GRAVITY IN VETHATHIRIAN MODEL

The initial version of this paper was presented in a conference organized by the British Society for the Philosophy
of Science at Imperial College, London (1996). This final version was presented at a Seminar entitled – Gravity :
A New Perspective organized by the Periyar Center of Science and Technology, Chennai, on Dec. 18, 2003.

ALAGAR RAMANUJAM and UMA

Arutperumjothi Nagar, Aliyar
and
K.PERUMAL,
PG Dept. of Physics, S R K V College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
ABSTRACT

Gravity was the first discovered force, but remains least understood. To quote Jayant Narlikar: “Gravity
remains shrouded in mystery and Nature has more secrets up her sleeve.” In 1687 Newton proclaimed
a rule of the cosmos, describing how (but not why) two objects attract each other with a force proportional
to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. His law, deduced empirically
from Kepler’s laws, was highly successful. However, Newton’s concept of action at a distance came in
direct conflict with the special theory of relativity. Newton’s gravity was replaced by Einstein’s general
theory of relativity which suggested that matter curves the space, causing planets and light beams to
move in curved paths. It may be noted that Einstein did not question Newton’s version of the source of
gravity as mass, but he improved the mechanism of the gravitational interaction. General relativity
predicted many far-reaching results, but nevertheless has its limitations. Current theories speculating on
“dark matter” and “missing mass” have raised serious questions about the nature and source of gravity.
A careful reexamination of Newton’s and Einstein’s concept of gravity reveals that, in both the cases,
mass remains undefined. It is precisely for this reason that gravity is still not understood. The work
presented in this paper mainly addresses the question of the source of gravity. Our approach is to define
mass in terms of its kinematic factors and thereby we reach the source of gravity. The axioms on which
this paper is based have been originally given by Shri Vethathiri Maharishi and therefore the present work
is called the “Vethathirian Model”.

INTRODUCTION
Motivation for the work presented
here comes from the agony and
ecstasy expressed by great giants of
Science - Newton, Einstein, Narlikar
and Stephen Hawking. The law of
gravitation F = GMm/r2 is a great gift
of Newton to the world.
As Narlikar pointed out in his book1 :
”It is simple in its statement, yet wide
in its application.”;”The force of gravity
cannot be eliminated altogether at
any point under any circumstances”;
”Gravity permeates everything and is
a permanent feature of space and
time.” The law has predicted even
unknown planets and it has helped
mankind to put a man on the moon
and launch artificial satellites around
the earth and thereby had
tremendous impact on our culture
and civilization.
But again, as Narlikar pointed out,
Newton’s laws of motion and
gravitation, which have served us so
well, may not be entirely correct. The
inadequacy of the expression for the
law of gravity is evident and expressed
by Newton himself in one of his
letters to a friend, Richard Bentley,
where he observes:
“That gravity should be innate, inherent
and essential to matter, so that one
body may act upon another at a
distance through a vacuum without
the mediation of anything else, by
and through their action and force
may be conveyed from one to another,
is to me so great an absurdity that I
believe no man who has in
philosophical matters a competent
faculty of thinking, can ever fall into
it.”
When Newton was asked if he had
probed deeper into the origin of this
law of gravitation, as to why such a
law operated in nature, he remarked:
“Non fingo hypotheses (I do not frame
hypotheses).” His approach was
essentially empirical, to observe
natural phenomena, look for a pattern
and see if it followed from a simple
but general law.
A deep look into the formula
F = GMm/r2
reveals that it is deduced from
Kepler’s empirical laws but not
derived from basic axioms, as
admitted by Newton himself.
Newton assumes “action at a
distance” which in turn implies infinite
velocity and this contradicts the r2
dependence in his own formula. The
above picture throws a challenge to
the scientific community. The
21
January 2004
challenge is : To derive the law of
gravity from a set of basic axioms.
This challenge was first met by
Einstein and the result is his general
theory of relativity. Einstein essentially
retained the notion of Newton that
mass is responsible for the
gravitational interaction, but drastically
differed from Newton in the mechanism
of the interaction between two
masses. While Newton had no viable
mechanism for the gravitational
interaction, Einstein asserted that
mass does not directly act on another
mass but it acts on the space between
the two masses. Thus, Einstein
elevated space from a passive role to
an active role. For Einstein, gravity is
an interaction arising due to a massive
particle’s effect on the space
surrounding it, making the space
curved. Any particle within the ambit
of that distorted space gets affected.
Einstein was the first to realize and
to declare the dynamic and active
nature of the space, which was
considered earlier to be a passive
background. In Einstein’s approach
gravity manifests as the acquired
geometrical property of the space.
Einstein did not agree that mass is
an inherent property, but asserted
that it is a parameter determined by
and imposed by the surroundings, as
suggested by Mach. This implies that
mass is time variant; nevertheless, in
his equation he treated mass as a
constant, as Newton did. Thus, he
has not incorporated Mach’s concept
in his equations.
Both Newton and Einstein assume
that the mass of a particle is the
cause for gravity but they have not
defined what mass is. Thus, any
theory of gravity without a basic
definition for mass will remain
incomplete. So the real challenge
is to understand and define mass.
THE CONCEPT OF MASS :
“ ‘Mass is mess’ as a contemporary
physicist punningly phrased it, should
not come as a surprise. For, in the
world of human thought generally,
and in physical science particularly,
January 2004
the most important and most fruitful
concepts are those to which it is
impossible to attach a well-established
meaning.
Today, as then, most authors define
the inertial mass m, of a particle as
the ratio between the force F acting
on the particle and the acceleration a
of the particle produced by that force,
or briefly as “the proportionality factor
between a force and the acceleration
produced by it.
The deficiency of this definition, based
as it is on Newton’s second law of
motion
F = ma
is of course its use of the notion of
force. For if “force” is regarded as a
primitive, that is, as an undefined
term, then this definition defines an
ignotum per ignotius; and if “force” is
defined, as it generally is, as the
product of acceleration and mass,
then the definition is obviously circular.
If it were possible to define the mass
of a body or particle on its own in
purely kinematical terms and without
any implicit reference to a unit of
mass, such a definition might be
expected to throw some light on the
nature of mass. Such a definition, if it
existed, would integrate dynamics
into kinematics”.2
The strength and the clue for the
present work come from the
philosophical treatise of Shri.Vethathiri
Maharishi, a living saint of South
India.
The present work is therefore termed
the Vethathirian Model of Universe
and Beyond. The axioms of this
model are based on his philosophy of
Being and Becoming.
BASIC AXIOMS OF THE MODEL3,4,5:
1. Space is characterised by an
inherent self-compressive
pressure whose intensification
results in the formation of a
spinning quantum of space, called
“formative dust”, which in turn is
compressed en masse to form
particles called Vethons. Such
free vethons are present
throughout the physical universe
even in the so-called vacuum,
and constitute what we call the
free particle medium.
2. Free vethons combine due to the
compressive nature of space to
form different chemical elements,
which further combining become
molecules and bulk matter.
3. Every vethon radiates a spreading
wave around it by the constant
emission of its constituent dust.
The force of this spreading wave
called magnetic wave impinging
on another particle tends to
increase the distance between
them, resulting in a repulsive force
between the two particles.
4. The self-compressive nature of
the space tends to decrease the
distance between any two
particles and thus the inherent
self-compressive pressure of
space itself is gravity.
The first statement above describes
the built-in mechanism of the space
to produce the fundamental particles
of which further structures are made.
This built-in mechanism is postulated
here as the self-compressive nature
of space.
The second statement may be seen
as a kind of distant reference to the
repulsive force introduced by Einstein
through his cosmological constant.
VETHATHIRIAN LAW OF GRAVITY:
The study of the interaction between
the sun and the planets using the
second and third postulates above
leads us to a formula which we call
Vethathirian law of gravity and after a
suitable approximation the same
reduces to Newton’s law of gravity. A
significant by-product of the derivation
presented here is an expression for
the mass of a body in terms of its
causative forces.
We consider a test particle (p) of unit
area at a distance ‘r’ from the sun with
an orbital velocity. We discuss below
the net force on (p) due to compressive
and repulsive forces. The compressive
force acting on every unit area of the
imaginary sphere of the radius r is
converging towards the centre of the
sun. As r decreases, the surface area
over which the compressive force
acts decreases and hence the
compressive pressure due to space
increases. Let Cs represent the
compressive pressure on the surface
of the sun. Then the compressive
pressure on the test particle at a
πR2Cs/4π
distance r is given by 4π πr2 or
2 2
R Cs/ r where R is the radius of the
sun.
Let Rs be the outward flux per unit
area of the surface of the sun. The
total outward repulsive flux from the
sun spreading radially outward is
4πR2 Rs. As r increases, the repulsive
flux per unit area decreases and is
πR2 Rs/4π
given by 4π πr2 or R2 Rs/r2.
Due to the net compressive force
(Cs – Rs)R2/r2, the cylindrical column
of the free particle medium between
the unit area of the test particle p and
the sun’s surface gets compressed.
Due to this compression, the
cylindrical column comprising of the
mutually repulsing free particles
manifests a reaction which acts on p
outwardly. Let K be the mean reactive
repulsive force on the particle due to
the mutually repelling free particles
present per unit length of r. Then kr
gives an effective repulsive force on
the particle.
Hence, the magnitude of the net
centripetal force (F) on the particle is
given by,
F = R2 Cs/r2 – R2 Rs/r2 – Kr (1)
= ( Cs – Rs ) R2 / r2 – Kr
Since ( Cs – Rs ) is the net gripping
force per unit area of the surface of
the sun, the total gripping force on
πR2 (Cs- Rs).
the sun is 4π
This total gripping force is the cause
for the resistance that any applied
force on the sun meets with and this
resistance is taken as inertia of the
sun. We make an universal statement
that the inertia of a body is directly
proportional to the net gripping force
on it due to space surrounding it. By
this statement we write :
(Inertia or the mass of a body) α (Total
net gripping force on the body due to
space)
(Inertia or the mass of a body) = β
(net gripping force on the body due to
space)
where β is a universal constant.
In the case of Sun, if M is its mass
M = β 4π
πR2(Cs-Rs) (2)
Since every factor on the R.H.S of the
eq. (2) is related to the object (Sun),
M becomes a characteristic constant
associated with the object (the Sun).
Eq. (2) explains how the body acquires
the mass, whereas the formula m = f/a
indicates how to measure
that mass when it is dynamically
affected.
“The concept of mass is one of the
most fundamental notions in physics,
comparable in importance only to
those of space and time. But in
contrast to the latter, which are the
subject of innumerable physical and
philosophical studies, the concept of
mass has been but rarely investigated.
The notion of mass, although
fundamental to physics, is still
shrouded in mystery”.2 It is in this
context that our eq.(2), which explains
the source of inertia or mass, deserves
serious attention.
One of the earliest observed qualities
of matter was its inertia. Galileo
interpreted inertia of matter as the
resistance that a body would give to
a force applied on it. Following Galileo,
Newton obtained the inertia or mass
(m) of a body as a constant of
proportionality between a force applied
on it and the acceleration thus
produced. Hence, in his scheme,
Newton considered the mass of a
body as absolute. Mach challenged
the absoluteness of inertia of the
body, and argued that the inertia of a
body is a measure of its interaction
with the ambient matter and hence
depends on the configuration of matter
surrounding the body.
Eq. (2) considers mass as arising
due to the gripping on it by the
compressive nature of space. If as a
hypothetical case, there were only
one particle present with no other
ambient matter existing, the inertia of
that particle would be zero according
to Mach, but it would have a value
according to Vethathirian model
because of the ubiquitous space
gripping the particle.
Combining eq (1) and (2) we have
π) M/r2 – Kr
F = (1/β 4π (3)
The first term on the right hand side of
eq. (3) is the Newtonian law of Gravity
asserting that the centripetal force on
p is directly proportional to the mass
of the sun and inversely proportional
to the square of the distance r of p
from the sun and the second term is
additional one that our approach gives.
Denoting the constant (1/β 4π
π ) as G,
we have
F(r) = GM/r2 – Kr (3)
Eq. (3) is called the Vethathirian law
of Gravity.
SIGNIFICANCE OF K :
The gravitational potential V(r)
corresponding to eq. (3) may be
obtained as
V(r ) = - GM/r - Kr2/2 (4)
This expression for V(r) may be
compared with the gravitational
potential obtained while solving the
field equations of Einstein with
cosmological constant taken into
account.
Λ r2 (5)
V(r ) = - 2GM/r - 1/3Λ
Comparing eq. (4) and (5), we note
that the constant K introduced in this
paper plays a role similar to that of
the cosmological constant (Λ) of
Einstein. Both are representing a
kind of repulsive force.
As Stephen Hawking observes: “In an
attempt to find a model of the universe
in which many different initial
configurations could have evolved to
something like the present universe,
a scientist at the Massachusetts
January 2004
Institute of Technology, Alan Guth,
suggested that the early universe
might have gone through a period of
very rapid expansion. This expansion
is said to be “inflationary,” meaning
that the universe at one time expanded
at an increasing rate rather than the
decreasing rate that it does today.
This special extra energy can be
shown to have an anti gravitational
effect : it would have acted just like
the cosmological constant that
Einstein introduced into general
relativity when he was trying to
construct a static model of the
universe. Since the universe would
already be expanding just as in the
hot big bang model, the repulsive
effect of this cosmological constant
would therefore have made the
universe expand at an ever-increasing
rate.
In such a universe, in which the
expansion was accelerated by a
cosmological constant rather than
slowed down by the gravitational
attraction of matter, there would be
enough time for light to travel from
one region to another in the early
universe. This could provide a solution
to the problem, raised earlier of why
different regions in the early universe
have the same properties”.
The above observations of Stephen
Hawking amplify the need to have
repulsive force as a part of any viable
cosmological theory.
The Kr term in the expression for F in
eq. (3) has certain interesting features.
According to Newton’s law of gravity
the gravitational force binding the two
systems vanishes only at infinity. But
here, the force F as given by eq. (3)
vanishes at a finite distance rH given
as
rH = (GM/K)1/3 (6)
January 2004
NEWTONS LAW OF GRAVITY –
DERIVED
Since K has a similar role as that of
the cosmological constant (Λ) of
Einstein, the Kr term will have
significant value only on the
cosmological distances. On the
terrestrial level, the term Kr can be
neglected and when we do so we get
back Newton’s law of Gravity.
It is worth noting here that while
Newton derived his law of gravity from
the experimental observations
condensed in Kepler’s laws of
planetary motion, it is re-derived here
from the axioms of the model. It is
gratifying to note that we are able to
get back Newton’s law of gravity as a
component of our expression for
gravitational force.
A re-derivation of a well known formula
by a fresh set of axioms demonstrates
not only the relative validity of the
past but also the enlarged validity of
the present. The re-derivation of
Planck’s law of radiation by Einstein’s
photon concept; the Newtonian
formula F = ma by Hamilton’s
variational principle, and Schroedinger’s
wave equation by path integral method
of Feynman are some of the
landmarks in the history of physics.
ACTION AT A DISTANCE :
Newton could not conceive of a
medium in vacuum. Hence, he was
forced to have the concept of “action
at a distance” which requires no
medium for the gravitational action.
This concept of “action at a distance”
implies infinite velocity. Later, when
Einstein advanced his special theory
of relativity, he found the concept of
infinite velocity to be incompatible
with the finite speed of light. The
study initiated by this incompatibility
resulted in the General Theory of
Relativity wherein we talk of
gravitational wave travelling with the
speed of light.
A look at our eq. (1) reveals that it
contains in a way the “action at a
distance” concept of Newton through
the term C and the travelling wave
concept of Einstein through R.
The term C is rather indicative of the
“action at a distance” but with a more
profound implication : As the
compressive force on p is due to
space, such a force is ever-present
on p no matter where the particle p is
located in space. Thus there is no
“travel” involved for the compressive
action; in other words, gravity does
not travel. Factors of time and
distance are irrelevant to gravity in
this model.
The flux represented by R in eq. (1)
emanates from the sun and it takes
certain time to travel and reach the
particle p. Thus R represents the
travelling wave aspect of Einstein.
However, it must be stressed here
that what is travelling is not
compressive gravity but the repulsive
flux.
DISCUSSION :
The significance of eq. (1) of this
paper is that it expresses the
centripetal force F in terms of the
contributing forces. This is in sharp
contrast to the approach of Newton
wherein he expressed the force F in
terms of the masses and to the
approach of Einstein wherein he wrote
his field equations in terms of
parameters of the curvature of space.
The approach employed in this paper
may be called monistic (or Advaitic)
in its spirit.
Newton worked with four
independents – Space, Time, matter
and Energy; but Einstein worked with
two independents : (Space – Time )
and (matter – energy). Space and
time are made interdependent by
Lorentz transformation; matter and
energy are made interdependent by
the relation, E = mc2.
To begin from a basic unitary state
and to see the physical phenomena
as arising from that state, essentially
represent a monistic approach in
science. The Model presented here
begins from the Beginning – the
single entity, space. Space itself
transforms into the universe. By self-
compressing, space becomes
particles. The gripping force on a
particle due to space manifests as
the mass of the particle. As already
discussed, the spin of a particle
produces in space a radially outward
flux which we call magnetic wave.
The compressive nature of space
tends to decrease the distance
between any two particles, whereas
the magnetic flux emanating from
particles tends to increase the
distance between them, thus
constituting a repulsive force. Under
the action of the compressive and the
repulsive forces innumerable systems
are formed.
The net compressive gripping effect is
apparent on every individual system
as well as on two or more systems.
This gripping effect on an individual
system becomes its inertia. If we
have two or more particles, the
compressive force of space tends to
decrease the distance between them,
thereby appearing as the so-called
“gravitational attraction” between the
particles. Thus, in our model, space
is the source both for inertia and
gravity.
As Newton believed space to be
nothing but a passive background, he
had no option but to attribute both the
properties of inertia and gravity to the
particle. (For anything and everything
Newton had only particles to blame.)
He was thus forced to introduce two
masses – inertial mass and the
gravitational mass – as applicable to
the same particle. But in our model,
in eq.(2) mass is defined in its inertial
aspect and in eq.(3) the same mass
becomes gravitational. Thus the
“principle of equivalence” which
Newton admired as a “God-given gift”
and which Einstein exploited to
formulate his General Theory of
Relativity, emerges from our theory.
As mass is defined by observed
dynamic effects in Newtonian
mechanics, he was compelled to
define it in two different ways
depending upon its perceived roles:
inertial and gravitational.
CONCLUSION :
It all began with Tycho de Brahe, a
great experimentalist of the sixteenth
century. His lifelong strenuous
observations of celestial objects
produced an ocean of data. From
these heaps of numbers, Kepler
carved out a set of empirical laws
known as Kepler’s laws of planetary
motion. Newton, using Keplers laws,
deduced his law of gravity in terms of
masses. Then came Einstein.
Einstein was the first to attribute a
role for space. He considered space
as the transmitting agency of
gravitational interaction between two
bodies. From Einstein, we now come
to Vethathiri Maharishi who asserts
that gravity is the intrinsic property of
the space itself. The journey of
mankind to understand the source of
gravity reaches a decisive stage in
the revelation of Vethathiri Maharishi.
Science progresses only through
constant review and updating. The
necessity to revise or update a given
theory may arise from new
experimental results or from the
demands of aesthetic or philosophic
logic. Instances of both of these are
abundant in the history of science.
Vethathiri Model is another instance
of the latter case. Vethathiri Model
begins from the radical Beginning
itself, and hence has a philosophic
base. It is this base which is missing
throughout contemporary science,
which begins from the stage of
fundamental particles without
sufficient enquiry and knowledge as
to the essential nature of these
particles. The fact that Vethathirian
model begins with and consistently
proceeds from the radical, primordial
state – the space - is its strength
and gives us a holistic cosmology.
Only a holistic theory can reveal the
fundamental Truth. It is in this context
that Vethathiri model is significant
and valuable. It is not a superficial
modification of Newton’s or Einstein’s
concepts, but a radically different
theory which has finally brought
cosmic monism into scientific thinking
and thereby the Effect is seen as
inherent and inseparable from its
Cause. Now let us recall with
reverence the prophetic statement of
Newton : “ The aim of my science is
to find the cause for every effect I
observe, until I arrive at the ultimate
cause, which is certainly not
mechanical”.
References :
1. Narlikar, J., Seven Wonders of
the Cosmos, Cambridge
Univ.Press, 1999
2. Jammer, M., Concepts of Mass,
Princeton Univ.Press, 2000
3. Vethathiri Maharishi, Unified
Force, Vethathiri Publications,
1996
4. Vethathiri Maharishi, Gravity of
Gravity, Vethathiri Publications,
2002
5. Proceedings of the Seminar on
Vethathirian Concepts of Gravity
and Cosmology, Jan.,2003
To be continued…
January 2004
 VETHATHIRIAN LAW OF GRAVITY
ALA GAR RAMANUJ
ALAGAR RAMANUJAM AM and UMA
Arutperumjothi Nagar, Aliyar
and
Prof
of.. A. MEERADEVI
Prof MEERADEVI,, Head, P.G. Department of Mathematics,
Sri G.V.G. Visalakshi College for Women (Autonomous), Udumalpet,
Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu.

ABSTRACT

In the Vethathirian concept of Gravity the interaction between the sun and an orbiting unit mass with unit
area is given by the formula
F = GM/r2 – Kr
Here we show that the above formula does lead to perihelion effect of the planetary orbits.

INTRODUCTION The Lagrangian L of the particle P in Vethathirian Formalism

Any scientific model has three
components : 1) Its axioms,2) the
mathematical logic leading to
equation, 3) Application followed by
predictions. The Vethathiri Model as
explained in the last issue of this
journal has its own set of axioms and
from these axioms an expression for
the centripetal force on an orbiting
test particle has been derived and the
same is of the form,
F = GM/r2 – Kr
In this concluding part we show that
the above equation, when applied to
planetary orbits leads to perihelion
effect. Also we derive an expression
for the value of the angular
advancement (perihelion) of the major
axis of the orbit per century. Before
proceeding to the Vethathirian
formalism, let us briefly discuss
Newton’s and Einstein’s formalisms
regarding the planetary system around
the sun.
Newton’s Formalism
P
r
θ and hence gives rise to the perihelion
S
25
March 2004
an orbit around the sun (s) is given by
L = (1/2)[(dr/dt)2 + r2(dθ/dt)2]–V(r) ...(1)
This lagrangian leads to the orbital
equation
(d2u/dθ2)+u = F(r)/q2u2 ...(2)
For Newton’s Model, the force of
Gravitation is given by
F(r) = GM/r2
For this Gravitational force of attraction
differential equation (2) turns to be
(d2u/dθ2)+u = GM / q2 ...(3)
The solution of this equation is
u = 1/r = GM/q2 + ecosθ
When θ is replaced by 2π + θ, r
regains its value. Hence ellipse is
closed in Newtonian formalism.
Einstein’s Formalism
Einstein in his general theory of
relativity obtains for the planetary
orbit a differential equation
(d2u/dθ2)+u = GM / q2 + 3GM/u2
...(4)
The extra non-linear term 3GM/u2
prevents the ellipse from being closed
effect.
In the application of Vethathirian law
of Gravity for planetary system
F(r) = (GM/r2) – Kr ...(5)
In this case the equation (2) becomes
(d2u/dθ2)+u = [(GM / r2) – Kr] / q2u2
= (GM/q2) – (K/q2)u–3
This gives
(d2u/dθ2)+u = A – Du–3 ...(6)
where D = K/q2; A = GM/q2
Because of the existence of the non-
linear term, obtaining exact solution
for eq (6) seems very much involved.
Therefore we go for approximation
solution as follows :
Assuming the solution to be A + ε for
the equation (6) where A is the
solution of the differential equation
without non-linear term,
Equation (6) turns to be
(d2[A+ε]/dθ 2) + (A+ε) = A–D[A+ε]–3
(d2A/dθ 2)+A+(d2ε/d2θ)+ε = A–D[A+ε]–3
(d2ε /d2θ) + ε = –DA-3[1+ε/A]–3
Omitting the higher powers of ε
= –DA–3+3DεA–4
(d2ε / d2θ) +ε (1–3DA–4)= –DA–3
(d2ε / d2θ) + α ε = β …(7) When θ is replaced by θ + 2π /α1/2, 42.89 =(3K/q2) (1.13 x 1043) (36500/
87.97)(180 x 3600)
where α = (1–3DA–4) the R.H.S. of the equation (10) equals
to Therefore K = (42.89 x q2)/(3.39 x 1043)
where β = –DA –3

A + E cos α1/2 (θ + 2π /α1/2 ) + β/α (36500/87.97) (180 x 3600)

Assuming the solution of equation (7)
i.e., A + E cos (α1/2 θ + 2π ) + β/α
as =3.61951 x 10-20)
i.e., A + E cos α1/2 θ + β/α = 1/r
ε = Ecosnθ + y The expression for the force F given in
since α #1 by equation (8), r does not
eq (5) reveals that at a distance Rmax
dε/ dθ = – En sinn θ regain its value when q is replaced by
(θ + 2π ) rad but regains when q is where Rmax = (GM/K)1/3, the centripetal
and d2 ε / dθ 2 = −En2 cosnθ
replaced by θ + 2π /α1/2. force becomes zero making an orbital
substituting these values in eqn. (7) motion around the sun impossible.
The perihelion effect per revolution
The experimental observations on the
−En2 cosnθ + α(Ecosnθ + y) =β
= (2π/α1/2) - 2π rad Oort cloud of about six trillion icy
Implies cosnθ [αΕ-Εn ] + αy =β
2
comets, suggest that the farthest
= [2π/ (1-3D/A4)1/2 ] -2π
Equating like terms distance that a comet can go is one
= 2π [1+(3/2) (D/A4) ] -2π lakh astronomical unit (1AU =
αΕ−Εn = 02
Since A= GM/ q2 ; and D = K/q2 1.5x1011 meter). Since Rmax should be
implies n =α and n=α .....
2 ½
(8) at least equal to 1 lakh astronomical
We have
unit we have
and αy =β The perihelion effect per revolution
K = GM / (Rmax)3
Implying y = β/α =(3K/q2 )(q8/(GM)4)
=1.33 x 1020 / (105 x 1.5 x 1011)3
Hence the solution of the equation (7) The perihelion effect per century
=3.93461 x 10-29
takes the form =(3K/q2 )(q8/(GM)4) (36500 / 87.97) x
The linear density of the free particles
ε = Ecos α1/2θ+β/α (180 x 3600)sec
around the sun decreasing over a
This gives For Mercury orbit, distance of astronomical units from
the sun is understandable. However
u = A + Ecos α½θ + β/α U(9) q =(r2 x 44/7) / (87.97 x 3600 x 24)
since K is extremely small we take it
Therefore the equation (9) implies =2.77341 x 1015 as constant for a given planet.
that q8 /GM4 =1.13 x 1043
1/r = A + Ecos α1/2 θ + β/α ....(10) Since it is the ‘Kr’ term that should
account for the unaccountable value
i.e. 42.89 seconds of perihelion effect
of Mercury, we have

Address for Correspondence

Dr. Alagar Ramanujam

Brain Trust
Arutperumjothi Nagar
Aliyar, Pollachi, T.N., India
PIN – 642 101
Tel : +91-04253 - 288733, 755
Email : braintrust@vethathiri.org
Web : www.vethathiri.org

March 2004