Evidence that elastic strings explain precession

Repulsion forces between satellite and central body was used to explain Mercury's precession thought due to relativity. Let’s see how this jibes with the evidence when a regression analysis is used to predict precession for four known satellites, whose precession values are known. The results are shown in the following table.




It was gratifying to find that elastic string theory does a better job of predicting precession than Einstein’s equation and general relativity.


To delve into the details of how this regression analysis was run is beyond the scope of this blog; however, it is completely explained in my book. I will simply point out that the independent variables used were the difference in the concentration of the Sun's gravitons at aphelion versus perihelion, and the difference in angles of displacement between aphelion and perihelion (actually combined into one by multiplying) In addition, I used diameter of the satellite as one independent variable. Thus there were two independent variables.

The value of R squared that is computed in this analysis is an unbiased estimate of the relationship between the observed precession of the satellites and the two independent variables. If R squared is one, it means there is perfect correlation. R squared for this analysis is 0.9999991, which means there is almost perfect correlation.

If and when I get the observed precession for the other planets, and or asteroids, I will include them in this analysis. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Planet Mercury does not obey universal law of gravitation

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Mercury’s rotation about the Sun constantly changes. The point it is closest to the Sun advances forward in space with every rotation. Most of this change is due to the tug and pull of other solar bodies; however, there are 43 arc seconds per century that can not be explained in this manner. Einstein proposed that the 43 arc seconds discrepancy can be explained by his general theory of relativity. This view is not shared by all scientists in the field as explained in my book.

In 1958, Coleman, a former physics professor at UCLA, calculated that Mercury’s 43 arc seconds discrepancy can be explained if the difference in the force of attraction between Sun and planet at aphelion versus perihelion does not follow the universal law of gravitation. If the force of attraction at perihelion, when the planet it closest to the Sun, is 0.00000396 less than expected, this would completely explain Mercury’s strange orbit thought due to relativity. I propose this is the difference in repulsion forces experienced by the planet at aphelion versus perihelion.

When the planet is closest to the Sun, the repulsion forces push it away more than average, which serves to advance the perihelion point. At aphelion the opposite occurs and Mercury is pulled in towards the Sun more than average. Both serve to advance the perihelion point of Mercury. In future blogs, I will present strong evidence to support this contention. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com