The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

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

  1. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    This is a reply from a famous scientific journal:
    The effects of retarded gravitation and of retarded gravitational waves has long been understood. The author seeks to explain something that has already been well known for over 70 years. That all of the author's references are from wikipedia should convince the author of this. The quality of this submission is on par with a high school science report. Thus, it is not appropriate for any research journal.

    We are sorry to disappoint you with this decision.

    My reply:
    First of all, I would like to thank Heiliyon for affirming my paper.

    This paper is indeed suitable for high school students to read, as long as they have a certain knowledge of calculus. The concept of gravitational waves was proposed a long time ago. But it didn't use Newton's gravitational equation, calculus, and law of conservation of energy to derive a new gravitational equation like my paper. F = (G*M*m/R^2)*(c-v)/c, this gravitational equation is the first one I proposed and proved. It was also the first time I applied it to the orbit calculation of planets such as Mercury.

    If someone has put forward what I said decades ago, please provide evidence. Otherwise please respect this fact.
    In addition, a paper that can be read by high school students must be a good paper and a classic paper.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    It seems to me that the journal did not even understand your idea. They refer to "retarded gravitational waves," meaning that the effects of gravitation take place after a certain amount of delay time. But your idea is not that at all. You are saying that the effects of gravitation are dependent on whether the gravitating objects are moving toward one another, or whether they are moving away from one another.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    I think it’s essentially the same, it’s all caused by the finite speed of the gravitational field. Of course I don't know if they really understand my paper.
    I also asked a professor recently, and he told me that my theory is completely wrong. So I asked him what the error was, and he replied to me that he hadn't read it seriously, so he couldn't tell the specific error. But when he saw the planetary orbit data I calculated, he was surprised, and he asked me for the specific calculation process.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Is there a physics professor in our science forum who can be the reviewer of my paper ? There is a journal that hopes I can find such a professor. Thanks.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    No. Your idea makes no sense and is worthless. You have been told this by countless people, including people here, people on more professional (and therefore less tolerant) science forums, and by the reviewers of several science journals.

    If you are determined to see it published, your only hope is vixra. That’s where all the hardcore cranks go.
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    And, when you couldn't provide the professor with any kind of process, what did he say then?
    exchemist likes this.
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    If you were serious and thought your crap was legit, you would have already gone to a local university and paid several professors to honestly review your paper by now. Spamming an internet forum whose members already know you're a crank is just being a drama queen who's looking for attention.
  11. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    I have prepared the program code for the professor and have consulted him if he needs it.
    I have also contacted local university professors. Unfortunately, they are like you. They think it is wrong without even looking at it. They cannot accept my theory to modify the Newtonian gravitational equation, and they cannot accept that its accuracy exceeds GR.
    When you spend a lot of time and energy to complete a certain discovery, and try to tell people, you will find that the real difficulties have just begun.

    My theory is correct whether it is deduction or verification. I have given a detailed paper. I believe that one day, a physics professor will come forward and support my theory. I also accept anyone's rebuttal at all times and provide answers.

    The 2020 Newton re-established.
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    What does a programming code have to do with anything?

    Now, you're lying, we have all looked at it and so have the journals and probably other forums as well. Everyone is telling you the same thing, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    It has nothing to do with accepting your theory and everything to do with your theory being nonsense and you refusing to listen to anyone.

    You have wasted your time on nonsense, you have discovered nothing.

    And, your paper was shown to be nonsense by all who have seen it.

    Classic Dunning Kruger.

    Another lie, you have not accepted anyone rebuttals. Classic Dunning Kruger.

    2020 Crank Award
  13. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    I am used to such complaints. But you still need to be thankful for the existence of such people, they will prompt you to perfect the theory.

    I have gained support from some professors and PhDs in physics. But they are reluctant to come forward because they know they will be subject to similar verbal attacks.
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Lol. That's what all cranks say.
  15. phyti Registered Senior Member


    Here are two cases that contradict your ideas.

    As an object moves in a g-field, it receives an impulse of energy instantaneously, at its current location, in the direction of the dominant mass forming the g-field. There is no 'chasing' effect. The space has been conditioned prior to the arrival of the object. This would be interpreted AS IF the gravitational effect was transmitted instantaneously, as in Newton's era, before the revelation of finite light speed.
    Light loses energy as it moves away from its source, and gains energy approaching the source, as shown in the Pound-Rebka experiment (1959) and gravitational red shifts of distant stars.
  16. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Newton believed that the speed of the gravitational field is infinite, so the speed of any object can be ignored compared with the speed of the gravitational field. Naturally there will be no chasing effect.
    But when the speed of the gravitational field is limited, there must be a chasing effect similar to the Doppler effect.
    A special case is that the speed of the object moving away reaches c, then the gravitational field will not be able to catch up with the object, and the object will no longer be affected by gravity.
    Of course, GR will be explained from the distortion of time and space, and it will explain that the speed of the object cannot reach c. I just analyzed and deduced it from the classical Newtonian mechanics and applied it to the calculation of Mercury's precession. The result is exactly the same as the observation result.
    I also calculated data on other planets, which are more meaningful than the results obtained by GR calculations. I also consulted a famous physics professor in the United States, and asked him why the calculation results of GR on other planets and the actual observations are so different except for Mercury. He said that he had never calculated and considered this issue.
    I don't know if anyone has paid attention to the precession data of other planets, the result of GR calculation is really absurd.
  17. phyti Registered Senior Member


    Not questioning your calculations.

    Your scenario assumes only the current gravitational energy affects the object.
    If a probe is sent to orbit a planet to take pictures, as it enters the g-field of the planet, its path is redirected toward the center of mass. The effects are instantaneous, since the g-field was established when the planet was formed, and exists as long as the planet is present. The probe does not have to wait, whether approaching or receding.

    No material object can move at c, and maintain its identity. Thus no objects can
  18. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Your understanding of the gravitational field is wrong. I can give an example.
    If the sun suddenly disappears, will the earth immediately lose the gravitational force from the sun?
    Maybe you will answer this: The earth will not feel the sun's gravity until 8 minutes. This answer allows you to prove yourself wrong.
    Maybe you will answer this: The earth cannot feel gravity immediately. This answer is consistent with Newton’s understanding that the speed of the gravitational field is infinite.

    Let's take light to illustrate:
    When the sun suddenly disappears, will people on earth immediately lose sight of the sun?
    I think your answer must be that people on earth will not see the sun until 8 minutes later. The transmission of light takes time. Although the sun disappears, the sunlight that has been emitted is still transmitted to the earth at a speed of c. Similarly, the transmission of the gravitational field also takes time.

    This is SR's point of view. Before answering your question, please tell me who will reach the earth first in the scenario shown in the figure. I discussed this with Junas a few months ago.
  19. phyti Registered Senior Member


    You are confusing my statements.
    The work of Cassini and Romer (1600's) was the realization of finite light speed.
    I never said otherwise.
    GR predicts the acceleration of an object is a function of its position.
    The acceleration of the object is instantaneous because the energy is already present before the object arrives, which does not imply instantaneous light speed.
    Yes, people will see the sun 8 min. longer after it turns off, which proves my point. They were perceiving old light. Awareness of an event is always after the event, all awareness is historical.
    The earth is affected by the gravitational energy of the sun, put there 8 min. before.
    TonyYuan likes this.
  20. phyti Registered Senior Member

    In your photo, with a line 20 ls distant from earth, they arrive simultaneously, but will be observed at different earth times.
  21. river

    Tony ( from post#195)

    To your last statement


    The space between the Sun and the Earth are filled with things going on ; because of rotation and magnetic fields and Plasma from the Sun . And the Cosmos . Space is not empty .

    So the Gravity force from the Sun would instantaneously touch the Earth .
    Orion68 likes this.
  22. Orion68 Registered Member

    My lack of knowledge makes that I don't agree on the gravitational part, can you elaborate on that using a known experiment? (A thought experiment with an impossible disappearing sun, yet not tested in real life, is not very convincing.)

    Edit, Ah, thank you river, you have answered my question

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Thnx!
    river likes this.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Both wrong of course, and as well as the nonsense being exposed by Tony.
    If the Sun should suddenly disappear, it would take 8.25 minutes before Earth would realize that and fly off at a tangent. from the surface,the Sun to the Earth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Photons emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes.

    The short answer is that it takes sunlight an average of 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.

    If the Sun suddenly disappeared from the Universe (not that this could actually happen, don't panic), it would take a little more than 8 minutes before you realized it was time to put on a sweater.

Share This Page