413 private links
Musaiga
6 hours ago
"This stuff cost too much to make. We need to recoup our investment. Screw logic, let's have actual Human Beings Beta-test this shit."
Isn't that the long and short of it?
I worked in Human Blood and Plasma manufacturing. I assisted in the processing of all that "donated" blood plasma. Also worked in R&D with Hemoglobin.
We had a whole testing facility, detached from the main factory by about a football field. Sterile, albino Rabbits were bred especially for testing. By "sterile" I mean they were raised in a 100% sterile environment, no viruses or bacteria. Each rabbit was injected from a separate lot of product to determine whether or not it would cause a fever in the rabbit.
Therein lies the "test". Mandated by THE FDA!
Used all caps there so the readers from PETA could grab a Kleenex.
They seldom die. But alas, they cannot be given away as pets. Besides the obvious ambulance chasing theory, there's this. They have no antibodies, to anything. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Like AIDS in Rabbits, only more accurately BFZI (Bred for zero immunity). This means they would last a week maybe, in the real world.
I'm going in to all this, because I loved your explanation Ward. Thought I'd add a direct example here.
In those days employees could sign up for tours of our "animal facility". The explanation I just gave was pretty much from the mouth of the Department Manager, who was leading the tour. This was the late 1980s. A biological "She" manager who knew her stuff, and showed real affection towards them critters.
Thalidomide was developed originally as a mild sedative and worked very well in this application. In the 1950s, the main body of scientific thought was that drugs would not cross the placental barrier, so when thalidomide was discovered to be very effective in dealing with morning sickness, doctors in Europe began to prescribe it for that purpose. The results are well known; many children exposed to this substance were born with horrible deformities.
The anti-animal research claims regarding thalidomide are simple; the research done with animals did not predict the teratogenic (birth defect) effects of thalidomide. A common claim in the animal rights community is that rats, mice, and hamsters did not show any teratogenic effects when thalidomide was in pre-clinical trials. This is a blatant falsehood. Several research projects demonstrated teratogenic effects in rats, mice, hamsters, and primates.
So, the truth is somewhat different. An objective analysis of the thalidomide tragedy reveals just the opposite of what the anti-animal-research people claim. The problem was, in fact, insufficient animal testing. Indeed, thalidomide was never approved in the United States, precisely because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) felt that insufficient pre-clinical (animal) testing was done. //
Ironically this same property of thalidomide, namely bonding to developmental DNA, is making it useful in treating cancer patients. //
The question to be posed to the anti-research people at this juncture is simple: "Please explain to us how the lack of application of these highly predictive tests before the release of thalidomide in the European market translates into a failure of animal research, rather than a failure to apply sufficient animal research." //
This is but one example. It's also important to note that animals are currently used not only in research but in the production of medical products; for instance, the production of insulin is generally batch-tested in animals genetically engineered to be diabetic, although in recent years there has been a lot of work done towards a cellular-level test that doesn't involve an animal subject. //
C. S. P. Schofield
6 hours ago
Question for the ‘Animal Rights’ ninnies; are you prepared to take the place of experimental animals? //
frylock234
7 hours ago
Husband works in animal pharma, and they do have to use animals for testing. Basically, the companies seek to reduce their dependence on animal testing whenever possible because it is very expensive among other things, like being a PR issue no matter how humanely you try to conduct the testing. Every national/international entity they conduct business with inspects for test animal treatment among many, many other things although some countries care more about it than others.
Hubs got challenged by an activist once, and he shut her down by asking her when the first live animal test should take place, "In controlled circumstances on a test animal, or the first time your vet injects it into your beloved dog?" //
wildmlm
7 hours ago
Lab testing of animals was inhumane decades ago. All labs receiving federal grants, and most state grants, require institutions to have an Institutional Animal Care Committee (IACUC). All use of animals, including field research, requires an Animal Use Protocol (AUP). The committees are rigorous because violations of requirements can cost the institution millions. The AUP is a pain but understandable. I spent my entire career doing animal field research. The focus on AUPs didn’t ramp up until the late 1970s.
In mid-November 2023, a disastrous SpaceX launch, which saw the explosion of not one but two rockets, offered a rare opportunity to study the effects of such phenomena on the ionosphere.
A study by Russian scientists revealed how this explosion temporarily blew open a hole in the ionosphere stretching from the Yucatan to the southeastern U.S.
Although far from the first rocket-induced disturbance in the ionosphere, this is one of the first explosive events in the ionosphere to be extensively studied. //
November 18, 2023, wasn’t a great day for the commercial spaceflight company SpaceX. While testing its stainless steel-clad Starship, designed to be the company’s chariot to Mars, the spacecraft exploded four minutes after liftoff over the skies of Boca Chica, Texas. //
This new study confirms that the ionosphere experienced a “large-amplitude total electron content depletion,” likely reinforced by a fuel exhaust impact of the Super Heavy rocket engine, which also exploded a little more than a minute earlier at lower altitude once it separated from the Starship. The research team collected this data from 2,500 ground stations scattered across North America and the Caribbean and found that the hole extended largely from Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula and the southeastern U.S., though the exact size of the hole is unknown. //
scientists report that this Starship-induced ion hole caused by “catastrophic phenomena” closed up after 30 or 40 minutes. But these kinds of interactions are still poorly understood, and that’s concerning considering how central the ionosphere is to global technologies—not to mention human health.
Science is all too often wielded as a weapon. Whenever anyone claims, "science says," they are betraying a very real lack of understanding as to how the scientific method works; science is not a body of people or an authority — it is a tool, a method of looking at data, drawing conclusions from that data, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and seeing if others can reproduce the results. And when new data becomes available, all of the conclusions previously drawn must be evaluated, dispassionately, against that new data. Science should not — must not — be cited in support of an agenda, as that drives people claiming to be doing science to act in contradiction to the scientific method — working backward from a conclusion, discarding inconvenient data, and so on.
All of these things are happening right now in the arena of climatology.
On his Substack, science journalist Roger Pielke Jr. has described five such cases, and they merit consideration, as they show how science is being abused in pursuit of this particular agenda. Let's look at a couple.
... //
Too many people, especially people with an agenda, are not interested in the scientific method. They aren't interested in the truth. They aren't interested in decoupling science from politics. That's how we have come to this pass, where a loud, vocal, and at some times criminal element is demanding economic ruin, the end of our modern, technological society, and the return of mankind to the 19th century, all in the name of human-caused climate change that the data just doesn't support. The problem here lies not with the people who are doing science; it lies with the Al Gores, the John Kerrys, the Greta Thunbergs, the people who wave the term "science" like a battle ensign, and the vast majority of whom, like Al Gore, like John Kerry, have the carbon footprint of a medium-sized Third World nation.
This isn't science. This is the opposite of science. And these people are willing to destroy our modern lifestyle because of this — because of the bugaboo of anthropogenic climate change. //
anon-201n
8 minutes ago
More recently, scientific theories have become bandwagons, on which research grant grifters jump to get money. Right now, a lot of scientific research in the U.S. is being dominated by the paradigm of human-caused climate change. Into this maelstrom, faulty data and outright falsehoods are being swept around, and overwhelming responsible scientific research which attempts to find truths about earth's ecosystems. Without a framework of adherence to truth, scientific research is crowded out by political pressure exerted by ignorant advocates. //
C. S. P. Schofield
an hour ago
Sadly, science is often like this; called in to support a pre decided position. Or, an old theory hanging on in the face of new data until the men whose reputation were built on the old theory have retired; continental drift is supposed to have been adopted only father a mechanism for it was established, but the truth seems to be that it was accepted by the young blood, and became official after the old guard were no longer blocking it.
My late father was a Professor of the History of Science and Technology, so I gat a lot of this over the dinner table.
Yes, in theory, when the data contradicts theory, the theory gets junked. Seldom happens that directly, though.
Climate Change activism is a particularly squalid case. It doesn’t help their case that their proposed ‘solutions’ are mostly fairy tales. Wind, solar, and battery powered cars will not help, and may cut ally harm the environment more than what they are supposed to replace. I would, in particular, like to see somebody, ANYBODY, taking a hard look at what having wind and solar farms taking energy out of the environment does in terms of side effects. The enviroweenies act like that energy is free, and There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. //
COUltraMAGA
an hour ago
There are so many “climate science” articles that are almost immediately outdated by real-world observations it’s almost funny.
Case in point: I just ran across a recent study that showed that the Great Barrier Reef had rebounded from its 2009 lows to an unprecedented level (30% higher than standard levels of coral colonies) in just 15 years. Remember how all the coral was “dying” and being “bleached” because of CO2 and ozone blah blah blah? Not so much.
Turns out those lows in 2009 (and they were pretty low then) were due to a cyclone that passed almost directly over the entire GBR a year before. Causing widespread damage to the corals (which happens from time to time).
Rest assured, the GBR is not going anywhere, and in fact seems to be sticking a big middle finger to the climatistas by rebounding to far greater numbers than were thought possible. //
C. S. P. Schofield COUltraMAGA
an hour ago
Some decades back I made the observation that at least half the ‘environmental emergencies’ talked about would vanish if we executed the board of directors of The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the like. I think a fair proportion of the others - runaway wildfires spring to mind - could be solved by taking large tracts of land away from various governments and making them privately owned. In the developing world, too much damage is done because the companies working the land have leases from the government instead of owning, and know they have to make all the money they are going to get before tge lease runs out.
Einstein dedicated his time between 1905-1915 to develop general relativity (GR). It seems strange to me that no other physicists attempted to tackle this problem in this ten-year period. After all, developing a relativistic theory of gravity superseding Newton's should have been the holy grail of physics at that period. How come none gave it a shot?
"Ants are able to diagnose a wound, see if it's infected... and treat it accordingly." //
“When we're talking about amputation behavior, this is literally the only case in which a sophisticated and systematic amputation of an individual by another member of its species occurs in the animal kingdom,” said co-author Erik Frank, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany. “The fact that the ants are able to diagnose a wound, see if it's infected or sterile, and treat it accordingly over long periods of time by other individuals—the only medical system that can rival that would be the human one."
Newton's flaming laser sword (also known as Alder's razor) is a philosophical razor devised by Alder and discussed in an essay in the May/June 2004 issue of Philosophy Now.[6] The principle, which addresses the differing views of scientists and philosophers on epistemology and knowledge, was summarized by Alder as follows:[6][jargon]
In its weakest form it says that we should not dispute propositions unless they can be shown by precise logic and/or mathematics to have observable consequences. In its strongest form it demands a list of observable consequences and a formal demonstration that they are indeed consequences of the proposition claimed.
The razor is humorously named after Isaac Newton, as it is inspired by Newtonian thought and is called a "flaming laser sword", because it is "much sharper and more dangerous than Occam's Razor".[6]
Scientists find a "mitotic stopwatch" that lets individual cells remember something. //
How does something as fundamental as a cell hold on to information across multiple divisions?
There's no one answer, and the details are really difficult to work out in many cases. But scientists have now worked out one memory system in detail. Cells are able to remember when their parent had a difficult time dividing—a problem that's often associated with DNA damage and cancer. And, if the problems are substantial enough, the two cells that result from a division will stop dividing themselves.
A scan of archives shows that lots of scientific papers aren't backed up.
Back when scientific publications came in paper form, libraries played a key role in ensuring that knowledge didn't disappear. Copies went out to so many libraries that any failure—a publisher going bankrupt, a library getting closed—wouldn't put us at risk of losing information. But, as with anything else, scientific content has gone digital, which has changed what's involved with preservation.
Organizations have devised systems that should provide options for preserving digital material. But, according to a recently published survey, lots of digital documents aren't consistently showing up in the archives that are meant to preserve it. And that puts us at risk of losing academic research—including science paid for with taxpayer money. //
The risk here is that, ultimately, we may lose access to some academic research. As Eve phrases it, knowledge gets expanded because we're able to build upon a foundation of facts that we can trace back through a chain of references. If we start losing those links, then the foundation gets shakier. Archiving comes with its own set of challenges: It costs money, it has to be organized, consistent means of accessing the archived material need to be established, and so on.
But, to an extent, we're failing at the first step. "An important point to make," Eve writes, "is that there is no consensus over who should be responsible for archiving scholarship in the digital age."
A somewhat related issue is ensuring that people can find the archived material—the issue that DOIs were designed to solve.
Evidence shows that shoving data in peoples’ faces doesn’t work to change minds. //
But in all my years of working with the public, I’ve found a potential strategy. And that strategy doesn’t involve confronting pseudoscience head-on but rather empathizing with why people have pseudoscientific beliefs and finding ways to get them to understand and appreciate the scientific method. //
The word pseudoscience means “false science,” and that’s where my definition starts. Pseudoscience is a practice, a mode of investigation, that looks like science but misses the point. Or, as I like to phrase it, pseudoscience has the skin of science but misses its soul. //
The skin of science is visible to non-scientists; it’s what science looks like from the outside. That skin usually involves some combination of advanced jargon that’s generally indecipherable, the wielding of sophisticated mathematical tools for describing nature, and, of course, the fancy technical gear for making measurements and observations.
But these are just the tools of science; they aren’t what makes science so uniquely powerful. That's the scientific method. We’ve all learned the basics of the scientific method (make a hypothesis, test it, repeat), but it’s only in scientific training that you can acquire the skills necessary to put that method into practice. This—the scientific method and the skills to put it to use—is the real soul of science.
It involves skills like rigor, where we take our own statements seriously and follow them to their full logical conclusions. Or humility, where we learn to accept that any statement can be proven wrong at any time. There’s also fundamental skepticism, in that we allow the evidence to dictate our beliefs. Science is characterized by a spirit of openness, by requiring that methods and techniques be shared and publicized so that others can critique and extend them, and connectedness, which is a sense that statements we make must connect with the broader collection of scientific knowledge. Lastly, science persists in a constant state of evolution, where we always refine our beliefs and statements given new evidence or insights.
These qualities together make the scientific method work on a day-to-day basis. And while any individual scientist will fall short at one or more of these qualities for at least some—or, sadly, the entirety—of their careers, the practice of science is to always strive for these noble goals. //
The world is harsh, confusing, and unfair. Pseudoscience gives comfort, explanation, and predictability. //
So, the first step when confronting a pseudoscientific belief is to not bother arguing it. I have a personal rule: Unless someone asks me directly for my opinion, I don’t offer it. I’ll admit that sometimes I just can’t hold my tongue, but in the vast majority of situations, I’d rather preserve a relationship than drive a wedge into it just because someone isn’t adhering to strict scientific thinking. People believe all sorts of weird things, and the likelihood of me changing their minds—on UFOs, homeopathy, or whatever—is so small that it’s simply not worth the effort.
Instead, I try to practice what’s known as radical empathy. This is empathy given to another person without any expectation of receiving it back in return. I try to see the world through someone else’s eyes and use that to find common ground. Why do they believe in UFOs? Is it because they want mystery and wonder to be alive in this world? Hey, me too! Why do they buy homeopathic medicine? Is it because they desperately wish they could do something about their medical condition? Yeah, I hear that. Why do they get a palm reading? Is it because they could use some guidance through their complicated lives? Couldn't we all.
We need to find common ground and leverage that to share the joy, power, and beauty of science. //
Instead, if we’re going to win hearts and minds, we need to find common ground and leverage that to share the joy, power, and beauty of science. The worldview offered by science is breathtaking in its scope. One of the reasons I love the scientific worldview is its ability to see the inner workings of nature and understand the deeper levels that bring about our daily experiences. Science opens up the world and makes it knowable. Yes, there is always uncertainty; our beliefs are always provisional. That is a small price to pay for freedom, for the ability to change your mind when the evidence demands it and see the world with new eyes.
The scientific worldview is a gift. I’ve learned to not bother trying to convince someone to turn against their pseudoscientific beliefs. It rarely works, and it just makes science look bad. Instead, by finding common ground, admitting the limitations of science, and showcasing how science is a powerful force in the world, I hope to generate a positive image of science and its role in society.
Instead of getting into an argument, I would rather find a way to get someone to see the world the same way that I do: as a Universe filled with mystery and wonder, revealed by a powerful toolset for investigating those mysteries. I would rather people see behind the skin of science and understand, appreciate, and celebrate its soul. I believe that’s the only way to build trust—and hopefully help people listen to scientists when it really matters.
“We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles” - Thomas Edison
Edison was dreaming big when he said that. //
Belgium was dreaming big when they built the Atomium. It took 18 months to design and another 18 months to build. //
J'ai vu le futur. “I have seen the future.” These words are displayed inside the structure like a mantra for humankind. It’s not wrong. Consider the structures we admire the most: the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the Easter Island heads, etc. We do not argue that these structures are too big. We visit them because they are so big, to marvel at their bigness.
For much of human history, we have tried to show our greatness, or to celebrate that which we have believed to be greater than us, through constructing large monuments.
So why are large-scale projects now so heavily criticised?
It may not surprise you that the idea that big is bad came from an anti-growth, anti-technology activist.
E F Schumacher wrote Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered in 1973. The book argues in favour of what Schumacher calls small, “appropriate” technologies as a superior alternative to the general ethos of "bigger is better". The latest edition of the book features a foreword by depopulation and degrowth activist Jonathon Porritt.
The book is a holy text for degrowthers, anti-progress activists, and Malthusians alike. It suffers from the recrudescence of the common fallacy of man versus nature, as Schumacher argues that “The system of nature, of which man is a part, tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting, self-cleansing. Not so with technology.” //
What do I miss, as a human being, if I have never heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The answer is: Nothing. And what do I miss by not knowing Shakespeare? Unless I get my understanding from another source, I simply miss my life. Shall we tell our children that one thing is as good as another-- here a bit of knowledge of physics, and there a bit of knowledge of literature? If we do so, the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, because that normally is the time it takes from the birth of an idea to its full maturity when it fills the minds of a new generation and makes them think by it. Science cannot produce ideas by which we could live.”
Consider that last statement. “Science cannot produce ideas by which we could live.” And yet we have heating, lighting, telephones, the Internet, shoes, glasses, clothes, and so on, thanks to science - not Shakespeare (though I take no umbrage with the Bard). The greatest irony of this statement is that we only have books like Schumacher’s and Shakespeare’s thanks to science and technology.
That a prophet of such pessimism and blinkered thinking has influenced our ideas of large-scale technology ought to concern us. While activists argue against large-scale technological projects, note that when they consider the structures to be works of art the same argument is seldom made. For example, the construction of the Sagrada Família, the largest unfinished Catholic church in the world, began in 1882 and continues to this day. For the most part, people do not cry “it’s too big!” or “what about the cost?!” regarding the church. They allow it to be built. They want to see it finished. Similarly, the Notre-Dame is being rapidly rebuilt after it caught fire in 2019. //
The fact is that we need one - power plants - to have the other - the Sagrada Família, Notre-Dame, etc.
Back to the Atomium. With this single structure, Belgium depicted its love of physics through art. The country wanted to highlight and promote the post-war ideal of peacefully applying atomic research and other advancements in technology, and with over 600,000 visitors per year, the Atomium has achieved this aim. //
Schumacher and I do agree on one thing. He wrote: “To talk about the future is useful only if it leads to action now.” Indeed, we should act now and start building. Large-scale nuclear energy is needed to displace fossil fuels, and committing to it represents the veriest foresight. Without new power plants, we cannot hope to overcome the vicissitudes of tomorrow and maintain the progress that led us here, and beyond. Sometimes we need to dream big and build big. Or, to put it less elegantly, we should go big or go home.
Dr. Matthew Wielicki: “There’s a disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in the mainstream media is….and what certain ‘activist scientists’ have been pushing.” Other scientists share his concerns. //
Occasionally we are asked why Legal Insurrection features so much science among the articles featuring court cases, legal analysis, and updates on our push-back against Critical Race Theory and Diversity-Equity-Inclusion in education.
While there are many reasons, perhaps the chief one is that true science is being twisted to support political narratives that are destructive, both to our nation and to humanity. For example, the Twitter Files shed light on the degree to which good information from epidemiologists and physicians was suppressed during the covid pandemic. //
Wielicki was born in Poland while it was still under communist rule, so he has a deep appreciation for freedom of speech and personal liberty. His parents worked at California State University- Fresno at a time when professors and students were allowed to have different opinions about the issues of the day.
Another believer in freedom in science is Roger A. Pielke Jr., who recently prepared an exceptional column on ten principles for effective use of math in policy research.
It was his eighth entry on torturing data that caught my eye. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/against-mathiness-part-2
I don’t know who said it, but there is an old adage that says if you torture data enough, it will confess. Simple methods, shared data, easily replicable, with clear meaning are always going to be preferable in policy settings to complex methods, unavailable data, impossibility of replication with unclear meaning. //
The hard sciences are canaries in the coal mine. If their data-driven conclusions, which should be experimentally reproducible, can be manipulated and massaged to promote ideological and/or political narratives resulting in elite policy objectives that affect us all, then no science (especially, it goes without saying, the social sciences) can be trusted.
If our leaders and our media want us to trust The Science™, then The Science™ must be trustworthy. Results must be replicated, data should be offered freely, and methodology must make sense.
Ultimately, though, I will leave the final word on the leftist march through the institutions—here, of science—to climatologist Judith Curry who confirms the climate “crisis” is manufactured. https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/amp/
We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.
She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”
…“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.
Scientist Adelbert Ames created the mind boggling ‘Ames Window’ (1951)
Before we go on, let's be clear: No, we cannot “blow up” tornadoes, just as we cannot “nuke” hurricanes. It’s too complex, not to mention the likelihood of collateral damage.
But in a theoretical world without risk to lives or property, could you do it? I still don’t think so. Noted storm chaser Reed Timmer posted on X (formerly Twitter) over the weekend that the “explosion changed the thermodynamic gradients dramatically within the vortex and blew up the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.”
The C-C equation relates saturation vapor pressure to temperature. What is saturation vapor pressure? Vapor pressure is basically just that: What is the pressure of the water vapor in the air? But at a given temperature, there’s a maximum amount of moisture the air can hold. That would give you the saturation vapor pressure. Using C-C, we can determine that as temperature increases, the saturation vapor pressure of the air increases exponentially. In other words, warm air can hold much more moisture than cold air, and the relationship is exponential.
What does this all mean? Theoretically (very theoretically), the heat released from an explosion within the condensation funnel of a tornado would lead to a dramatic increase in saturation vapor pressure, thus decreasing the humidity in the vicinity of the funnel. You’re not adding more moisture to the equation, so all you’re doing is increasing temperature and increasing the air’s capacity to hold water—exponentially. All else being equal, you’ve decreased humidity, and because the air is no longer saturated, the condensation funnel (which you see when the air is saturated) visually disappears.
If the condensation funnel is our visual cue of a tornado and it disappears, then to the human mind, the tornado itself has disappeared. So you can actually blow up a tornado, right? Not quite.
"Simply modifying" Newtonian gravity to have it spread at finite speed does not work if the finite speed is the speed of light. It was attempted by Laplace in his Celestial Mechanics (1799), who found that the planets will promptly fly off their orbits and the Solar system will disintegrate in seconds, unless the propagation speed is 7×106
times greater than the the speed of light. This is because of the aberration of the direction of attractive force due to delay in transmission, see Resolving General relativity and Newtonian mechanics on a computer.
A more sophisticated modification follows from Mossotti's electromagnetic gravity hypothesis: electric attraction and repulsion do not balance each other exactly, and the difference is gravity. In 1864-72 Seegers, Scheibner and Tisserand experimented with applying the velocity and acceleration dependent correction to Newton's law imported from Weber's electrodynamics to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Around 1900 Lorentz, Einstein's precursor on special relativity, showed that under the Maxwell electrodynamics the Laplacian aberration problem is eliminated because the correction is of the order v2/c2
rather than v/c
that Laplace assumed, so the attraction between masses moving with constant relative velocity is always toward the instantaneous position of the other mass. It is the Lorentz invariance of the Maxwell electrodynamics that cancels the effects of transmission delay to the first order, as Poincare pointed out in 1905. See What 19th century developments contributed to the General theory of Relativity?
However, Lorentz's theory did not work either, and this time exactly because of the perihelion of Mercury. //
Einstein first mentions Mercury in a letter to Habicht in 1907:"At the moment I am working on a relativistic analysis of the law of gravitation by means of which I hope to explain the still unexplained secular changes in the perihelion of Mercury."