The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

[Write4U]

Acceleration is not a relative term. It means change in velocity. The rate of acceleration (which is what I'm talking about here) is the change in velocity over time. Phyti's description involves being hit by the ground causing perhaps 200 g's or more of acceleration rate, which is fatal.

Yes, I know what happens when something hits the ground .
But I always understood "acceleration" to mean an increase in speed, not a sudden impact.

ac·cel·er·a·tion
noun
a vehicle's capacity to gain speed within a short time.

1. "a Formula One car is superior to an Indy car in its acceleration"
   
   Similar:
   speeding up
   increasing speed
   increase in speed
   gain in momentum
   gathering speed
   opening up
   rate of change of velocity
   
   Opposite:
   deceleration
   slowing down

1. However; in PHYSICS ; the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.

I know you used it in this context, but in view of the general definition, this type of speed change is used in context of relativity, no?
In this application, the actual direct rate of change in speed is a sudden and catastrophic "deceleration"? No?

Not trying to be difficult, just wanting to get a clear understanding of the terms and when they are appropriate.

 

[Halc]

But I always understood "acceleration" to mean an increase in speed, not a sudden impact.

I'm using the physics definition, not the street definition. This is a physics & Math section of the forum.

1. However; in PHYSICS ; the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.

I know you used it in this context, but in view of the general definition, this type of speed change is used in context of relativity, no?

It's been in use since at least Newton's time, and probably back to Galileo. No, relativity doesn't really make any modification to that old definition.

In this application, the actual direct rate of change in speed is a sudden and catastrophic "deceleration"? No?

Deceleration isn't really a physics term. The lay definition is rate of 'increase in (typically absolute) speed', a scalar, whereas in physics it is rate of 'change in velocity', a vector. The ISS is accelerating at nearly 1G in the physics sense, but not at all in the lay sense since it has a constant speed.

 

[Write4U]

Thanks for clarifying.....
I was looking at this definition;

Deceleration is a special case of acceleration whereby it only applies to objects slowing down. Acceleration is a vector, which means that it has to be reported as a magnitude with a direction.

In cases of one-dimensional motion, negative and positive are used to indicate direction.

Calculating Deceleration: Definition, Formula & Examples - Video ...

Relativity?

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC;
The 2013 critique of D.J.Sadhu's video on a vortex/helix solar system only corrected the flaws, but did not eliminate the idea.

I'm not suggesting the idea is eliminated - I'm saying it's useless.
If you want to pick some arbitrary reference point and say the Sun is moving away from it, and the Earth is spiraling around it, that's not wrong.
Just acknowledge that, since it's an arbitrary reference point, it has no significance.

It's what's known as a Deepity - something that appears to be some deep principle, but is fact, trivial.

 

[DaveC426913]

No matter what gravity is, the affected object will show volatility, it also has a Doppler effect.

False.

 

[TonyYuan]

False.

Have you seen them post #106 and post#107 ?
I have explained the Doppler effect of the gravitational field. When M and m are far away from each other, the greater the relative speed, the smaller the speed change that m can obtain. When M and m are close to each other, the greater the relative speed, the greater the speed change that m can obtain. Isn't this the characteristic of the Doppler effect?
You cannot deny the law of conservation of momentum.

 

[Halc]

Deceleration isn't really a physics term. The lay definition is rate of 'increase in (typically absolute) speed', a scalar

Thanks for clarifying.....

Oh great. You liked a post of mine when it was wrong. Too late to edit.
Obviously the everyday definition of deceleration is a decrease in speed, not an increase as I said above. Each is the negative of the other.

I suppose if you apply that relation to the physics definition, deceleration is just the same as acceleration but with the vector in the opposite direction. So if I release a brick from the top of the tower of Pisa, it will decelerate at -9.8 m/sec downward. Eww... who wants that wording? So physics tends not to use the term that way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Have you seen them post #106 and post#107 ?
I have explained the Doppler effect of the gravitational field.

You can't explain it; you don't even understand it.


Look, you seem to be of the opinion that all gravity, everywhere, at all times, is in the form of a wave.

That is as wrong as saying all water, everywhere, at all times, is in the form of a wave.


Water only has the form of a wave when there is a disturbance (such as a pebble). It is that disturbance that propagates as a wave through the water.

No disturbance = no waves. When the water is still, there are no waves.
If we fly in a plane over still water, we don't detect any Doppler Effect on waves that aren't there.


Gravity only has the form of a wave when there is a disturbance (such as merging black holes). It is that disturbance that propagates as a wave through the gravitational field.

No disturbance = no waves. When the field is at equilibrium, there are no waves.
If we fly on a planet through a gravitational field, we don't detect any Doppler Effect on waves that aren't there.

To make it plain and simple: the Sun's g-field is in equilibrium. Its mass is not changing, therefore there are no disturbances in the gravitational field. There is nothing to propagate, therefore no waves, therefore no Doppler Effect.

 

[exchemist]

You can't explain it; you don't even understand it.


Look, you seem to be of the opinion that all gravity, everywhere, at all times, is in the form of a wave.

That is as wrong as saying all water, everywhere, at all times, is in the form of a wave.


Water only has the form of a wave when there is a disturbance (such as a pebble). It is that disturbance that propagates as a wave through the water.

No disturbance = no waves. When the water is still, there are no waves.
If we fly in a plane over still water, we don't detect any Doppler Effect on waves that aren't there.


Gravity only has the form of a wave when there is a disturbance (such as merging black holes). It is that disturbance propagates as a wave through the gravitational field.

No disturbance = no waves. When the field is at equilibrium, there are no waves.
If we fly on a planet through a gravitational field, we don't detect any Doppler Effect on waves that aren't there.

To make it plain and simple: the Sun's g-field is in equilibrium. Its mass is not changing, therefore there are no disturbances in the gravitational field. There is nothing to propagate, therefore no waves, therefore no Doppler Effect.

The response will probably be yet another screed of numbers, accompanied by more repetitive gobbledegook, in a riot of font sizes and colours. The guy is either unhinged or concrete from the neck up. My bet is the former.

 

[TonyYuan]

No disturbance = no waves. When the water is still, there are no waves.
If we fly in a plane over still water, we don't detect any Doppler Effect on waves that aren't there.

I agree with you, but have you noticed that all planets are moving, they are like ships in the sea, and they are generating waves.
My model diagram also clearly illustrates this. Only when they are far enough away from each other, the acceleration of gravity g = G * M / R^2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MCkb6tag4WRfU1VA8

 

[TonyYuan]

I believe our discussion is being followed by many people. So I hope it is a relatively high-level discussion.
Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury:
Amount (arcsec/Julian century)[8]Cause
532.3035..................Gravitational tugs of other solar bodies
0.0286.....................Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.9799....................Gravitoelectric effects (Schwarzschild-like), a General Relativity effect
−0.0020...................Lense–Thirring precession
575.31.......................Total predicted
574.10±0.65[7]........Observed
Gravitational tugs of other solar bodies 532.3035" per century. I hope someone can introduce the Doppler effect of the gravitational field and recalculate it.

Planet.....

......

Mercury... 5.75"......... 5.50"..........per yeaar.
If the calculation described in the previous section is carried out more accurately, taking into account the slight eccentricities of the planetary orbits, as well as their small mutual inclinations, and retaining many more terms in the expansions (1015) and (1017), then the perihelion precession rate of the planet Mercury is found to be

arc seconds per year. However, the observed precession rate is

arc seconds per year. It turns out that the cause of this discrepancy is the general relativistic correction to Newtonian gravity.
5.50"-------->5.32", from these words, there are many things that can be tapped in this calculation model. Maybe you will be the first scholar to calculate the correct data. Introducing the Doppler effect of gravitational field, you may shock the world.

 

[TonyYuan]

No matter what gravity is, the affected object will show volatility, it also has a Doppler effect. So I guess: if we can consider the Doppler effect of the gravitational field when calculating the precession of Mercury, then the missing 44.1" will no longer need GR compensation.

Regarding the existence of the Doppler effect in the gravitational field, I have clearly stated that the knowledge I used is the knowledge of classical physics, I believe everyone can understand it. The distance between the planets of our solar system is not far away, and this Doppler effect cannot be ignored by us. The acceleration of gravity in classical physics is an approximate formula g = G * M / R^2 when they are very far away from each other. But when they are relatively close to each other, the results calculated using this formula will have a relatively large deviation.

 

[DaveC426913]

So I guess...

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[TonyYuan]

Where has Janus gone, he will reply with a detailed theoretical analysis. I like his style and hope to see his reply again.

 

[TonyYuan]

I have verified with procedures that Mercury's precession deviation (44.1 "per century) is due to the Doppler effect of the gravitational field.

 

[TonyYuan]

1.Mercury:
Perihelion precession per century::58.43349" .
Afar precession per century::47.43934" .

2.Earth:
Perihelion precession per century::32.64312" .
Afar precession per century::32.39084" .

 

[TonyYuan]

My data may be closer to the real.

 

[TonyYuan]

Planet -------- Perihelion precession --------------- Afar precession (per century)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury********** 58.405"****************** 47.439"
Venus********** 38.255"****************** 38.465"
Earth********** 32.647"****************** 32.389"
Mars********** 28.245"****************** 25.653"
Jupiter********** 14.578"****************** 13.836"
Saturn********** 10.822"****************** 10.190"
Uranus********** 7.454"****************** 7.369"
Neptune********** 5.422"****************** 5.302"

These data come from program simulation. The planetary precession under the Doppler effect of gravitational field every century.

 

[phyti]

Tony;

I don't understand the model you designed too much. If you can give some hints, I might understand.

The gravitational strength between mass M and mass S, increases or decreases with increasing or decreasing spatial separation.
In the example, the 2 unit masses rotating around a common center can be represented by an equivalent single 2 unit mass oscillating between the tick marks.
GR states the g-field depends on the distribution of matter. That's what is happening in this scenario. The distribution is changing relative to the test mass S, resulting in a changing field strength.
The system can be interpreted as a single mass with a variable field strength, until more refined observations reveal multiple objects or an orbit or both.
You seem to support the idea that Newtonian physics can explain the physical behavior of the universe as well as Relativity. The example was in your favor.
Not in your favor:
Doppler shift is concerned with images, physical and mental.
Gravity is concerned with environmental conditioning.
Receiving images at a different frequency does not alter your environment like a changing g-field does. Two different concepts.

 

[phyti]

Halc#80;

Should have cited this.

You don't know what a gravitational field is then. It isn't a force field. A massive object generates no force. For instance, let's consider just the sun without any planets. What force do you thing it generates?

If the mass is removed, so is the g-field. When a test mass is placed in a g-field, it acquires energy.
Objects are destroyed on impact, resulting from accumulated kinetic energy.
What is the source of that energy?
The g-field must be real to have real measurable effects.

 

[phyti]

Viewer;

G-fields are static, but the effects vary with relative motion and configuration.

Gravitational effects from a multiple body system were observed before LIGO.
When the sun, earth, and moon are aligned (a special case of redistribution of mass for an orbiting system), a state of high tides is formed. The deformation of water is greatest, and the earth surface to a lesser degree. This was detected at CERN when data gave abnormal output. The cause was a deformation of the tunnels due to the sun-moon system g-field.
The fix was a daily power adjustment to the accelerator.
ref. quantumdiaries.org/