Changes

In no case is the orbit not a regular repeating pattern, and in no case does the planet fall into the Sun.  Simulations that show that are incorrect.

In no case is the orbit not a regular repeating pattern, and in no case does the planet fall into the Sun.  Simulations that show that are incorrect.

But this question is ill-formed as an aspect of "quantifying openmindedness".  The question seems to be asking "Do you think is impossible that Simon Newcomb's 19^th century formulation is superior to Isaac Newton's 17^th century formulation?  While Newcomb's formulation did finagle the exponent to get a correct precession value for ''one'' planet (Mercury), a 20^th century formulation has superseded both.  This gives extremely accurate explanations for all planetary precessions, as well as the correct (1.75 arc second) value for the bending of light beams close to the Sun, as well as the Shapiro effect, the Pund-Rebka experiment, the Hulse-Taylor pulsar orbit precession and decay, gravitational lensing, de-Sitter precession, Lense-Thirring frame-dragging precession, etc.

But this question is ill-formed as an aspect of "quantifying openmindedness".  The question seems to be asking "Do you think is impossible that Simon Newcomb's 19^th century formulation is superior to Isaac Newton's 17^th century formulation?  While Newcomb's formulation did finagle the exponent to get a correct precession value for ''one'' planet (Mercury), a 20^th century formulation has superseded both.  This gives extremely accurate explanations for all planetary precessions, as well as the correct (1.75 arc second) value for the bending of light beams close to the Sun, as well as the Shapiro effect, the Pound-Rebka experiment, the Hulse-Taylor pulsar orbit precession and decay, gravitational lensing, de-Sitter precession, Lense-Thirring frame-dragging precession, etc.

There is simply no reason to embrace Newcomb's formulation, except under a bizarre notion of what constitutes openmindedness.  Asking whether one is openminded enough to accept the possibility that Newcomb's exponent fudging is correct is rather like asking:

There is simply no reason to embrace Newcomb's formulation, except under a bizarre notion of what constitutes openmindedness.  Asking whether one is openminded enough to accept the possibility that Newcomb's exponent fudging is correct is rather like asking:

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that Ptolemy's geocentric formulation of the heavens, complete with epicycles, as opposed to the Copernicus/Kepler model, is correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that Ptolemy's geocentric formulation of the heavens, complete with epicycles, as opposed to the Copernicus/Kepler model, is correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that the phlogiston theory of combustion is correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that the phlogiston theory of combustion is correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that Trofim Lysenkos's genetic theories are correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that Trofim Lysenko's genetic theories are correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that the cosmological theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Daniken, L. Ron Hubbard, Gene "time cube" Ray, etc., are correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that the cosmological theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Daniken, L. Ron Hubbard, Gene "time cube" Ray, etc., are correct?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that the "Piltdown man" wasn't a hoax?

*Are you openminded enough to admit the possibility that the "Piltdown man" wasn't a hoax?