<blockquote>
  <p>And we know that many of astronomers know that mercury orbit does not precess ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mercury's orbit <strong>does</strong> precess, by a good amount. The greatest amount is explained by Newtonian mechanics. Venus, Jupiter, and to a lesser extent, all the other planets, make Mercury's orbit precess by <a href="https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm" rel="noreferrer">over 500 arcseconds per century</a>. A key problem of the latter half of the 19th century was that the calculated precession of Mercury disagreed with its observed precession by 46 arcseconds per century.</p>

<p>General relativity fully explains this apparent discrepancy. This postdiction was one of the key reasons that general relativity was accepted so quickly compared to many other scientific theories that represented a radical change from orthodoxy.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-27T14:01:57.307Z
Thanks though. But please sir read my last part carefully @david.
आर्यभट्ट
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-27T14:36:46.700Z
We have centuries of observations to which I alluded in my answer, @YuvrajSingh... Observed values take precedence over computed values. Because the computed values didn't agree with the observed values, astronomers searched for yet another planet that might explain Mercury's anomalous precession. That approach did work for explaining Uranus's anomalous precession; it was how Neptune was discovered. It did not work for Mercury. But general relativity did work.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-27T14:54:00.493Z
Wow, that, s thing I want to know, regarding process word sir I will quote the book name too. @David Hammen.
आर्यभट्ट
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T05:42:04.037Z
Isn't there at least a small component of precession due to the Sun's $J_2$?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T07:19:58.533Z
@uhoh - Yes, but it's tiny, so very tiny (about 0.03 arcseconds/century) that until recently it was a theoretical effect only. What changed recently is that NASA sent its MESSENGER vehicle to Mercury.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T07:40:31.523Z
@DavidHammen cool! So I've just asked [How was the Messenger spacecraft used to measure Mercury's orbital precession to such accuracy? Could this have been done using radar?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34855/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-27T13:52:10.567Z
2020-01-27T13:52:10.567Z
David Hammen
<p>I have read that many physicists challenge the theory of general relativity, and it has been proved many times that it is correct; my question is on Mercury's orbit. And we know that many of astronomers know that Mercury orbit does not precess, and astronomers said that result would, t be same because  quoting the article from my chat discussion. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If we calculate the orbit of Mercury using Newtonian gravity then in fact we find it does precess. This precession is caused by interactions with the other planets. But when you calculate the precession using Newtonian gravity you find it gives a value that is too low.
  That is when we observe Mercury we find it precesses faster than Newtonian gravity predicts,it is Because of the gravitational filed of other planet ''. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>So my question do we have another proof other than assumptions of calculation - I mean do we have some significant events that prove that we were correct?. </p>

<p>Edit:) due to some close request I clear again the my question is not based that how GR proof mercury orbit precession. So that duplicate question doesn, t answer my question. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-27T14:39:14.120Z
Where have you read that Mercury's orbit does not precess? It is a very well known and very well observed fact that its orbit does precess.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-27T20:42:24.383Z
"I  have read that...."   guarantees that whatever follows is false.  Please don't post questions based on writings from crackpots.
Carl Witthoft
<orbit><general-relativity><mercury>
Path of Mercury and general relativity
आर्यभट्ट
# Path of Mercury and general relativity

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-27)

I have read that many physicists challenge the theory of general relativity, and it has been proved many times that it is correct; my question is on Mercury's orbit. And we know that many of astronomers know that Mercury orbit does not precess, and astronomers said that result would, t be same because quoting the article from my chat discussion.

> If we calculate the orbit of Mercury using Newtonian gravity then in fact we find it does precess. This precession is caused by interactions with the other planets. But when you calculate the precession using Newtonian gravity you find it gives a value that is too low.
> That is when we observe Mercury we find it precesses faster than Newtonian gravity predicts,it is Because of the gravitational filed of other planet ''.

So my question do we have another proof other than assumptions of calculation - I mean do we have some significant events that prove that we were correct?.

Edit:) due to some close request I clear again the my question is not based that how GR proof mercury orbit precession. So that duplicate question doesn, t answer my question.

**Tags:** orbit, general-relativity, mercury

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Where have you read that Mercury's orbit does not precess? It is a very well known and very well observed fact that its orbit does precess.  
> **username_2**: "I  have read that...."   guarantees that whatever follows is false.  Please don't post questions based on writings from crackpots.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-01-27. Score: 8

> And we know that many of astronomers know that mercury orbit does not precess ...

Mercury's orbit **does** precess, by a good amount. The greatest amount is explained by Newtonian mechanics. Venus, Jupiter, and to a lesser extent, all the other planets, make Mercury's orbit precess by [over 500 arcseconds per century](https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath280/kmath280.htm). A key problem of the latter half of the 19th century was that the calculated precession of Mercury disagreed with its observed precession by 46 arcseconds per century.

General relativity fully explains this apparent discrepancy. This postdiction was one of the key reasons that general relativity was accepted so quickly compared to many other scientific theories that represented a radical change from orthodoxy.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks though. But please sir read my last part carefully @username_1.  
> **username_1**: We have centuries of observations to which I alluded in my answer, @YuvrajSingh... Observed values take precedence over computed values. Because the computed values didn't agree with the observed values, astronomers searched for yet another planet that might explain Mercury's anomalous precession. That approach did work for explaining Uranus's anomalous precession; it was how Neptune was discovered. It did not work for Mercury. But general relativity did work.  
> **username_0**: Wow, that, s thing I want to know, regarding process word sir I will quote the book name too. @username_1.  
> **username_3**: Isn't there at least a small component of precession due to the Sun's $J_2$?  
> **username_1**: @username_3 - Yes, but it's tiny, so very tiny (about 0.03 arcseconds/century) that until recently it was a theoretical effect only. What changed recently is that NASA sent its MESSENGER vehicle to Mercury.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 cool! So I've just asked [How was the Messenger spacecraft used to measure Mercury's orbital precession to such accuracy? Could this have been done using radar?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34855/7982)  

---

