Doppler Effect Of Gravitational Field

Status
Not open for further replies.
TonyYuan said:
The velocity of the gravitational field is not measured by me, my data is also from some sci papers and google.

From my verification of Mercury's precession deviation of 43", the gravitational field velocity c measured by the scientists is trustworthy.
Click to expand...

So your own theory has an equation with the constant c=299792458 m/s in it, and yet you deny that that number is a physical constant:

TonyYuan said:
Time expansion is something of SR. The basis of SR is the constant speed of light. Unfortunately, GR has denied this foundation.
Click to expand...

I find that extremely self-contradictory, and that is predominately what made me lose motivation to continue our discussion. I should not have to explain to you that c, the speed of light, is a physical constant locally in GR, just as it is a constant in SR. If you want to use c=299792458 m/s in your own equation, you should not deny that number is a physical constant.

With all of that being said, I will still provide some final comments. I don't think of what you did as a "derivation" of any equation, because it seems to be more of an ad hoc "modification" to the existing equation. As an analogy, let's go back to before 1905, before SR.

Before SR, everyone thought the tick rate of a stationary clock was the same as the tick rate of an identically constructed moving clock. Let's call the tick rate of the stationary clock Δt (where Δt represents the amount of time elapsed from one tick of the clock to the next tick), and let's call the tick rate of an identically constructed moving clock Δt' (where Δt' represents the amount of time elapsed from one tick of the clock to the next tick).

So, before SR we would have this equation:
Δt' = Δt

But let's say that someone came up with the idea that the moving clock should tick more slowly as a function of its speed, even to the point where it should effectively stop ticking entirely if it moved at the speed of light, c. So using your "boundary conditions" approach, that person might come up with this equation instead:
Δt' = Δt * ((c - v ) /c)
So for an example case where v=0.8c, we get this:
Δt' = Δt * ((1 - 0.8) / 1)
Δt' = Δt * (0.2 / 1)
Δt' = Δt * 0.2

That is an ad hoc modification to the existing equation. It gives the desired result, but it may or may not be correct. The proper way would be to derive a new equation, using the idea that the speed of light is a constant. Build the two clocks such that a light pulse bounces up and down between two mirrors, with one mirror on top, and the other mirror on the bottom. Let each reflection of the light pulse represent one tick of each clock, and then derive the relationship from there. That is what SR did, and the correct result is this:
Δt' = Δt * √(1 - (v² / c²))
So for an example case where v=0.8c, we get this:
Δt' = Δt * √(1 - (0.8² / 1²))
Δt' = Δt * √(1 - (0.64 / 1))
Δt' = Δt * √(1 - 0.64)
Δt' = Δt * √(0.36)
Δt' = Δt * 0.6

That result is different from the ad hoc method, but it could also have been possible that the ad hoc method might have resulted in Δt' = Δt * √(1 - (v² / c²)) if it were done differently, or if someone were very lucky. So, Tony, it may be possible that your equation is good, if it just happens to give the same results as GR. Maybe you got lucky, maybe not. I don't know enough about GR to say one way or the other. But as others have already pointed out, it does not appear to be a Doppler effect, because there is no wavelength involved. It would probably be better described as gravitation as a projectile, based on your explanation that a projectile thrown at a dog might not hurt the dog if the dog runs away at a velocity that is very close to the velocity of the projectile.
 
Neddy Bate said:
So your own theory has an equation with the constant c=299792458 m/s in it, and yet you deny that that number is a physical constant:
Click to expand...
The speed of light in a vacuum without gravitational field is c=299792458 m/s. This is the c used in my thesis, and this speed of light can be superimposed on the inertial reference frame.
SR's definition of the speed of light is constant: the speed of light in any inertial reference system is c, which means that the speed of light will not be superimposed on the speed of the inertial reference object.

Scholars such as Janus and I also had some discussions. I also gave a few scenarios for them to explain, but in the end they gave contradictory conclusions. Here we do not discuss about SR. I just want us to discuss from the perspective of classical physics

The Doppler effect I understand can be understood as a broad definition. Like the bullet shot at the dog, in my opinion, it is also a Doppler effect. Essentially the same as the Doppler effect of sound waves and light.
The Doppler effect, which reflects that the effect between two objects has changed due to the relative speed.
If you do not agree with my understanding, it can be understood as the relative speed effect between gravity and objects.
 
Last edited:
Neddy Bate said:
If you want to use c=299792458 m/s in your own equation, you should not deny that number is a physical constant.
Click to expand...
I hope my previous explanation can dispel your doubts.
As for the speed of light in any inertial reference system, we can discuss it later. I have discussed this topic with other scholars in detail before.

c=299792458 m/s, this conclusion comes from the measurement on the Earth, it does not mean that the speed of light in any inertial reference system is constant. This speed measurement scenario is almost the same as the speed measurement scenario in an airplane.

Let's look at the following text:
The sound is affected by the air on the plane, and the speed of the sound will be superimposed on the speed of the air. No matter which direction you measure the speed of the sound, the obtained measurement data will not change.
Light is affected by the gravitational field of the Earth. The speed of light will be superimposed on the speed of the Earth. No matter which direction you measure the speed of light, the measured data will not change.
 
At that time, scholars could not explain Morley's experiment, so Einstein made a bold assumption. Based on this wrong assumption, SR has created scientific myths such as time slowing down, time and space shuttle, etc., which has also become the source of Hollywood movie creation.

Newton's gravitation is great, but it has flaws. Newton did not realize that the gravitational field has speed. If he recognizes it, I believe he will also propose gravitational waves. The universal gravitational constant G is also measured when the velocity of the object relative to the gravitational field is 0, and no measurement is made when there is a relative velocity between the object and the gravitational field.

F = (G*M*m/R^2) * [(c - v)/c], you can also write F(v) = G'*M*m/R^2, G'= G*[(c -v)/c].
When the velocity of the object relative to the gravitational field is not 0, the universal gravitational constant will also change.

Using F = (G*M*m/R^2) * [(c - v)/c], I have calculated that Mercury's precession deviation is 43", which is the best verification. I have given detailed calculation steps in the paper.
 
TonyYuan said:
The formula F(v)= G*M*m/R^2 * (c - v)/c, which is not from guess or hypothesis, but from mathematical and physical derivation.
Click to expand...
Please post your derivation.

Actually, since you've written a paper you believe is worthy of publication in a science journal, why can't you give us a link to that, or upload it, so we can take a look?

---
Edit to add:

Oh wait, there's a link the opening post. Sorry. I'll take a look.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Please post your derivation.

Actually, since you've written a paper you believe is worthy of publication in a science journal, why can't you give us a link to that, or upload it, so we can take a look?
Click to expand...
I think he is saying that we can effect the universal gravitational constant by measuring the velocity of two objects that aren't orbiting one another.

Not that he knows how to do math or figure G prime into a relativistic equation involving two moving objects.
 
Comments on Tony Yuan's paper as I work through it...

1. On page 1 (the pages are not numbered), writing v/R*t when you mean vt/R is a little confusing. It's not wrong, but the risk is that some people might interpret this to mean v/(R*t) rather than vt/R.

2. On page 1 in the formula for p, there are some sign problems. If the mass m is moving to the right in the diagram, then the momentum should be decreasing since gravity is attractive, but the formula seems to indicate an increase in momentum instead.

3. The two formulas for the forces F(v1) and F(v2) at the top of page 2 appear to be incorrect, because F(v,T) does not equal p(v,T)/T.

4. Straight after those two formulas, there is an expression for the ratio of forces. That expression should be squared, according to the previous definition of the force, o this is another error.

Given these mistakes early on, I can't see much point in following through further. These errors will need to be corrected and the paper rewritten.
 
Other problems I noticed:

5. On page 2, a reference is made to the "speed of the gravitational field" being c. I don't understand what that means. In standard physics, fields don't have speeds. Is this a new hypothesis in the paper? If so, it should be clearly introduced.

6. On the page with the elliptical orbit diagram, the gravitational potential energy is given as -GMm/r0, but this is incorrect for the force definition given on page 1 (for non-zero v). A correct derivation of the potential energy from the force is required.
 
James R said:
Other problems I noticed:

5. On page 2, a reference is made to the "speed of the gravitational field" being c. I don't understand what that means. In standard physics, fields don't have speeds. Is this a new hypothesis in the paper? If so, it should be clearly introduced.

6. On the page with the elliptical orbit diagram, the gravitational potential energy is given as -GMm/r0, but this is incorrect for the force definition given on page 1 (for non-zero v). A correct derivation of the potential energy from the force is required.
Click to expand...
What do you think about moving this to Alt Theories? It's not physics as we know it, Jim.
 
exchemist said:
What do you think about moving this to Alt Theories? It's not physics as we know it, Jim.
Click to expand...
I only just noticed that it wasn't there already. Moved now. Obviously this ain't mainstream physics.
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
I think he is saying that we can effect the universal gravitational constant by measuring the velocity of two objects that aren't orbiting one another.

Not that he knows how to do math or figure G prime into a relativistic equation involving two moving objects.
Click to expand...
If the velocity of the object is not 0, and there is an angle with the direction of the gravitational field, then G is not equal to 6.67259×10N·m²/kg², and it will change with the change of the angle.
 
James R said:
Comments on Tony Yuan's paper as I work through it...

1. On page 1 (the pages are not numbered), writing v/R*t when you mean vt/R is a little confusing. It's not wrong, but the risk is that some people might interpret this to mean v/(R*t) rather than vt/R.

2. On page 1 in the formula for p, there are some sign problems. If the mass m is moving to the right in the diagram, then the momentum should be decreasing since gravity is attractive, but the formula seems to indicate an increase in momentum instead.
Ans: P= G*M*m/R^2*T/(1+v/R*T)), this is impulse, not momentum. It can be seen from the formula that the total impulse is different in time T. The value when v and the gravitational field are in the same direction will be smaller than the value when v and the gravitational field are in the same direction.

3. The two formulas for the forces F(v1) and F(v2) at the top of page 2 appear to be incorrect, because F(v,T) does not equal p(v,T)/T.
Ans: F(v1) = p1/T = G*M*m/R^2/(1+v1/R*T), this is just a simple mathematical operation, and I don’t know where you said the mistake is.

4. Straight after those two formulas, there is an expression for the ratio of forces. That expression should be squared, according to the previous definition of the force, o this is another error.
Ans: F(v1)/F(v2) = (1+v2/R*T)/(1+v1/R*T) = (R+v2*T)/ (R+v1*T), are you talking about this? I don’t know why you said you need square here? This is just a simple mathematical calculation.

Given these mistakes early on, I can't see much point in following through further. These errors will need to be corrected and the paper rewritten.
Click to expand...
If there are any errors you said, then Neddy has already pointed it out. Neddy is the most serious scholar to read my article.
 
James R said:
Other problems I noticed:

5. On page 2, a reference is made to the "speed of the gravitational field" being c. I don't understand what that means. In standard physics, fields don't have speeds. Is this a new hypothesis in the paper? If so, it should be clearly introduced.
Ans:The speed of the gravitational field is c. This conclusion has been adopted by many sci papers, and I have only adopted this conclusion. As for the speed of the gravitational field, I don’t really care, c is just a speed sign.

6. On the page with the elliptical orbit diagram, the gravitational potential energy is given as -GMm/r0, but this is incorrect for the force definition given on page 1 (for non-zero v). A correct derivation of the potential energy from the force is required.
Ans:There is no problem with the derivation here, all the orbit data comes from F=GMm/R^2 * [(c-v)/c].
Click to expand...
 
exchemist said:
What do you think about moving this to Alt Theories? It's not physics as we know it, Jim.
Click to expand...
exchemist, Are you sure you have studied physics? Until now, I have never seen that you have ever studied physics. You once said that you are a famous chemist.
 
Neddy,
I look forward to continuing discussions with you. Perhaps we are different from the point of view of SR. But this does not affect our discussion. I don't care whether the speed of the gravitational field is exactly equal to the speed of light c or c + 0.1 or c - 0.1 ...... For me, c is just a speed sign, it doesn't matter how much it is.

My theory challenged GR and corrected Newton's gravitation.
It is very difficult to establish my theory, because Newton and Einstein are already the gods of the scientific community on our planet.

Neddy, I appreciate your rigorous analysis and I hope we can continue. If you finally confirm that my theory is correct, please let me know.
 
TonyYuan

Your theory is ...., start a thread that gives the bigger picture of your theory .

Extend your thinking in understanding the Universe .
 
river said:
No Tony I don't want to do that .

What I want Tony is for you to describe your theory right now , in the big picture .
Click to expand...
Newton believes that the speed of gravity is infinite, and the universal gravitation he proposed reveals the relationship between gravity and the mass M, m of the object and the distance R between the objects. F=GMm/R^2.

The existence speed of gravitational field is already a recognized fact. My paper reveals the relationship between gravity and the mass M, m of the object, the distance between the objects, and the velocity of the object relative to the gravitational field. F=GMm/R^2 * [(c-v) / c ].

The Newton's gravitational constant G is measured when the velocity of the gravitational field relative to the velocity of the object is c. When the object has a velocity v in the direction of the gravitational field, the velocity of the gravitational field relative to the object will become c-v, G will no longer be 6.67259×10N·m²/kg², but G = G*(c-v) /c.

I derived this equation F=GMm/R^2 * [(c-v) / c] from the basic laws of mathematics and physics. From the formula, it reflects the Doppler effect of a gravitational field. And I verified the calculation of Mercury's precession deviation, and my calculated result is 43.05".

This result 43.05" is almost identical to the 43" obtained by GR calculation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top