Authors: Matthew Taylor
The problematic assumption associated with the observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury is Mercury formed as it appears today. If Mercury’s origins were different from its assumed origins, then the calculated estimate of its density would be inaccurate and this minor discrepancy would account for the precession of Mercury’s perihelion. A minor increase in density wouldn't affect Mercury's mass or volume either. (See paper for details.) If Mercury's estimated density is in error, then the calculated precession of Mercury’s perihelion would also be erroneous. Asserting a Relativistic solution would require all values to be accurate and the methodology to be sufficient. And, such a solution would also require ignoring the actual formation of the planet Mercury.
Comments: 2 Pages. Original work. All rights reserved.
Unique-IP document downloads: 24 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.