Meta Model and Perihelic Rotation

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I was curious as to what the MM predicts as an equation for perihelic advance in orbital motion and what the MM explanation for the advance is. This was not clear to me in reading "Dark Matter, Missing Planets".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A pair of 1999 articles in the <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i> covered this matter. [Vol. 8 #1 & #2] These showed exactly how and why the perihelion of any orbit must advance when gravitational force has a Le Sagian character (as in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>) and bodies orbit in a field of elysium (the light-carrying medium) whose density becomes greater near large masses.

The final formula is the same as in general relativity for the field of a single source mass such as the Sun. But it is different when two large masses interact, as for binary pulsars. Observations should tell us which formula is better within a few years.

Even for the single-source-mass case (as for Mercury's orbit in the Sun's field), the basic form of the formula comes from the properties of an ellipse. The only contribution of the gravitational theory is to determine the numerical corfficient of that formula. Observations show the correct numerical coefficient is +3, which was known since the mid-19th century. GR arrives at that answer by combining three effects: One contributes +4, another contributes +1, and the last contributes -2, for a net of +3. In the Meta Model, the correct total of +3 arises immediately in one step from a single contribution. -|Tom|-

I assume that the difference in the models becomes more severe as we get closer to the Sun? Could the two models be differentiated by tracking an artificial satellite between the Sun and Mercury?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I assume that the difference in the models becomes more severe as we get closer to the Sun? Could the two models be differentiated by tracking an artificial satellite between the Sun and Mercury?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, there is no difference for the single-mass case. (Mercury's own mass is not a factor in its perihelion advance.) The coefficient is exactly 3 in both models.

The difference arises because a new factor appears that depends only of the sums and products of the two masses involved. The new factor is unity when one of the masses is very small compared with the other. But it can depart significantly from unity for nearly equal masses. -|Tom|-