Sorry, not my last post of the day, I made an error in the above, well, two successive errors. First I contemplated the Sun gravity cell to spin in rotation taking 9 years, then the next mistake was to think that it could be 220/47 = 4.68 years. But at least I got something correct in that I must focus on Mercury for the spin rotation of Sun's gravity cell.
Now the Sun itself spins on its axis one complete turn in 25 days and the orbit of Mercury takes 88 days for one complete turn.
So here is the problem in graphic detail. The Sun moves at 220km/sec in space in a linear line and Mercury moves in space in a linear line at 47 km/sec which means that Newtonian gravity and General Relativity cannot possibly hold Mercury in a stable orbit for the Sun would quickly move away from Mercury leaving it behind. So how would EM- gravity solve the problem? By recognizing a Sun gravity cell that extends from the Solar axis out into space and that this cell spins itself which would nullify the 220km/sec speed but would enhance the speed of Mercury by adding on a curvature speed since Space around the Sun is spinning.
Now what would be the period of a full turn of the Solar gravity cell? It would not be 9 years because the Sun would have escaped Mercury and left it far behind. It would not be 220/47 years for that would also leave Mercury far behind.
The spin period must be somewhere between that of 25 days and 88 days. It cannot be 88 days because Mercury has a nonzero speed of 47km/sec about 1/5 that of the Sun. So it must be somewhere around 4/5 of 88 days which is 70 days for a complete Solar gravity cell turn on its axis.
Now a gravity cell turning on its axis is Space itself that is spinning and is solid body rotation. So that if we add this 70 day spin to the planet Jupiter of its 13km/sec, it augments the Jupiter orbit so that it remains gravitationally locked to the Sun.
So let me sleep on that for night, although I think I still have errors in this.
-- Google author-archive stopped functioning properly by about?May 2012 for AP. It functions well for David Bernier in Google but Google apparently is prejudicial to AP which has stopped functioning, and maybe a sign that a Google employee is eliminating the archive of AP. If Google can function properly for David Bernier in a author- archive, ?but not AP is troublesome. And no silly explanation of "indexing" but?rather what is going on is vandalism.
Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP author posts for the past several years as seen here: