I have considered the Horizon Ephemeris data (above) as my primary data source of positional information due to it offering numerical 3D data. But as this comparison shows, it would be a tragedy to take any one source as infallible. Most other websites only offer blunt averages (without even saying which orbits the average represents) and don't give differing distances for perihelion/aphelion for different years. These two websites are the only ones I could find that go back to 1940 at all.

Nevertheless, despite what I take to be an error by Astronoo.com they have still been a good source of positioning for the other planets in purely observed 2D angular terms of perihelion and aphelion. Most especially astronoo.com are one of the few to get Neptune's perihelion seemingly correct, which almost everyone else outside of Horizon Ephemeris has seemingly in the wrong position by 45 full degrees (more on that later). The Horizon Ephemeris also contradicts itself more than once, so multiple analytical cross-referencing is an imperative part of worthwhile methodology as we shall see.

But if anything this just goes to show how much information typically just gets reproduced without analytical assessment as to how correct it is in terms of simple logical consistency. (Never mind the observational inconsistencies and theoretical conjecture). Perihelion does move from year to year but not by the amounts exposed above; which is clearly a gross mistake by somebody.

In our method of logical-positivism we assume nothing, and try to prove and re-examine everything that we possibly can. Its not just a matter of quoting the 'experts' and having faith in their fame, but checking everything for logical consistency, that can be checked. And to do this you do not actually need much more than an entry level PC, some medium-level programming software, and an acute sense of deliberation.

When looking at the data required just to start evolving this algorithm, and the variations on offer, I had suspected that my results for Perihelion Precession would not be in keeping with the crudeness of the numerical models from previous centuries. Just trying to find consensus on the gravitational constant, shows that one does not have to move more than a few decimal places to find inaccuracy and disagreement.

The missing amount in Perihelion Precession (mentioned in the Introduction) that has been attributed to Einstein's theories is immensely dissonant. As as already been noted in the previous chapters, if we apply Einstein's limit at the velocity of light to Mercury, then we must get a loss in velocity when compared to the Newtonian model. A loss in velocity must cause an inwards spiral to an orbit.

This will amount to about 2km per year that Mercury would spiral inwards due to Einstein's limit at the velocity of light. It is quite interesting that for 100 years it seems that nobody else has noticed that losing velocity away from the Newtonian calculations must decay the orbit. The only possible 'compensation' for this could be if gravity is delayed due to it traveling at the velocity of light (from General Relativity). This will undoubtedly cause an outwards spiral to any orbit depending on the comparative masses of the two objects. (See the phenomenon BOGVOS from previous chapters).

But BOGVOS (gravity-delay) will result in a 40m outwards spiral per orbit for Mercury. This is not nearly enough to compensate for the 2km inwards spiral caused by for the loss in velocity as Mercury approaches light-speed. Worse than this: A gravity-delay will cause an outwards spiral for the Alpha Centauri binary star-system of well over a million km per orbit. And, for the Moon's orbit around the Earth, an outwards spiral of 400m per orbit will result from such a delay in gravity. Both of these are wholly unacceptable.

It was for these reasons; a lack of logical constancy in the Nobel prize-winning Relativistic paradigm, that this very analysis was undertaken. The Relativists have sure got a lot of compensating to do! Dogmatic assertion of that which is contrary to logic is not part of any viable methodology.

Moreover note again the observational data table from utexas.edu:

Most of the planets' Perihelion Precession is less than that predicted by the Newtonian theoretical models. Only Mercury, Saturn and Uranus have the observation higher than the Newtonian prediction! So its a small wonder that if Einstein predicts an amount greater for the precession of Mercury when compared to Newtonian gravity, then surely the other planets cannot be receding by less when compared to Newton?

There is no consistency for Perihelion Precession in that data. So at this point it is already starting to look like Einstein's Relativity is little more than a 'science of the gaps' theory. But let us not jump to conclusions until the full detail has been exposed. The true teacher wants to be certain where the error occurs, and why. Never assume the given answer is correct. Never assume the contrary answer is wrong simply because it differs from the given answer. Prove everything with precision. Most specifically: isolate the exact error(s) in the calculations of whomsoever you disagree with. This is the only method to uncover one's own errors and know for certain yourself, just who is correct.

These disagreements will eventually all be resolved, dear reader. For  now we are barely scratching the surface of the numbers. But you will note, that in this methodology I always just look at the simplest aspects of the logic first and leave the detail of math and algorithm until later. It is prudent to first simply appreciate the difference as to whether there is a greater or lesser precession of the orbital extremities when we compare Einstein to Newton - for all the planets. That the given Relativistic data never goes beyond Mercury is itself deeply suspect.

<— Page Back — Start Page — Next Page —>