# The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by TonyYuan, Apr 2, 2020.

1. ### HalcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
339
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.

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

Messages:
852
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

5. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,235
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.

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

Messages:
852
This scenario is very simple, so simple that elementary school students can use classical physics to perform calculations.

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

Messages:
852
Looking at this game from that platform's own perspective, who will arrive first? This is really crazy.

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

Messages:
852
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.

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

Messages:
852
I really want to know if the eccentricity e = 0, will the celestial body still have precession?

11. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,689
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.

Halc likes this.
12. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
727
Tony;

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Messages:
852
Please tell us if the eccentricity e = 0, will the celestial body still have precession?

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

Messages:
852
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: Apr 4, 2020
15. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Did not consider the speed of the sun. 220 km/sec. GR did not too.

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: Apr 4, 2020
16. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,689
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.

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.

Last edited: Apr 4, 2020
17. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,689
Sun has no speed. Not unless you choose an arbitrary reference point that is moving away from us. The solar system is effectively stationary.

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

Messages:
852
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？

19. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,689
I think you're never going to do any meaningful science unless you learn to accept feedback.

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

Messages:
852
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.

21. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,689
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?

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

Messages:
852
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.

23. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,235
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?

DaveC426913 likes this.