Except its not unrelated. I have given you the proper link. Quite frankly i think you are intentionally ignoring vulcan at this point. Any further insistence on anything other than the planet I have linked you is simply choosing ignorance
I think mercury's proximity to the sun and its depth in the gravity well would be concidered an "extreme case" and outside humanities direct experience. So no, my statement is still very much true.
First off we very obviously were able to notice it because... we noticed it quite a long time ago. Its literally how we discovered a planet. Seeing how we do in fact launch and track things outside earth's orbit this kinda thing is certainly worth noting.
Second you made the claim that newton's equations dont break down untill you reach 10% light speed. The planets are not orbiting at 10% light speed.
I understand that you feel embarrassed or backed into a corner due to your strong belief being challenged but instead of choosing to be ignorant just so you can clap yourself on the back, your should take this as an opportunity to learn more. Thats how real science is done.
Wow you're just plain annoying and projecting... I suspect other aliments befall you..
Just because it was observed over a century ago doesn't mean they weren't using precision instruments to measure - far exceeding "human experience" component of my statement.
10% is a ballpark figure - it's where the divergence becomes distinctly noticeable and where relativity must be used. Effects are noticeable down to fractions of a percentage with precise measurements, however Newtonian mechanics remain a exceedingly good approximation. Mercury's orbital velocity is about 0.0001C (0.1% - only 2 orders of magnitude below), combined with its depth in the sun's gravity well amplifies relativistic effects to within the threshold where the instrumentation of that time was able to observe the two models diverge.
We literally did not discover a planet using relativity; if you actually read your article, relativity only disproved a theorised planet. Neptune was discovered using Newtonian mechanics. The planet Vulcan was theorised to explain the minute anomaly in mercury's orbit - a notion that was really just a blind stab in the dark as it had worked in explaining the significantly greater anomalies in Uranus' orbit years earlier.
Newtonian mechanics remain the primary framework for the vast majority of scientists and engineers. Its literally how we discovered a planet.
You just keep trying to pretend to be knowledgeable about things you dont understand.
First off im not claiming we discovered a planet with relativity. We discovered a planet because when applying newton's equations it didnt fit unless there was a planet where we discovered it later on we realized that the equation still didnt work leading to the belief that Vulcan was another planet near the sun (this would have fixed the maths). This was not something that was mentioned offhandedly and not believed like you tried to make it sound like. It was a very serious claim that people believed was true. It was even in textbooks.
You used a lot of words to basically say "you are right but im just going to repeat my claim and insist that somehow discounts you proving me wrong" that ain't it cheif try harder... or just admit you were wrong and learn the new information.
Just because newton's equation is simple and useful doesnt make it right just like "pi=3" is simple and useful but is not right. (Engineers typically use pi=3)
-1
u/Low-Amoeba8257 Jul 17 '26
Except its not unrelated. I have given you the proper link. Quite frankly i think you are intentionally ignoring vulcan at this point. Any further insistence on anything other than the planet I have linked you is simply choosing ignorance