# The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

1. It is always unclear.
2. They reach the platform at the same time.
It IS unclear. They had to play 20 questions before you clarified the problem enough for somebody to give the 2nd answer, which is the only correct answer.
The question as asked in the OP is insufficiently specified to have a correct answer, hence the other answers you might have received.

I have got at least 5 different answers. Is there a standard answer for special relativity?
Once the problem had been sufficiently clarified, it turns out that SR is not involved at all in the computing of the answer. It would be involved only if the race was judged in a different frame.

The precession of the celestial body's orbit is caused by the asymmetry caused by gravity
The actual orbit of the celestial body should be a continuous and non-repeating spiral orbit. Due to the constant velocity of the gravitational wave, the gravitational effect of the small celestial body away from the central celestial body and the central celestial body is asymmetric. The time at the time of regression makes the regression curve of the orbit larger than the curve away from it, and completes the precession of the orbit every cycle,
The precession of the elliptical orbit increases with the increase of the orbital eccentricity. But GR tells us that precession has nothing to do with e , e= 0 does not affect the existence of precession. What is Einstein thinking?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node116.html

It IS unclear. They had to play 20 questions before you clarified the problem enough for somebody to give the 2nd answer, which is the only correct answer.
The question as asked in the OP is insufficiently specified to have a correct answer, hence the other answers you might have received.

Once the problem had been sufficiently clarified, it turns out that SR is not involved at all in the computing of the answer. It would be involved only if the race was judged in a different frame.
He seems to have been banned now from Physics Forums, presumably for being a time-wasting crank, though I can't see the reasons given, if any.

It IS unclear. They had to play 20 questions before you clarified the problem enough for somebody to give the 2nd answer, which is the only correct answer.
The question as asked in the OP is insufficiently specified to have a correct answer, hence the other answers you might have received.
This scenario is very simple, so simple that elementary school students can use classical physics to perform calculations.

Once the problem had been sufficiently clarified, it turns out that SR is not involved at all in the computing of the answer. It would be involved only if the race was judged in a different frame.
Looking at this game from that platform's own perspective, who will arrive first? This is really crazy.

He seems to have been banned now from Physics Forums, presumably for being a time-wasting crank, though I can't see the reasons given, if any.
They sent me an email stating that this topic has violated their rules. What are rules, they are rules. You have the right to speak, they have the right to block.

I do n’t know which country ’s forum that forum is, they still seem to be in the Middle Ages.

I really want to know if the eccentricity e = 0, will the celestial body still have precession?

I really want to know if the eccentricity e = 0, will the celestial body still have precession?
Well, if you bothered to look up the definition of precession, you would have your answer.

But you've got a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't support your wacky idea of Doppler Effect in a flat field.

Tony;

#1
I have improved the program and I have eliminated the effects of time.

Since there are no effects of time, (effects are caused by processes already in place), what are these effects?

#8
2.At different gravitational field strengths, the speed of light is different.

Isn't light speed constant, and a photon moving against the g-field loses energy (red shift), and moving with the g-field gains energy (blue shift)?
This was demonstrated with the Pound-Rebka, 1960 experiment.

The velocity of the sun in space is approx. 220 km/sec, with the earth orbiting at 30 km/sec. Earth follows a helical path around the sun. That should produce a more uniform g-field for the planets when compared to the orbital planes oriented in the direction of the sun's motion.
Did you include that in your program?

Scientist Edwin Hubble uses the Doppler effect to conclude that the universe is expanding. He found that the frequency of light emitted by celestial bodies far from the galaxy became lower, that is, they moved to the red end of the spectrum, which is called redshift.

But how much of the redshift results from gravitational effects for large mass?
Doppler shift is a perceived change in a frequency with a change in relative velocity between the source and detector.

#9
Where does gravity come from?1. Newton said that gravity comes from mass, which means that energy comes from objects.2. The general relativity say it comes from the bending of space, that is to say, energy comes from space.

We know from observation that a g-field is associated with a mass. If a test object is placed in a g-field surrounding a mass M, it immediately gains energy/momentum in the direction of M. What is missing is a theoretical model that explains how energy from M is distributed in the surrounding space.
Reality would be the non-uniform g-field is redirecting the test object, and its path appears as if space is curved. Another metaphorical figure of speech,
substituting poetry for science.

Well, if you bothered to look up the definition of precession, you would have your answer.

But you've got a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't support your wacky idea of Doppler Effect in a flat field.
Please tell us if the eccentricity e = 0, will the celestial body still have precession?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PWRJBQkNtNf7c2Mm6
Planet-------------observed-----------------theoretical-------------delt( "per year)-------------------( "per century)
Mercury--------------5.75----------------------5.50.....................................0.25.......................................25
Venus-----------------2.04----------------------10.75...............................-8.71.......................................-871
Earth------------------11.45---------------------11.87..............................-0.42.......................................-42
Mars------------------16.28----------------------17.60........................... -1.32........................................-132
Jupiter----------------6.55------------------------7.42.............................-0.87.......................................-87
Saturn----------------19.50-----------------------18.36..........................-1.14.......................................-114
Uranus----------------3.34------------------------2.72.............................. 0.62.......................................62
Neptune--------------0.36-----------------------0.65................................-0.29....................................-29

......R ......................e...........................Mine................GR( "per century)
46001200..........0.2056......Mercury: 40.4 "......GR: 42.93"
107476259.........0.0068......Venus: ...0.85 "......GR: ..8.64"
147098074.........0.0167......Earth: .....1.90 "......GR: ..3.85"
227936637 ........0.0934......Mars: ..........8 "......GR: ...1.34"
740573600........0.0483 .....Jupiter:......2.3 "......GR: 0.078"

I can't see where the Einstein GR data is correct?

How do you find that the precession results obtained by GR calculation are very close to the observed data?

Last edited:
The velocity of the sun in space is approx. 220 km/sec, with the earth orbiting at 30 km/sec. Earth follows a helical path around the sun. That should produce a more uniform g-field for the planets when compared to the orbital planes oriented in the direction of the sun's motion.
Did you include that in your program?
Did not consider the speed of the sun. 220 km/sec. GR did not too.

We know from observation that a g-field is associated with a mass. If a test object is placed in a g-field surrounding a mass M, it immediately gains energy/momentum in the direction of M. What is missing is a theoretical model that explains how energy from M is distributed in the surrounding space.
Reality would be the non-uniform g-field is redirecting the test object, and its path appears as if space is curved. Another metaphorical figure of speech,
substituting poetry for science.
Light is refracted under the gravitational field. The model you mentioned is very similar to the gravitational field model I said.

I'm going to bed. See you tomorrow.

Last edited:
The velocity of the sun in space is approx. 220 km/sec, with the earth orbiting at 30 km/sec.
No it isn't. Not unless you specify that speed relative to some arbitrary reference point.

The sun's "speed" is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

Earth follows a helical path around the sun.
No it doesn't. Not unless you specify the solar system's speed relative to some arbitrary reference point that's moving away from us at 220 km/s.

You can choose any reference point you want - moving in any direction and at any speed - and declare that the solar system is moving relative to that point at a given speed/direction. But it's pretty meaningless.

And for the love of God - don't link to that terribly misleading video that circled the internet for the longest time, showing the solar system moving through space with the planets following helical paths. It's bunk for the reasons mentioned above.

Doppler shift is a perceived change in a frequency with a change in relative velocity between the source and detector.
Since the sun is not emitting any gravitational waves, there is no frequency, and thus no Doppler shift.

substituting poetry for science.

Last edited:
Did not consider the speed of the sun. 220 km/sec. GR did not too.
Sun has no speed. Not unless you choose an arbitrary reference point that is moving away from us. The solar system is effectively stationary.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PWRJBQkNtNf7c2Mm6
Planet-------------observed-----------------theoretical-------------delt( "per year)-------------------( "per century)
Mercury--------------5.75----------------------5.50.....................................0.25.......................................25
Venus-----------------2.04----------------------10.75...............................-8.71.......................................-871
Earth------------------11.45---------------------11.87..............................-0.42.......................................-42
Mars------------------16.28----------------------17.60........................... -1.32........................................-132
Jupiter----------------6.55------------------------7.42.............................-0.87.......................................-87
Saturn----------------19.50-----------------------18.36..........................-1.14.......................................-114
Uranus----------------3.34------------------------2.72.............................. 0.62.......................................62
Neptune--------------0.36-----------------------0.65................................-0.29....................................-29

......R ......................e...........................Mine................GR( "per century)
46001200..........0.2056......Mercury: 40.4 "......GR: 42.93"
107476259.........0.0068......Venus: ...0.85 "......GR: ..8.64"
147098074.........0.0167......Earth: .....1.90 "......GR: ..3.85"
227936637 ........0.0934......Mars: ..........8 "......GR: ...1.34"
740573600........0.0483 .....Jupiter:......2.3 "......GR: 0.078"

I can't see where the Einstein GR data is correct?
How do you find that the precession results obtained by GR calculation are very close to the observed data?

What do you think？

What do you think？
I think you're never going to do any meaningful science unless you learn to accept feedback.

No it isn't. Not unless you specify that speed relative to some arbitrary reference point.
The sun's "speed" is, for all intents and purposes, zero.
This is common sense. I don't understand why you say this.
No it doesn't. Not unless you specify the solar system's speed relative to some arbitrary reference point that's moving away from us at 220 km/s.
You can choose any reference point you want - moving in any direction and at any speed - and declare that the solar system is moving relative to that point at a given speed/direction. But it's pretty meaningless.
And for the love of God - don't link to that terribly misleading video that circled the internet for the longest time, showing the solar system moving through space with the planets following helical paths. It's bunk for the reasons mentioned above.
This is also common sense.
Sun has no speed. Not unless you choose an arbitrary reference point that is moving away from us. The solar system is effectively stationary.
This is also common sense. Your response is not relevant to my question. So forgive me for not replying to you.

This is common sense. I don't understand why you say this.
This is also common sense.
This is also common sense. Your response is not relevant to my question. So forgive me for not replying to you.

OK. Perhaps I misunderstood.

When you said:
Did not consider the speed of the sun. 220 km/sec. GR did not too.
I thought you were saying you'd made a mistake in not considering "the speed of the sun", and that you planned to incorporate it into your design.
If you agree that "the speed of the sun" is irrelevant, then OK by me.

But you still haven't addressed the core issue:

Since the sun does not emit gravitational waves, what does this Doppler Effect you keep talking about apply to?

OK. Perhaps I misunderstood.

When you said:

I thought you were saying you'd made a mistake in not considering "the speed of the sun", and that you planned to incorporate it into your design.
If you agree that "the speed of the sun" is irrelevant, then OK by me.

But you still haven't addressed the core issue:

Since the sun does not emit gravitational waves, what does this Doppler Effect you keep talking about apply to?
We can have two explanations for gravity:
1. Massive physics will generate a large gravitational field, and thus generate gravitational force.
2. Due to the large mass object, the spatial density is changed, thus generating gravity.
No matter what kind of model can produce wave effect, wave Doppler effect.

We can have two explanations for gravity:
1. Massive physics will generate a large gravitational field, and thus generate gravitational force.
2. Due to the large mass object, the spatial density is changed, thus generating gravity.
No matter what kind of model can produce wave effect, wave Doppler effect.
Simply asserting that a model "can produce wave effect" is not an explanation of how waves are produced.
A Newtonian gravitational field is static - no waves.

In GR the curvature of spacetime due to mass is also usually static, except that (very weak) gravitational waves can sometimes be generated by accelerating masses.

So where do the waves come from, according to your idea, and in what direction do they travel?