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?
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