Newtonian orbital calculations cannot properly account for the observed motion of Mercury, there are always slight errors. However, when Einstrinian formula are used, which take the relativistic effects of the Sun’s mass and the speed of Mercury’s motion around the Sun, it can predict it’s motion absolutely accurately.
How can GR be cited, a logically inconsistent system? Relativity fails the consistency rules of evidence in the scientific method.
Where can we find this absolutely accurate prediction of Mercury’s motion?
This is the way orbital mechanics is done in reality. The model which best agrees with the latest ephemeris is used for tracking and navigation… But each new ephemeris requires model corrections. Models are always a work in progress, because there are many unknown factors - even gravity has a unknown mechanism.
It makes no sense to claim that any theory - much less a logically contradictory one like GR - is absolutely accurate.
In
Relativity: An Approximation, Charles Lane Poor observed how GR twists reality to claim experimental proof:
*The generalized theory of relativity has been accepted as proved by the motions of Mercury that, according to the relativists, cannot be explained or accounted for by the ordinary methods of astronomical research. Now, how does the relativity theory explain these motions of Mercury? In what way do the formulas of relativity differ from those of the old fashioned classical mathematics of Newton, La Place, and Leverrier?
The formula of relativity, upon which is based the relativist’s explanations of these phenomena, is found, upon analysis, to be nothing more nor less than an approximation towards the well known formula of Newtonian mathematics. The relativity formula, as used in the astronomical portion of the theory, contains not the slightest trace of the basic postulates of relativity, of warped space, or the mythical fourth dimension. It is a formula of Newtonian gravitation, purely and simply; but an approximate formula, derived by a series of approximations.
In deriving the formulas for the transmission of light throughout space and for the motion of one particle of matter about another, the relativity mathematician encounters a serious difficulty. His formula, derived from the postulates of relativity, indicates that light travels with different speeds in different directions, that the velocity of light depends upon the direction of transmission.
To overcome this mathematical difficulty, or inconvenience, as he calls it, the relativist makes a substitution, or approximation. Instead of using the direct distance between the centers of two particles of matter, the relativist adds a small, a very small, factor to this distance [the Schwarzschild radius, as Eddington puts it, “we shall slightly alter our co-ordinates.” Such an approximation is very common among physicists: it is done every day to simplify troublesome formulas. …Remember always that the final result is necessarily approximate, and, before drawing any conclusion, to thoroughly test the effects of the approximation. [which distorted the distances]
Now the quantity, m, which is thus added to the distance to simplify the relativity equation, represents the mass of the attracting body, expressed in linear relativity units. This little quantity is very much less than the billionth part of an inch; for the earth itself it is only about one-sixth (1/6) of an inch. The approximation really consists in adding 1/6th of an inch to each and every distance measured from the center of the earth, less than one part in a billion, a quantity absolutely inappreciable in any physical problem.
No laboratory methods can measure with this degree of accuracy. But it is radically different in astronomy: distance and motion are on enormous scales, and a minute approximation might become evident in the motions of the planets.
Now this minute approximation is the sole appreciable difference between the so-called Einstein law of motion and the old fashioned mathematics of Newton. By omitting this approximation and using the exact distance between the centers of the two bodies the Einstein formula becomes identical with that of Newton: on the other hand, if, in the Newtonian formula the approximate distance be used, then this formula becomes identical with Einstein’s.
There is no essential difference between the two formulas: Einstein’s formula is an approximation towards Newton’s; except for the approximation, it is Newton’s. In the Einstein formula for the orbit of a planet there is not the slightest trace of relativity; there is no warped space, no fourth dimension; there is nothing but every-day, ordinary Newtonian gravitation, but approximate gravitation. The approximation is in the Einstein equation; not in the Newtonian.
When the motions of the planets about the sun are considered, the little quantity, m, becomes proportionally larger, being in fact about nine-tenths of a mile. And the relativity approximation consists of using in their formulas, not the actual distance of a planet from the center of the sun, but that distance increased by nine-tenths (0.91) of a mile. This same distance is added to the distance of each and every planet. In all real astronomical work the center of the sun is the fundamental point of reference in the solar system.
The actual distance of a planet from this point is measured, or calculated, or tabulated. But the relativity approximate formula does not give this actual distance: in the case of each and every planet it gives this distance increased by 9/10th of a mile. *
#2 is good! Note to self: fix caps lock key.
