# Influence of Gravitational Waves on Planetary Orbits

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by TonyYuan, Mar 29, 2023.

?

## Does the world allow us to explain gravitational waves with classical physical theory?

1 vote(s)
100.0%
2. ### Only GR can explain GWs.

0 vote(s)
0.0%
Not open for further replies.
1. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves

Applying Newton's universal gravitational equation, we have been able to calculate the orbital data and orbital precession data of the planets in the solar system more accurately, but there are deviations between these data and astronomical observations. For example, the orbital precession of Mercury has a deviation of 43" per century. LIGO has discovered gravitational waves from the depths of the universe, confirming that gravitational waves are real, which brings us some new ideas for studying planetary orbits. We know that the disturbance of the gravitational field will cause gravitational waves, then the sun’s shuttle in the Milky Way will also cause disturbances to the gravitational field of the Milky Way, thus forming gravitational waves around the sun, although it is very weak. But because the planets in the solar system are not far from the sun, the planets will feel the influence of gravitational waves, which will affect the orbits of the planets. This article will analyze the specific distribution of gravitational waves around the sun, and derive the dynamic gravitational equation under the influence of gravitational waves, and apply it to the calculation of planetary orbits, and verify the correctness of the dynamic gravitational equation by comparing it with the astronomical observation data released by NASA.

I'm back, and here's where I started.

Bill2023 likes this.

3. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
A reply from a professor in the United States who was very opposed to me.
“If the gravitational speed is equal to the speed of light c, then we have to consider the effect of gravitational delay. For example, the gravitational force received by planets no longer comes from the current real position of the sun. For example, the diameter of the Milky Way reaches 180,000 light-years, and the gravitational force at the center of the Milky Way takes a long time to reach its edge. Such a large gravitational delay would make the Milky Way very unstable.”

I have to say that I agree with the above statement very much. Previously I had some misunderstandings on your theory......Although I cannot say I completely agree with the premise of your derivation now, but I do think your theory has its due value, especially the above statement.

5. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
This is the comment given by one of the reviewers of Nature:
Main conclusion:
I consider the publication of the article "Influence of Gravitational Waves on Planetary Orbits" by Tony Yuan in Nature Scientific Reports to be premature which does not correspond to the demand of the high confidence level proposed materials for publication.
Nevertheless the materials give some interest and can be recommended to be kept them in the public scientific archive.

7. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Nature Reviewer 1
I have problem in comphrening the calculations and science contained in the article. As the article is concerned with
gravitational waves in general relativity, to make the article accessible to practioneers in general relativity and gravitational wave community, I would suggest the author makes an attempt to formulate the article in the language of general relativity.

The reformulation should include at least the following items.

1. The spacetime metric of the two body system that generate the gravitational waves and then identify the dynamics behind the wave phenomenon.

2. Work out the geodesic deviation equation between the two planets concerned. Calculate the tidal force in the geodesic deviation equation and in doing so yield the relative displacement between the two planets.

3. Check the calcuations with the ephemeris of the earth moon system and see the calculations are consistent with the ephemeris.

As it stands, the calculations in the article is too primitive and more elaborated arguments are required to substantiate the claim.

8. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,517
I think you have faked these comments. The bad English is a give-away.

You're a fraud, Tony.

I've reported you for posting pseudoscience spam, intended to draw attention to yourself and your latest publication.

9. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
732
Tony;

"The spacetime metric of the two body system that generate the gravitational waves"

The detection by LIGO involved a binary system of huge masses, which implies a variation of center of mass.
It is not due to delays of any single object.

10. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,644
All of this is true.
This is not. The Sun's motion causes gravity waves in nearby star systems. The Sun's moton does not cause gravity waves in the Sun itself.
Correct. And if (for example) the Sun were a binary star, and were generating gravity waves, then those waves would affect the orbits of the planets.

However, the Sun is not generating gravity waves.

11. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
The sun travels through the galaxy, and the movement of the sun will disturb the gravitational field of the galaxy, thus causing gravitational waves around the sun.
These gravitational waves are produced by disturbances in the Milky Way's gravitational field.

Just like a ship sailing in water will cause water waves.

12. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Giant binary star systems each affect the gravitational field of the other, thereby producing gravitational waves. And the merger of the final binary star system will cause a huge disturbance in the gravitational field, which is very similar to a tsunami caused by an earthquake.

13. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Ref: Submission ID 1f5afc5c-8b15-4e3e-9009-db66b547af66
Dear Dr Yuan,
Your manuscript entitled "Influence of Gravitational Waves on Planetary Orbits" has now been reviewed. Any reviewer comments on the suitability of your manuscript have been appended below. As a result, I regret to inform you that we cannot publish your manuscript in Nature Scientific Reports.
You will see that, while your work is of interest, substantive concerns were raised that suggest that your paper does not fulfil the publication requirements for Scientific Reports that is, that papers must be technically sound in method and analysis. Unfortunately, these reservations are sufficiently important to preclude publication of this study in Scientific Reports.
In view of reviewers' comments, I am sorry, your present paper is not suitable for publication in SR.
Thank you for the opportunity to consider your work. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion and hope you will not be deterred from submitting future work to Scientific Reports.

Why do you have such a strange idea? It would be better to accuse me after you investigate clearly.

14. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,395
Nope. Gravitational waves are produced from the acceleration of the mass itself (in this case, the Sun). So it would be the Sun orbiting the galaxy that would produce some gravitational waves. But there are a number of reasons that this would not have any measurable effect on the planets of the solar system:
1. The energy values are way to small. For comparison, the Earth emits gravitational waves due to its orbit around the Sun. The power output equals ~200w. This energy loss results in the Earth decreasing its orbit size at the rate of 1 proton diameter per day. This is an inconsequential amount, and is at the source, where all of the energy has to be accounted for. as those waves spread out, the vast majority of the wave front will not encounter any planet but just be lost to interplanetary space. The bit that interact with any planet will be a tiny, tiny fraction of that already infinitesimal total. Nowhere close to causing any measurable effect on the planet's orbit.
The Sun, orbiting the galaxy, while hundreds of times more massive than the Earth, follows a very large and slow orbit, and, as a result, would produce even less energetic gravity waves than the the Earth does.
2. The wavelengths would be to long to interact with planetary bodies. The frequencies of gravitational waves produced in this manner is equal to the frequency of the process producing them. In the case of the Earth, 1 orbit per year produces gravity waves with frequencies of 1 cycle per year, and a wavelength of 1 light year long. Much too long to effectively interact with a planet-sized object. For the Sun, with its orbital period of 230 million years...
3. Gravitational waves created by are Sun's orbit are a result of the Solar system as a whole, as the entire Solar system is subject to the gravitational effects that determine the orbit. The production of said gravitational waves by the whole System, would not effect the internal workings of the system.

Your "water wave" analogy is invalid and betrays a lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind gravitational wave production

15. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,517
Well this one is decent English, at least. The previous two were not.

But it's quite funny that you are parading these rejection letters as if they are some kind of accolade.

16. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Because someone didn't believe that I was providing a reviewer's comment, I needed to post the journal's other decisions here as well.
However, it is considered a kind of showing off by someone now. It doesn't matter, because I already know this person better, he is such a boring person.

17. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
From your reply, I see a lot of data requiring very high precision. I don't know where you got these data. You should provide references. I believe these data are not from your own calculations.
Based on classical physics, I analyzed the generation mechanism of gravitational waves, estimated the intensity of gravitational waves, and gave the gravitational equation under the influence of gravitational waves, which was verified in the calculation of the orbits of the planets in the solar system. My theory is a modification of Newton's law of universal gravitation.
I hope that you can also use your GR to calculate the data of the orbits of all the planets in the solar system, use the data to speak, and use the data to prove that your theory is correct.
It's always easy to guess, but it has to be verified, Janus58 you gave very high precision data, ~200w, 1 proton diameter per day, 1 orbit per year would produce a frequency of 1 cycle per year, a wavelength of 1 light-year gravitational waves, etc. Can you write out your calculation process? Or give references.

18. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
I have given a very detailed analysis and calculation process for the gravitational waves produced by the sun’s disturbance to the gravitational field of the Milky Way and the gravitational waves produced by the earth’s disturbance to the sun’s gravitational field.
We cannot give a conclusion casually, we must give a logical analysis and calculation process, otherwise it can only be an unfounded conjecture. Janus58

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
This could be a genuine review. Reviewers don't necessarily have English as their first language. Not all physicists are great wordsmiths. A lot of reviewers are busy people, so this review could just be a few reasons for rejecting Tony's work, jotted down and sent off in a hurry.

The common theme of all these reviews - which are probably communications in confidence that Tony has published without seeking appropriate permissions - is that Tony's work isn't fit for publication in a peer-reviewed science journal. We were already aware of that before any of this.

20. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
It should be said: Tony's paper is not suitable for publication in SCI physics journals. In other non-SCI physics journals, I have published several papers. The reviewers gave a very good evaluation. Except that these journals are not SCI, others are OK. In fact, the reviewers of SCI physics journals will continue to emphasize that gravitational research must be based on GR, and they cannot give other better reasons.

21. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,517
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/412980/does-the-earth-emit-gravitational-waves

22. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,517
Sure, predatory pay-to-publish journals are two a penny these days. A lot of them emanate from China.

23. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
In fact, the loyalty of Chinese SCI journals to GR can be ranked first in the world. On the contrary, Western SCI physics journals are more willing to give me the opportunity of Under Review for such papers.
There are many journals in China that only need to pay money to publish. Such journals are terrible. My interest is not for publishing, and I am even less interested in journals that are piled up with money.
My papers were published in physics journals in the United States and Canada, but these journals were kicked out of SCI because they allowed to publish papers against GR.