English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper, I comment on a recent paper by Michel Janssen and J\"urgenRenn. In his published paper of November 18, 1915, Einstein presented asolution to the problem of the perihelion motion of Mercury and obtained thecorrect result of 43 seconds of arc per century. Before 1915, Einstein hadestablished non-covariant field equations (the Entwurf field equations). But in1915, he changed his mind and dropped these equations and was led to generalcovariance. In a manuscript written in 1913, Einstein and his best friendMichele Besso tried to solve the Entwurf field equations to attain theperihelion advance of Mercury. The end result arrived at by Einstein was 1821seconds of arc per century. To make a long story short, the field of a staticSun produced an advance of the perihelion of Mercury of 18 seconds of arc percentury. Einstein kept quiet about this result and continued to work on theEntwurf theory. Janssen and Renn ask: If we follow the prescriptions of KarlPopper, why did Einstein not accept that his Entwurf theory had been falsified?They further ask: Given the undeniable importance of Besso's earliercalculations, why did Einstein not invite Besso as a co-author of his November1915 paper on the perihelion motion of Mercury? Besso did not even get anacknowledgment in Einstein's paper. After a brief review of Einstein's andBesso's early attempts at calculating the advance of the perihelion of Mercury,I discuss falsification and confirmation by previously known evidence and thenpropose an answer to the above two questions.

Einstein and the problem of confirmation by previously known evidence: A  comment on Michel Janssen and J\"urgen Renn's "Einstein and the Perihelion  Motion of Mercury"