Lick Observatory, California · May 1909

No Planet inside Mercury’s Orbit

Portrait of William Wallace Campbell
William Wallace CampbellLibrary of Congress

The planet Le Verrier predicted is nowhere to be found. He named it Vulcan in 1860, after an amateur astronomer reported seeing it cross the Sun, but no sighting held up. A planet that close to the Sun is lost in its glare, except during a total solar eclipse, when the Moon blocks the Sun. So the American astronomer Charles Dillon Perrine photographed the sky around the Sun during the eclipses of 1901, 1905, and 1908. He found nothing big enough. Now the director of Lick Observatory, the American astronomer W. W. Campbell, declares the search over: there is no such planet. The German astronomer Hugo von Seeliger has suggested something fainter instead: a thin cloud of matter around the Sun, like the one that glows as the zodiacal light, too dim to photograph.

Counter-criticism of #5754 by William Wallace Campbell​·​#5755

Photographs from the eclipses of 1901, 1905, and 1908 show no planet inside Mercury’s orbit big enough to explain its motion. Whatever moves Mercury’s perihelion, it isn’t a planet, or anything else bright enough to photograph.

The state of the discussion

At this point, Newton’s law of gravity has one pending criticism, so it isn’t rationally adoptable anymore.

Use arrow keys ← →, the Previous and Next buttons above, or the timeline below to move through the history.Swipe left or right, or use the Previous and Next buttons above or the timeline below, to move through the history.

Source: W. W. Campbell, “The Closing of a Famous Astronomical Problem”, Popular Science Monthly 74 (May 1909)

Researched and written with the help of AI, from the sources named. AI can make mistakes. Veritula doesn’t claim perfect historical accuracy; the sources are there to check against.

The full discussion

How Mercury and Starlight Overthrew Newton

Dennis Hackethal started this discussion 2 days ago.

Search​·​Activity

For two centuries, Newton’s law of gravity passed every test but one: a slight drift in Mercury’s orbit. Einstein’s explanation revolutionized our view of space and time.


Discussions can branch out indefinitely. You may need to scroll sideways.
The discussion as it was in May 1909. Chronicle discussions are read-only. Jump to the present
Isaac Newton’s avatar
Isaac NewtonHistorical profile​·​#5752​·​July 5, 1687​·​AI-assisted

Every object pulls on every other object. The pull grows with their masses and weakens with the square of the distance between them. This one law explains the orbits of the planets and why things fall on Earth.

Criticized1
Urbain Le Verrier’s avatar
Urbain Le VerrierHistorical profile​·​#5753​·​September 12, 1859​·​AI-assisted

Mercury’s perihelion moves about 38 arcseconds per century more than Newton’s law predicts from the pull of the known planets.

Criticism of #5752
Urbain Le Verrier’s avatar
Urbain Le VerrierHistorical profile​·​#5754​·​September 12, 1859​·​AI-assisted

Newton’s law isn’t wrong. Unseen matter inside Mercury’s orbit, a planet or a ring of small bodies, would explain the difference. That’s how the unseen Neptune explained the odd motion of Uranus.

Criticism of #5753Criticized1
William Wallace Campbell’s avatar
William Wallace CampbellHistorical profile​·​#5755​·​May 1909​·​AI-assisted

Photographs from the eclipses of 1901, 1905, and 1908 show no planet inside Mercury’s orbit big enough to explain its motion. Whatever moves Mercury’s perihelion, it isn’t a planet, or anything else bright enough to photograph.

Criticism of #5754
  • Rationally adoptable.
  • Not rationally adoptable.
  • Older versions with pending criticisms.
  • Ideas are blue, criticisms red, comments small and gray.
  • Hover over ideas to expand them.
  • Click on ideas to jump to their place in the discussion.