# The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

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

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

Messages:
731
https://photos.app.goo.gl/t5NmSF2NWCnqKRi89
The chasing effect of the gravitational field will cause the expansion of the planet's orbit. The detailed derivation process is given in the link above.

I checked some information. The planets in the solar system are gradually moving away from the sun. I can understand that their orbits are expanding. Does that mean that the chasing effect of the gravitational field is working? (There is also a saying that the mass of the sun is decreasing, but the rate of decrease should be very slow, and it is not enough to produce the effect of keeping the planet away from us to observe.)

I also considered whether this violates the law of conservation of energy as time increases. On the surface, the energy of the planets will gradually increase by themselves, which violates the conservation of energy. However, we must note that the gravitational field provided by the sun is constantly increasing. The gravitational force is conveyed to the planet, which provides energy for the planet. Under the chasing effect of the gravitational field, the planetary energy increases and the orbit expands.

I don't know if the same is true for the expansion of the universe, the idea is crazy.

Last edited: Aug 13, 2020

3. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
Tony;

x=d+vt-.5gt^2

with:

x = distance of m relative to Earth

d = initial distance from 'center of mass'* of E

g = GEm/r^2 = 10 m/sec

v =100 m/sec, initial speed

*a mathematical abstraction equivalent to a spherical mass

There are no light paths shown, since the g-field for E is already present, before m is projected upward. At t=10, m has reached maximum height, and will descend to the surface in a mirror image of the curve shown.

Einstein defines a g-field as an independent form of energy, in the same context as Newton's absolute space, and Lorentz's ether. The differences being, light speed is finite and the GR ether has no ascribed attributes. The g-field has multiple sources of energy, the most significant being those with large mass or close proximity.

Eg., the moon has a small mass compared to the sun, but it is so close to earth, it has the greatest tidal effects.

File size:
4.7 KB
Views:
3

5. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
Tony;

I have read your paper 'The effect of relative velocity on Newton gravitation'.
With little interest in orbital precessions, I am not evaluating your calculations relating to that subject.

The doppler effect is a change in the perception of a frequency, when there is relative motion of the source and detector. With light and sound, the frequency is perceived as greater when the source and detector are converging and lesser when diverging.
The gravitational energy is not a periodic process. The energy is transferred from a mass, via an unknown process, to the surrounding space. A primitive analogy would be charging a battery or capacitor.

The gravitational 'wave' occurs when large masses change position in a short time interval, i.e. with a high frequency. A massive star in a circular orbit, could effect the motion of an object outside its orbit, yet not be detected as a wave, since its orbital period is 100 yrs. I.e., g-waves are special conditions.

The g-field has the same velocity as M that produces it.
The energy for the g-field is dispersed at c relative to M, not c+v.
Light speed is still independent of the source, does not acquire the speed of the source.
The object m does not have to wait to receive gravitational energy from the source M.
The field is already 'charged' from previous emissions.

Ignoring the history of the g-field, promotes the figure of speech 'space time curvature'.
If we put on our thinking caps, the preservation of astronomical detail over millions of ly can only be possible if space is essentially flat/linear, with variation in the proximity of large masses.

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

Messages:
731
According to your idea, no matter what the speed of the object m is, the speed of the gravitational field relative to m is c. This is Newton's static gravitation theory, which means that the speed of the gravitational field is infinite. Even if the object moves away at the speed of c, the speed of the gravitational field relative to m is still c.

Thinking from another perspective, no matter what the speed of M is, the speed of the gravitational field generated by M is always c relative to m, and the speed of the gravitational field felt by m is always the same. So where is the gravitational wave?

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

Messages:
731
According to this calculation, the earth will fly away from the sun in thousands of years, which is obviously impossible. So the calculation here https://photos.app.goo.gl/t5NmSF2NWCnqKRi89 is problematic. Has anyone noticed the error here? If you can find this error, then you will basically understand my theory.

9. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
Tony;

No. The propagation speed of light in space is c.
The measured speed of light relative to M is c.
The measured speed of light relative to m is c.
No one measures c-v or c+v from either M or m.
There are no objects moving at those speeds.
They are the rates of closure or expansion of the spatial gaps between light and an object.

As I understand your 'chasing effect', m located at d1, must wait for a g-pulse (blue) emitted at t1 to intercept it at t2, making x=d2.
Why can't a g-pulse emitted at t0 intercept m it at t1, making x=d1?
This results in m receiving an instant impulse at every position in its path (green). This result would appear to Newton to be action at a distance involving instantaneous light speed.
In summation, the field can be charged anytime prior to introducing m into the scene.

10. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
Tony;

Given two identical objects of 1 unit of mass each, located opposite each other on a 2 unit diameter circle.
The question is: with the pair in the x or y direction, where would a mass of 2 units be located to produce the same gravitational effect on the test object at s?
The tick marks x and y (.54 and -.24 units off center), show these locations. demonstrating that the gravitational effect depends on the distribution of matter. In general, the center of attraction will not coincide with the center of mass. The sphere is one exception, and based on an ideal continuous distribution of mass.
The objects could be a binary star system in rapid rotation. The equivalent centers would oscillate between x and y on a very eccentric ellipse, twice for each complete rotation. This phenomenon requires large masses with a high rotation rate.

11. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
Per Wiki, hydrogen fusion within the sun, is good for another 5 billion yrs. Who is correct?

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

Messages:
731
100 bullets were fired at an interval of 0.1 second at a speed of 1000 m/s, and the target was a dog.
If the speed of the dog's escape from the gun is far less than 1000 m/s, the dog will feel the power of the bullet.

If the speed of the dog's escape from the gun is equal to 1000 m/s, then the dog will think that the bullet is stationary and will not feel the impact of the bullet at all.

If the dog escapes from the gun at a speed greater than 1000 m/s, if the dog is in front of the bullet, the dog will think that the bullet does not exist. If the bullet exists before the dog, then the dog will feel the bullet coming from the front instead of from behind . There is no difference between gravity and bullets.

I even suspect that after the speed of the object exceeds the speed of the gravitational field, the object will feel the repulsive force instead of the gravitational force, which will accelerate the object. Just as the puppy's escape speed exceeds the speed of the bullet, the bullet that the puppy feels comes from the front instead of the back.

If you are watching a movie, when you start to move away, you will feel that the movie becomes a slow motion. When the speed of moving away reaches the speed of light, what you see will always be a still picture. Beyond the speed of light, you will either not see the picture, or you will see the movie in reverse.

These are very simple principles. This is the chasing effect between objects. Any object, including waves and fields, has this effect.

13. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
The motion of light is not the same as the motion of matter.

Motion of 2 material objects add as vectors (magnitude & direction).

Motion of a material object & a light pulse do not add as vectors.

That is the meaning of 'speed of light is constant and INDEPENDENT of its source'.

That difference is also the reason for time dilation, which is the reason why a particle can't be accelerated to c.

It is a subtle difference but becomes significant as speeds approach c.

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

Messages:
731
correct:
Area A: Mercury's gravity will reduce.
Area B: Mercury's gravity will reduce.
Area C: Mercury's gravity will increase.
Area D: Mercury's gravity will increase.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ckSxENL3YCwmY2Lj8

Last edited: Aug 21, 2020
15. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
697
I see your reasoning in this photo.
V appears to be constant, but is not in reality.
There is a Wiki article on 'frame dragging' which claims to explain orbital precession.
GR is less interesting to me, more complex math with variations in nano seconds.

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

Messages:
731
v(t), θ(t), they are all not constant. In my paper, there are detailed steps to calculate them. Their values are different at each position of the planet's orbit.

This chasing effect of objects and gravitational fields has a key issue that needs to be proved, whether the object can maintain energy conservation, if the energy of the object becomes larger and larger, it will escape the solar system after a certain period of time. If the energy of the object gets smaller and smaller, it will fall to the sun after a certain amount of time.

We have made corresponding mathematical derivations. The energy of planets in areas A and B will increase, and the energy of planets in areas C and D will decrease. The entire orbit of ABCD will keep the energy of planets roughly unchanged.

Area A: Mercury's gravity will reduce.
Area B: Mercury's gravity will reduce.
Area C: Mercury's gravity will increase.
Area D: Mercury's gravity will increase.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ckSxENL3YCwmY2Lj8

Last edited: Aug 22, 2020
17. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
731
Last edited: Aug 22, 2020
18. ### RainbowSingularityValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,436
cutest picture award on sciforums goes to Tony
(i have done amateur photography for many years & your profile picture is pure gold)

Dennis Tate and TonyYuan like this.
19. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
731

I love my wife. She is one of the most beautiful and smartest women in the world.

river and Dennis Tate like this.
20. ### Dennis TateValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,154
TonyYuan....... since reading your blog I've been wondering if you would be willing to re-locate to the USA or Canada or Europe?

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

Messages:
731
Dennis Tate likes this.
22. ### river

Messages:
17,307
Last edited: Apr 6, 2021
Dennis Tate and TonyYuan like this.
23. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
731
Yes, everyone can express their own opinions, deny or affirm. The true essence of science must come from the unity after the debate.

My theory of gravity is not complicated, and the physical model is very clear. And it has also been well verified in planetary orbit calculations. I can't think of a reason to deny it.

In addition, in the calculation of Venus's precession, GR must be wrong. GR does not consider the eccentricity and the angle between the orbital plane and the ecliptic plane at all. This is very unbelievable. GR scholars need to come up with strength to explain.

The orbit of Venus is very special, and it is very susceptible to external interference. The influence of gravitational waves on it will be very large, and it will definitely not be 8.6" as calculated by GR.

Last edited: Apr 6, 2021
Dennis Tate and river like this.