3 ms·
Just think about it. If relativistic mass (a term that indeed tends to be avoided by actual physicists for good reasons, because it confuses concepts of mass an
by sigmoid10 3y ago
Just think about it. If relativistic mass (a term that indeed tends to be avoided by actual physicists for good reasons, because it confuses concepts of mass and energy which are clearly defined in relativity) was the explanation, then the shape of the planet's orbit itself would influence the anomalous precession component from General Relativity. And you would see no relativistic effect at all for perfectly circular orbits with zero eccentricity. That is simply not the case.
- plank 3y agoThe explanation of grandparents for the perihelium effect of Mercury tried to explain the 'overshoot'. And yes, in a perfectly circular orbit there would be no overshoot?? I do not think grandparent tried to say that all relativistic effects were caused by the increase of the 'relativistic' mass, just that the overshoot was. So I am sorry: I cannot see how this argument disproves the explanation of grandparent. And just to be clear: I do not think in the way of grandparents argument myself. Kind regards, Roel
- sigmoid10 3y ago>And yes, in a perfectly circular orbit there would be no overshoot?? That's where you and the other comment are wrong. The only way to get a stable circular two body orbit is for newtonian potentials which are exactly 1/r shaped. Add any other term (like 1/r^3 for General Relativity) and you essentially get more or less chaotic movement over time, similar to the three body problem in newtonian gravity. See Betrand's theorem [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_theorem