There is always an alternative.
Newton was perfectly well aware of the small flaws in Celestial Mechanics. When confronted with options, the simpler one is usually the correct. …
The tract Einstein issued adding so much to our understanding of Gravity, might just as easily be wrong as not. I have been watching the programme on BBC 2 about the two theorists: Einstein and Eddington.
One of the two alternatives put out by the Encyclopedia Britannica in the decade I read up on it, was that the centre of the solar system might not be exactly where we suppose it to be. That the sun might not have a simple central centre of gravity.
Consider the pyrotechnics involved in this plot:
Basically it works out that if you multiply the distancees of the planets from the sun by the equations shown, they meet in this ratio.
But the position of the sun isn't their focus. So do you measure the centres or do you just work with what you have?
For the time being, the centre of the solar system is not where it is supposed to be. Is it something that is taken care of by the planetary motions?
The equation is for average distances, it works just as well if you do it in their "periods" (their orbital times.) The above graphic gives the distances in AU (Astronomical Units, distances compared to that of the Earth from the sun.)
So does the solar system's fluid journey through the galaxy impinge on this? Who knows? Not me that is for certain. I think that what has been ignored too long is the fact that weather and seismicity absorb a great deal of the missing gravity. Nowadays the talk is of missing star matter.
If Einstein was so clever and his theory of relativity… his theories of relativity (I have no idea how many version there are now, I believe he was working on 4 -and maybe a fifth one as he died.)
The problem that astronomers turned up was something called the precession of the nodes of Mercury. I am digging into a very shabby memory here, when I aught to be looking these things up. But if I start surfing for info I will get lost in it and lose interest in the post.
I can always come back to correct it.
The problem that astronomers turned up was something called the precession of the nodes of Mercury. What you may not know and it is something that bothers no one but me, is that the angle of Mercury through the nodes is immense. It is greater than the appearance of our twin planet the Moon is to us.
On a Nautical Almanack, in some years, the lunar nodes reach as far as 27.5 degrees above and below the equator. Mercury, IIRC, reaches about 30 degrees either side of the eccliptic (what we might term the solar equator. A line drawn out from the centre of the sun to the centre of the zodiac signs through which it passes -or appears to pass, every year.)
I think that that is more than enough science to post in a blog. I will have to come back to it one day and make some corrections -unless a passer-by posts a suitable comment doing so. All donations gracefully percieved.