Changes

:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)

:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)

:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)

:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)

:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1994)  

:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

:::::::::: [Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]

:::::::::: [Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]

:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)