#### TonyYuan

##### Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves
Registered Senior Member
I have noticed that the Venus precession data 8.6" obtained by GR calculation is very inconsistent with actual observations. Is there any accurate data now? I also calculated the precession data of the eight major planets in the solar system.

Mercury 43”
Venus 240”
Earth 3”
Mars 1”
Jupiter 0.8”
Saturn 0.1
Except for Venus which is 240", other data are consistent with GR. I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.

I hope the answer can be found here.
Thanks.

I have noticed that the Venus precession data 8.6" obtained by GR calculation is very inconsistent with actual observations. Is there any accurate data now? I also calculated the precession data of the eight major planets in the solar system.

Mercury 43”
Venus 240”
Earth 3”
Mars 1”
Jupiter 0.8”
Saturn 0.1
Except for Venus which is 240", other data are consistent with GR. I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.

I hope the answer can be found here.
Thanks.

I do believe that there is somebody here at this forum who can answer this question!

Tony:

Are you interested in the total precession of the orbital perhelion, or just in the "anomalous" precession due to GR?

Also, are the units you're using arcseconds per century?

P.S. It looks like you're asking about anomalous precession. The correct figure for Venus is 8.6 arcseconds per century.

Clearly, the figure must be greatest for Mercury, then decrease as you go outwards through the planets of the solar system, because Mercury is further down in the Sun's "gravitational well" than any of the other planets.

Last edited:
Are you interested in the total precession of the orbital perhelion, or just in the "anomalous" precession due to GR?
I'm all interested.
Also, are the units you're using arcseconds per century?
Yes.
P.S. It looks like you're asking about anomalous precession. The correct figure for Venus is 8.6 arcseconds per century.
Your data comes from GR calculations, not from observations.
Clearly, the figure must be greatest for Mercury, then decrease as you go outwards through the planets of the solar system, because Mercury is further down in the Sun's "gravitational well" than any of the other planets.
I don’t think so. Gravitational waves are the root cause of planetary precession. Eccentricity and the angle between the planet's orbit and the ecliptic plane are the main factors.
If Mercury's angle is equal to 0, then you will not be able to observe Mercury's 43" precession.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html
Richard will tell you that except for Mercury's 43", the planetary precession data calculated by GR is of no value!

Last edited:
Your data comes from GR calculations, not from observations.
How do you know where my data comes from?
I don’t think so. Gravitational waves are the root cause of planetary precession.
No. They have nothing to do with it.
Eccentricity and the angle between the planet's orbit and the ecliptic plane are the main factors.
If Mercury's angle is equal to 0, then you will not be able to observe Mercury's 43" precession.
Says who?

You're citing yourself?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html
Richard will tell you that except for Mercury's 43", the planetary precession data calculated by GR is of no value!
Where will he tell me that?

How do you know where my data comes from?
I checked the information on the wiki, only one article talked about the Venus precession data, but it lacked reliability. If you can provide strong observation data, then I will be very happy to see it.
No. They have nothing to do with it.
Gravitational waves have been measured many, many times, enough to explain the problem.
Where will he tell me that?
I think you can read his article carefully, and I also communicated with him on this issue.

I believe that the observation results, GR is not magic, it is just a mathematical model, its essence is the gravitational wave density model.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1
What is said here is very clear. My theory is not complicated, it is a physical model of the influence of gravitational waves on gravity

Planet

Mercury

Venus

Earth

Mars

Jupiter

Saturn

Uranus

Neptune

The difference between the observation result and the calculation result of Newtonian mechanics is very different from the result of GR calculation except for Mercury.

Mercury has made GR very difficult.
If the above calculation is carried out sightly more accurately, taking the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit into account, then the general relativistic contribution to
becomes 0.43 arc seconds per year. It follows that the total perihelion precession rate for Mercury is 5.32+0.43=5.75 arc seconds per year. This is in exact agreement with the observed precession rate. Indeed, the ability of general relativity to explain the discrepancy between the observed perihelion precession rate of Mercury, and that calculated from Newtonian dynamics, was one of the first major successes of this theory.

Last edited:
I checked the information on the wiki, only one article talked about the Venus precession data, but it lacked reliability. If you can provide strong observation data, then I will be very happy to see it.
I can't, but I'm confident that if you search through the peer-reviewed literature you should be able to find relevant papers.
Gravitational waves have been measured many, many times, enough to explain the problem.
Gravitational waves are predicted by general relativity. You seem to want a non-GR explanation for precession. Where are you going to get your gravitational waves from, if not from GR?
I think you can read his article carefully, and I also communicated with him on this issue.
I'm not going to read through an entire online textbook on the off-chance that what you said was correct. Either point me to the appropriate place, or don't.
I believe that the observation results, GR is not magic, it is just a mathematical model, its essence is the gravitational wave density model.
No. That is not the essence of GR.

I can't, but I'm confident that if you search through the peer-reviewed literature you should be able to find relevant papers.

Gravitational waves are predicted by general relativity. You seem to want a non-GR explanation for precession. Where are you going to get your gravitational waves from, if not from GR?

I'm not going to read through an entire online textbook on the off-chance that what you said was correct. Either point me to the appropriate place, or don't.

No. That is not the essence of GR.
GR predicted gravitational waves, LIGO and others observed gravitational waves and measured their speed. I am based on facts! The revolution of the sun will cause gravitational waves. You can look at the definition of gravitational waves!

Tony:

So you're trying to use GR's gravitational waves to predict the precession of the perihelions of the planets? Is that correct?

I thought your position was that GR's description of gravity is incorrect.

No. That is not the essence of GR.
I used this physical model to derive the gravitational equation and applied it to the orbit calculation to obtain planetary precession data:
Mercury 43”
Venus 240”
Earth 3”
Mars 1”
Jupiter 0.8”
Saturn 0.1
I like to speak with facts instead of simply negating or affirming.

I used this physical model to derive the gravitational equation and applied it to the orbit calculation to obtain planetary precession data:
Mercury 43”
Venus 240”
Earth 3”
Mars 1”
Jupiter 0.8”
Saturn 0.1
I like to speak with facts instead of simply negating or affirming.
Your figure for Venus cannot be correct, unless GR is wrong.

You need to compare GR's prediction of 8.6" and yours of 240" with observational data. That will decide the issue one way or the other.

Why have you not done that?

So you're trying to use GR's gravitational waves to predict the precession of the perihelions of the planets? Is that correct?
Yes, you can say that, but gravitational waves are not invented by GR, they are real!
I thought your position was that GR's description of gravity is incorrect.
Can you give a specific explanation? Simply negate or affirm, everyone can do it.

That page explains the result from General Relativity. So what?
Yes, but it is only an explanation of Mercury. Have you noticed the observation data and calculation data of other planets?

Your figure for Venus cannot be correct, unless GR is wrong.

You need to compare GR's prediction of 8.6" and yours of 240" with observational data. That will decide the issue one way or the other.

Why have you not done that?
I have already explained why 240" is more credible than 8.6"!

So why is the data of Venus (240" vs 8.6") so different? From formula (40) we can see that GR does not consider the angle between the orbital surface and the vertical surface of the sun. Under different eccentricity and angles, the precession data calculated by GR is still the same. These may be the reason for the large difference between the two.

First, let’s look at the characteristics of Venus: Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances . But the angle between its orbit and the vertical plane of the sun is very large 3.39°, so we have reason to believe that gravitational waves will have a great influence on the orbital precession of Venus.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

Tony:

You said:
Gravitational waves are the root cause of planetary precession. Eccentricity and the angle between the planet's orbit and the ecliptic plane are the main factors.
The guy you cite says:
If the above calculation is carried out slightly more accurately, taking the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit into account, then...
Notice that the webpage you cite disagrees with you. It does not say that "eccentricity and the angle..." are the "main factors". It says that including those factors only makes the General Relativistic calculation "slightly more accurate". Specifically, it takes the annual precession rate for Mercury from 0.41" to 0.43".

Tony:
Yes, you can say that, but gravitational waves are not invented by GR, they are real!
I have never denied they are real. In fact, they have been experimentally detected!
Can you give a specific explanation? Simply negate or affirm, everyone can do it.
A specific explanation of what?

I asked you to tell me whether you believe that GR is correct or incorrect. You seem to want to have a bet each way. You want to rely on GR's description of gravitational waves, and at the same time deny that GR is a correct theory. Can't you see the problem with that?
Yes, but it is only an explanation of Mercury. Have you noticed the observation data and calculation data of other planets?
In a brief search, I read that some observations were made for other planets back in the 1970s or 1980s. I didn't chase up the relevant papers. I assume that you would do that, seeing as you're trying to disprove the GR predictions.
I have already explained why 240" is more credible than 8.6"!
I don't think your theory is more credible than the general theory of relativity. Neither does the professor you corresponded with over some period of time.
So why is the data of Venus (240" vs 8.6") so different?
Probably because you are wrong and GR is right.
From formula (40) we can see that GR does not consider the angle between the orbital surface and the vertical surface of the sun.
Yes, but as the author notes, that can be taken into account. If it is, it only makes a small difference.
Under different eccentricity and angles, the precession data calculated by GR is still the same.
No. The page you quote explicitly says the opposite to what you're claiming here. Don't you understand it?
First, let’s look at the characteristics of Venus: Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances.
It makes the perihelion hard to determine precisely, from an observational point of view, because the orbit is almost circular.
But the angle between its orbit and the vertical plane of the sun is very large 3.39°...
Very large compared to what?
... so we have reason to believe that gravitational waves will have a great influence on the orbital precession of Venus.
What's the reason?

Notice that the webpage you cite disagrees with you. It does not say that "eccentricity and the angle..." are the "main factors". It says that including those factors only makes the General Relativistic calculation "slightly more accurate". Specifically, it takes the annual precession rate for Mercury from 0.41" to 0.43".
This is my opinion, not Richard's.

and

I also agree with this point of Richard :Adding eccentricity will make GR more accurate. I checked the information of GR, got the calculation formula of GR, and applied it to my program for verification:
24*Pi*Pi*Pi*a/c*a/c/ (pow(T*24*60*60,2)*(1-pow(e,2)))*(365.25*100/info.T )*(180/Pi)

I have never denied they are real. In fact, they have been experimentally detected!
Ok, gravitational waves are my theoretical basis.

I asked you to tell me whether you believe that GR is correct or incorrect. You seem to want to have a bet each way. You want to rely on GR's description of gravitational waves, and at the same time deny that GR is a correct theory. Can't you see the problem with that?
This is a very good question. Let me emphasize again that GR only predicted it. Gravitational waves are real, and it doesn't matter whether there is GR.
Gravitational waves are my theoretical basis. I do not deny GR. GR is just a mathematical model, but I think it is not accurate. An example is, why does GR need not consider the angle between the planet's orbital plane and the ecliptic plane? If the orbit of Venus is perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, what is the precession of Venus? Is it still 8.6"?
In a brief search, I read that some observations were made for other planets back in the 1970s or 1980s. I didn't chase up the relevant papers. I assume that you would do that, seeing as you're trying to disprove the GR predictions.
I have searched hard, through Google, through Wiki, but I haven't found any valuable information. There are many professors of astrophysics here, which is one of my purposes here. I hope they can provide me with some clues.
If there is no observational evidence, please don't say that 8.6" is the correct data! In my opinion, it is only the result of GR calculation.
I don't think your theory is more credible than the general theory of relativity. Neither does the professor you corresponded with over some period of time.
Yes, Richard didn't admit it, but he couldn't point out the problem either. I also wrote to him asking questions about the precession of Venus, but unfortunately he never responded. This time it was indeed different from his previous actions. (He always responded to my emails quickly before)
Probably because you are wrong and GR is right.
Haha, who knows? Can GR scholars answer the questions I have asked several times? Why doesn't GR need to consider the angle between the planet's orbital plane and the ecliptic plane? If they were vertical, would it still be 8.6"?
Yes, but as the author notes, that can be taken into account. If it is, it only makes a small difference.
GR is a mathematical model, mine is a physical model, they have similarities, but my theory is simpler and easier to understand.

3.39
No. The page you quote explicitly says the opposite to what you're claiming here. Don't you understand it?
GR does consider eccentricity, but in its calculation formula, e is not important. In addition, GR has never considered that angle! I have said it N times.
It makes the perihelion hard to determine precisely, from an observational point of view, because the orbit is almost circular.
Because the orbit is close to a circle, it is very susceptible to external influences. The basis of my theory is gravitational waves, which will affect the orbit of Venus.
This is why I believe 240" is closer to the truth.
Very large compared to what?
What's the reason?
It's the angle I said N times.
The angle between the planet's orbital plane and the ecliptic plane.
A more accurate statement is the angle between the planet's orbital plane and the vertical plane of the sun's velocity.
3.39° is large! You know why I say this after reading my theory.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1