If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Steve Dufourny: on 8/3/21 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote You are welcome, I liked it indeed , the newtoniam mechanics, the DE, the...
Christian Corda: on 8/3/21 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Thanks Steve, I am happy that you like it. Cheers,Ch.
Steve Dufourny: on 8/2/21 at 17:30pm UTC, wrote Hi, It is an interesting paper, friendly
Christian Corda: on 8/2/21 at 15:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, Thanks a lot. It is an honour for me to have my paper signalled...
Joe Schindler: on 7/19/21 at 18:20pm UTC, wrote Thank you to Dr. Christian Corda for suggesting we open a thread to discuss...
Steve Dufourny: on 8/3/21 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote You are welcome, I liked it indeed , the newtoniam mechanics, the DE, the...
Christian Corda: on 8/3/21 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Thanks Steve, I am happy that you like it. Cheers,Ch.
Steve Dufourny: on 8/2/21 at 17:30pm UTC, wrote Hi, It is an interesting paper, friendly
Christian Corda: on 8/2/21 at 15:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, Thanks a lot. It is an honour for me to have my paper signalled...
Joe Schindler: on 7/19/21 at 18:20pm UTC, wrote Thank you to Dr. Christian Corda for suggesting we open a thread to discuss...
FQXi FORUM
September 28, 2021
CATEGORY:
Cosmology
[back]
TOPIC: The secret of planets’ perihelion between Newton and Einstein [refresh]
TOPIC: The secret of planets’ perihelion between Newton and Einstein [refresh]
Thank you to Dr. Christian Corda for suggesting we open a thread to discuss their recent result The secret of planets’ perihelion between Newton and Einstein, which was published in Physics of the Dark Universe in May 2021.
Abstract:
"Three different approaches show that, contrary to a longstanding conviction older than 160 years, the advance of Mercury’s perihelion can be achieved in Newtonian gravity with a very high precision by correctly analyzing the situation without neglecting Mercury’s mass. General relativity remains more precise than Newtonian physics, but Newtonian framework is more powerful than researchers and astronomers were thinking till now, at least for the case of Mercury.
The Newtonian formula of the advance of planets’ perihelion breaks down for the other planets. The predicted Newtonian result is indeed too large for Venus and Earth. Therefore, it is also shown that corrections due to gravitational and rotational time dilation, in an intermediate framework which analyzes gravity between Newton and Einstein, solve the problem. By adding such corrections, a result consistent with the one of general relativity is indeed obtained.
Thus, the most important results of this paper are two: (i) It is not correct that Newtonian theory cannot predict the anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of planets’ orbit. The real problem is instead that a pure Newtonian prediction is too large. (ii) Perihelion’s precession can be achieved with the same precision of general relativity by extending Newtonian gravity through the inclusion of gravitational and rotational time dilation effects. This second result is in agreement with a couple of recent and interesting papers of Hansen, Hartong and Obers. Differently from such papers, in the present work the importance of rotational time dilation is also highlighted.
Finally, it is important to stress that a better understanding of gravitational effects in an intermediate framework between Newtonian theory and general relativity, which is one of the goals of this paper, could, in principle, be crucial for a subsequent better understanding of the famous Dark Matter and Dark Energy problems."
Abstract:
"Three different approaches show that, contrary to a longstanding conviction older than 160 years, the advance of Mercury’s perihelion can be achieved in Newtonian gravity with a very high precision by correctly analyzing the situation without neglecting Mercury’s mass. General relativity remains more precise than Newtonian physics, but Newtonian framework is more powerful than researchers and astronomers were thinking till now, at least for the case of Mercury.
The Newtonian formula of the advance of planets’ perihelion breaks down for the other planets. The predicted Newtonian result is indeed too large for Venus and Earth. Therefore, it is also shown that corrections due to gravitational and rotational time dilation, in an intermediate framework which analyzes gravity between Newton and Einstein, solve the problem. By adding such corrections, a result consistent with the one of general relativity is indeed obtained.
Thus, the most important results of this paper are two: (i) It is not correct that Newtonian theory cannot predict the anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of planets’ orbit. The real problem is instead that a pure Newtonian prediction is too large. (ii) Perihelion’s precession can be achieved with the same precision of general relativity by extending Newtonian gravity through the inclusion of gravitational and rotational time dilation effects. This second result is in agreement with a couple of recent and interesting papers of Hansen, Hartong and Obers. Differently from such papers, in the present work the importance of rotational time dilation is also highlighted.
Finally, it is important to stress that a better understanding of gravitational effects in an intermediate framework between Newtonian theory and general relativity, which is one of the goals of this paper, could, in principle, be crucial for a subsequent better understanding of the famous Dark Matter and Dark Energy problems."
Dear Joe,
Thanks a lot. It is an honour for me to have my paper signalled in FQXi.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Thanks a lot. It is an honour for me to have my paper signalled in FQXi.
Cheers, Ch.
You are welcome, I liked it indeed , the newtoniam mechanics, the DE, the DM and this GR merit to find their secrets, we need to better understand them at all scales , congrats .
report post as inappropriate
Login or create account to post reply or comment.