# 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:
816
How did you prove it, and what is the gravitational wave discovered by LIGO?

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

Messages:
816
We use GR's spatial curvature to describe that a large-mass object moves from A to B. Then, is there a process similar to space waves in the process of A to B?

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

Messages:
816
Massive objects are moving, how to make the gravitational field static?

7. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
Moving relative to what? The gravitational field from the sun that the earth experiences as it orbits is static - constant.

Where do you get your waves from, Tony?

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

Messages:
816
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？ The data is the best proof. In addition to the correctness of GR in calculating Mercury's precession, other planets' precession calculations performed poorly.
GR didn't even consider the eccentricity e, just calculating the precession, this is ridiculous. GR data is more like a piece of data.

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

Messages:
816
I ask you, does the earth have a gravitational field? Will the gravitational field of the earth follow the movement of the earth?

Will the Doppler effect occur in the gravitational field that moves with the earth? We have been talking about the Doppler effect of the gravitational field. What is the Doppler effect of the gravitational field of the earth?

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

Messages:
816
Using the Doppler effect of the gravitational field, we can accurately calculate the precession of Mercury. This equation is derived based on the eccentricity and R.
You can look at the equation of GR. He only considered R and period, and did not consider the eccentricity e at all. This is too funny.

GR Precession deviation =0.0383 / (R_Mercury / R_earth * T_Mercury / 365)

Someone believed it was right. This is really incredible.

11. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
The gravitational effect of the earth follows it, as it orbits the sun, sure. But it does not make any gravitational waves.

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

Messages:
816
Why do you say that the sun can produce gravitational waves, but the earth cannot produce gravitation? Who tell you?

Junas said that the effect of light on the light through the earth's gravity is negligible, and that the light's bending has nothing to do with gravity. But the bending angle of the light I calculated when the light passed through the earth is almost the same as that calculated by GR. The gravitational field refraction of light can completely explain the bending of light.

There is no god in this world, and there are no need strange conclusions derived from the contradictory "constant speed of light". Newtonian classical mechanics and the Doppler effect are sufficient to explain everything.

13. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
You seem to have reading comprehension problems now.

I said the sun's field, as experienced by the earth, is static. No waves.

Where do your waves come from, Tony? It can't be from the sun and it can't be from the earth. So where do they come from and what frequency do you claim they have?

(You can't speak about a Doppler effect without showing an apparent difference in frequency of waves due to relative motion.)

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

Messages:
816
I ask you, does the earth have a gravitational field, does the earth's gravitational field move with the earth? The earth's gravitational wave is not a wave?

We don't know what you are thinking?

Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
15. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
816
In the calm ocean, a boat paddled past. Will there be waves? Can a boat cause waves? Will the ocean fight this wave? Will the ocean say that the waves I stir are the waves?

Isn't this formula so funny?
GR Precession deviation =0.0383 / (R_Mercury / R_earth * T_Mercury / 365)

The SR and GR proposed by Einstein are already the barriers that hinder the development of basic physics.

16. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
Move relative to what?

There is no gravitational wave, Tony.

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

Messages:
816
Both gravitational waves and space density are physical models. If you prefer to say space density, I can call it that. But can you stop LIGO from claiming that they discovered gravitational waves?

I use the Doppler effect of gravity to calculate the accuracy of Mercury's precession deviation is not lower than GR, please respect this matter.

18. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
LIGO did not detect gravitational waves from the earth's orbital motion, Tony. Tell me why you think that is.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
19. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
816
My God, the gravitational wave is the private property of the Sun family?

In the calm sea, a person poured a glass of water into it and produced a wave, so to whom does this wave belong? The sea? Still the glass of water? Or are they common? In order not to let you continue to struggle with this gravitational wave, we can use spatial density to explain the topic.
But the Doppler effect is essentially a density effect.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
20. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
No, you tell me why LIGO did not detect gravitational waves due to the motion of the earth, Tony. Because they didn't, you know.

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

Messages:
816
Where did you see that I said that the gravitational waves discovered by LIGO belong to the earth? I just said that LIGO discovered gravitational waves.
In order not to let you continue to struggle with this gravitational wave, we can use spatial density to explain the topic. Thanks.

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

Messages:
816

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？ The data is the best proof. In addition to the correctness of GR in calculating Mercury's precession, other planets' precession calculations performed poorly.
GR didn't even consider the eccentricity e, just calculating the precession, this is ridiculous. GR data is more like a piece of data.

23. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,078
Don't you think that if the motion of the earth gives rise to gravitational waves, as you suggest, then LIGO should have detected them? I mean, they would be right on the doorstep.

24. ### HalcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
282
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?
Density is some kind of concentration of something per volume. So again, what might the 'spatial density' be say a million km from the surface of the sun? If you can't answer that (and give it meaningful units), then this explanation also is meaningless.

None of the above stuff mentions waves, so this irrelevant conclusion totally doesn't follow. To summarize what you cannot hear: No waves, no Doppler.

You (Tony) are indeed not accepting feedback. Gravitational waves do not transmit gravity. The two are unrelated. You're incapable of hearing this.
You're taking a term you heard somewhere and thinking the two were the same. They're not. The sun exerts gravitational force on objects nearby. It emits negligible gravitational waves because it has negligible acceleration. Gravity is a function of mass. Gravitational waves are a function of mostly acceleration, and hence Earth generates more (about 200 watts) than the sun . Hydroelectric power plants harvest the energy of gravitational potential, and they could not generate all their gigawatts if Earth gravity only produces 200 watts of it total.
Gravitational waves are incredibly weak, and it takes an amazingly sensitive instrument like LIGO to detect it, and even then it only detects sources that actually generate significant waves at supernova energy levels.
Gravity on the other hand just requires something simple like my bathroom scale.

No. A large mass moving from A to B is the same as a large mass not moving at all in a different frame. No waves involved in this.

Again, but considering them in a frame where they're not moving. Velocity is not a property of an object. It is a relation with some reference.
A gravitational field is not an object at all. A field (any kind of field) is an abstract value that varies over location. By definition, a field doesn't have a velocity since it has no defined location. You are treating it as an object with a location, which violates the definition of a field.

So making a field static is a simple as considering the field in a frame where the thing generating the field isn't changing.

exchemist likes this.