_Comparison with Astronomic Observations_
Can the preceding theories be reconciled with astronomic observations?
First of all, if we adopt them, the energy of the planetary motions will be constantly dissipated by the effect of the _wave of acceleration_. From this would result that the mean motions of the stars would constantly accelerate, as if these stars were moving in a resistant medium. But this effect is exceedingly slight, far too much so to be discerned by the most precise observations. The acceleration of the heavenly bodies is relatively slight, so that the effects of the wave of acceleration are negligible and the motion may be regarded as _quasi stationary_. It is true that the effects of the wave of acceleration constantly accumulate, but this accumulation itself is so slow that thousands of years of observation would be necessary for it to become sensible. Let us therefore make the calculation considering the motion as quasi-stationary, and that under the three following hypotheses:
A. Admit the hypothesis of Abraham (electrons indeformable) and retain Newton's law in its usual form;
B. Admit the hypothesis of Lorentz about the deformation of electrons and retain the usual Newton's law;
C. Admit the hypothesis of Lorentz about electrons and modify Newton's law as we have done in the preceding paragraph, so as to render it compatible with the principle of relativity.
It is in the motion of Mercury that the effect will be most sensible, since this planet has the greatest velocity. Tisserand formerly made an analogous calculation, admitting Weber's law; I recall that Weber had sought to explain at the same time the electrostatic and electrodynamic phenomena in supposing that electrons (whose name was not yet invented) exercise, one upon another, attractions and repulsions directed along the straight joining them, and depending not only upon their distances, but upon the first and second derivatives of these distances, consequently upon their velocities and their accelerations. This law of Weber, different enough from those which to-day tend to prevail, none the less presents a certain analogy with them.
Tisserand found that, if the Newtonian attraction conformed to Weber's law there resulted, for Mercury's perihelion, secular variation of 14", _of the same sense as that which has been observed and could not be explained_, but smaller, since this is 38".
Let us recur to the hypotheses A, B and C, and study first the motion of a planet attracted by a fixed center. The hypotheses B and C are no longer distinguished, since, if the attracting point is fixed, the field it produces is a purely electrostatic field, where the attraction varies inversely as the square of the distance, in conformity with Coulomb's electrostatic law, identical with that of Newton.
The vis viva equation holds good, taking for vis viva the new definition; in the same way, the equation of areas is replaced by another equivalent to it; the moment of the quantity of motion is a constant, but the quantity of motion must be defined as in the new dynamics.
The only sensible effect will be a secular motion of the perihelion. With the theory of Lorentz, we shall find, for this motion, half of what Weber's law would give; with the theory of Abraham, two fifths.
If now we suppose two moving bodies gravitating around their common center of gravity, the effects are very little different, though the calculations may be a little more complicated. The motion of Mercury's perihelion would therefore be 7" in the theory of Lorentz and 5".6 in that of Abraham.
The effect moreover is proportional to (_n_^{3})(_a_^{2}), where _n_ is the star's mean motion and a the radius of its orbit. For the planets, in virtue of Kepler's law, the effect varies then inversely as sqrt(_a_^{5}); it is therefore insensible, save for Mercury.
It is likewise insensible for the moon though _n_ is great, because _a_ is extremely small; in sum, it is five times less for Venus, and six hundred times less for the moon than for Mercury. We may add that as to Venus and the earth, the motion of the perihelion (for the same angular velocity of this motion) would be much more difficult to discern by astronomic observations, because the excentricity of their orbits is much less than for Mercury.
To sum up, _the only sensible effect upon astronomic observations would be a motion of Mercury's perihelion, in the same sense as that which has been observed without being explained, but notably slighter_.
That can not be regarded as an argument in favor of the new dynamics, since it will always be necessary to seek another explanation for the greater part of Mercury's anomaly; but still less can it be regarded as an argument against it.
