The Theory of Observational Relativity Serial Report 4: Reexamining Einstein's prediction on Mercury

<ns7:p> Background The theory of Observational Relativity (OR) as a new theory of physics is reported in the form of serial reports in F1000Research. Now, OR Serial Report 4 focuses on re-examining Einstein’s prediction on Mercury’s perihelion precession from the perspective of OR. In 1916, from general relativity, Einstein derived an equation of planetary motion. Unlike Newton’s, Einstein’s equation of planetary motion has an additional orbital-precession item: 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> , based on which Einstein made the famous prediction: Mercury’s perihelion precesses by 43.03″ every 100 Earth Years. Einstein’s 43.03″ seems to exactly match the 43.11″ left in the history data of Mercury that has not yet found a definite reason. This was an early successful case of Einstein’s theory of general theory. Methods The theory of OR has also deduced an equation of planetary motion that also has an additional orbital-precession item: 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> . However, the difference is that, in the 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> , the speed of light <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> in Einstein’s 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> is replaced by the speed <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> of the information wave of the general observation agent OA( <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> ) (0&lt; <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> &lt;∞; <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> →∞). In fact, Einstein’s orbital-precession item 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> observed with the optical agent OA( <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> ) is just a special case ( <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> = <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> ) of the OR orbital-precession item 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> observed with OA( <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> ). Results It is obvious that the orbital-precession item 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> purely depends on the speed <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> of the information wave of OA( <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> ). This fact indicates that both the 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> of OR and Einstein’s 3 <ns7:italic>GM</ns7:italic> / <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> <ns7:italic>r</ns7:italic> <ns7:sup>2</ns7:sup> ( <ns7:italic>η</ns7:italic> = <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> ) do not represent the objective and real precession of planetary orbits. Conclusions It is thus clear that Einstein’s prediction on Mercury’s perihelion precession, that is, the 43.03″ per century, is a sort of observational effect and apparent phenomenon caused by the observational locality ( <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> &lt;∞) of the optical agent OA( <ns7:italic>c</ns7:italic> ), rather than the objectively real physical existence. </ns7:p>