of Mercury, 1965-1937”, Astron. Papers Am. Ephemerides, 11, (1943) p. 1-221. |
[35] | Nelson, R. A., General Relativity and Gravitation (1990) Vol. 22, p. 431. |
[36] | Einstein, A., “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” Ann. Phys., 17, p. 549-560, (1905) [translated from Perrett, W., and Jeffery, G. B., in The Principle of Relativity, Metheuen, London, 1923]. |
[37] | Ohanian, H. C., and Ruffini, R., Gravitation and Spacetime, 2^{nd} ed., W. W. Norton & Co., NY, (1994). |
[38] | Hughston, L. P., and Tod, K. P., Introduction to General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, London (1990). |
[39] | Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A., Gravitation 1973) p. 1112. |
[40] | Morrison, L. V., and Ward, C. G., “An Analysis of the Transits of Mercury 1677-1973”, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1975) 173, p. 183-206. |
[41] | Brown, E. W., Tables of the Motion of the Moon, New Haven, Yale, Univ. Press, (1919). |
[42] | Fricke, W., Astr. J. (1967), 72, p. 1369. |
[43] | Le Verrier, U., "Lettre de M. Le Verrier à M. Faye sur la théorie de Mercure et sur le mouvement du périhélie de cette planète", Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des science, Paris (1859) 49, pp. 379–383. |
[44] | Aoki, S., “Note on Variability of the Time Standard due to Relativistic Effect”, Astron. J. (1964) 69, p. 221-222. |
[45] | Clemence, G. M., and Szebehely, V., “Annual Variation of an Atomic Clock”, Astron. J. (1967) 72, p. 1324-1326. |
[46] | Duncomb, R. L., Astr. Pap., Washington (1958) 16, Part 1. |
APA Style
Steven D. Deines. (2017). Comparing Relativistic Theories Against Observed Perihelion Shifts of Icarus and Mercury. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 3(3), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14
ACS Style
Steven D. Deines. Comparing Relativistic Theories Against Observed Perihelion Shifts of Icarus and Mercury. Int. J. Appl. Math. Theor. Phys. 2017, 3(3), 61-73. doi: 10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14
AMA Style
Steven D. Deines. Comparing Relativistic Theories Against Observed Perihelion Shifts of Icarus and Mercury. Int J Appl Math Theor Phys. 2017;3(3):61-73. doi: 10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14
@article{10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14, author = {Steven D. Deines}, title = {Comparing Relativistic Theories Against Observed Perihelion Shifts of Icarus and Mercury}, journal = {International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics}, volume = {3}, number = {3}, pages = {61-73}, doi = {10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14}, url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14}, eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijamtp.20170303.14}, abstract = {This paper compares the post-Newtonian approximation (PNA) to general relativity (GR) for the relativistic perihelion shift calculations. Nelson’s PNA predicts 5/6 of GR’s perihelion shift. Using the original Universal Time (UT), Shapiro’s accurate, highly elliptical orbit for Icarus corroborates PNA while GR exceeds the error boundary. The Icarus result was λ = 0.75 ± 0.08 where λ=1 for GR and λ=0 for Newtonian theory. Studies of Mercury’s perihelion shift used timescales equivalent to lunar Ephemeris Time (ET) with the present Système International (SI) second, the basic time unit for all atomic timescales like International Atomic Time (TAI). Atomic timescales run faster than UT, because the SI second is 2.468E-8 s shorter than the original UT second. This is confirmed by the two observational reports using the original calibration data of 1955-1958, by the Improved Lunar Ephemeris used in the original calibration, by the linear divergence of TAI versus UT during 1958-1998, and by the 2.1 ms mean excess between a UT day and TAI day during 1958-1998. Time dilation was not included in the lunar theory, which is confirmed by timekeeping authorities. So, the undilated lunar ET second is shorter than Earth’s proper UT second. An ET timescale creates an additional, artificial perihelion shift for Mercury of 6.433”/cy. Other renowned relativists used a 1973 update for Earth’s general precession that now excludes the GR prediction while including the PNA prediction if the artificial Mercury shift is included in the calculations. Apparently, Nelson’s PNA is more accurate than GR.}, year = {2017} }
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparing Relativistic Theories Against Observed Perihelion Shifts of Icarus and Mercury AU - Steven D. Deines Y1 - 2017/05/28 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14 T2 - International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics JF - International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics JO - International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics SP - 61 EP - 73 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-5927 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20170303.14 AB - This paper compares the post-Newtonian approximation (PNA) to general relativity (GR) for the relativistic perihelion shift calculations. Nelson’s PNA predicts 5/6 of GR’s perihelion shift. Using the original Universal Time (UT), Shapiro’s accurate, highly elliptical orbit for Icarus corroborates PNA while GR exceeds the error boundary. The Icarus result was λ = 0.75 ± 0.08 where λ=1 for GR and λ=0 for Newtonian theory. Studies of Mercury’s perihelion shift used timescales equivalent to lunar Ephemeris Time (ET) with the present Système International (SI) second, the basic time unit for all atomic timescales like International Atomic Time (TAI). Atomic timescales run faster than UT, because the SI second is 2.468E-8 s shorter than the original UT second. This is confirmed by the two observational reports using the original calibration data of 1955-1958, by the Improved Lunar Ephemeris used in the original calibration, by the linear divergence of TAI versus UT during 1958-1998, and by the 2.1 ms mean excess between a UT day and TAI day during 1958-1998. Time dilation was not included in the lunar theory, which is confirmed by timekeeping authorities. So, the undilated lunar ET second is shorter than Earth’s proper UT second. An ET timescale creates an additional, artificial perihelion shift for Mercury of 6.433”/cy. Other renowned relativists used a 1973 update for Earth’s general precession that now excludes the GR prediction while including the PNA prediction if the artificial Mercury shift is included in the calculations. Apparently, Nelson’s PNA is more accurate than GR. VL - 3 IS - 3 ER -