Central European Journal of Physics

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 754–758 | Cite as

Relativistic perihelion precession of orbits of Venus and the Earth

  • Abhijit Biswas
  • Krishnan R. S. ManiEmail author
Short Communication


Among all the theories proposed to explain the “anomalous” perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit first announced in 1859 by Le Verrier, the general theory of relativity proposed by Einstein in November 1915 alone could calculate Mercury’s “anomalous” precession with the precision demanded by observational accuracy. Since Mercury’s precession was a directly derived result of the full general theory, it was viewed by Einstein as the most critical test of general relativity from amongst the three tests he proposed. With the advent of the space age, the level of observational accuracy has improved further and it is now possible to detect this precession for other planetary orbits of the solar system — viz., Venus and the Earth. This conclusively proved that the phenomenon of “anomalous” perihelion precession of planetary orbits is a relativistic effect. Our previous papers presented the mathematical model and the computed value of the relativistic perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit using an alternate relativistic gravitational model, which is a remodeled form of Einstein’s relativity theories, and which retained only experimentally proven principles. In addition this model has the benefit of data from almost a century of relativity experimentation, including those that have become possible with the advent of the space age. Using this model, we present in this paper the computed values of the relativistic precession of Venus and the Earth, which compare well with the predictions of general relativity and are also in agreement with the observed values within the range of uncertainty.


perihelion precession relativistic precession Venus Earth numerical relativity relativity theory 

PACS (2008)

04.25.D- 04.50.Kd 03.30.+p 45.50.Pk 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    C.M. Will, In: Proceedings of the XXVI SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics, Ed. L. Dixon, 1998, SLAC, Stanford, California (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford 1998), 15 list.html, arXiv:gr-qc/9811036 Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Biswas, K.R.S. Mani, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 2, 687 (2004)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Biswas, K.R.S. Mani, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 3, 69 (2005)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Biswas, K.R.S. Mani, Phys. Essays (in press)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C.W. Gear, Comm. of the ACM, 14, 176 (1971)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    T.D. Moyer, In: J. P. L. Tech. Rept., 32-1527, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, USA, 1971)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    X.X. Newhall, E.M. Standish, J.G. Williams, Astron. Astrophys. 125, 150 (1983)zbMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Iorio, arXiv:0710.2610v1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsGodopy Center for Scientific ResearchCalcuttaIndia

Personalised recommendations