The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

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

  1. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    Exactly. Thus a magnetic field is not a force field, for the same reason that a gravitational field is not a force field.
    Maybe so, but a link would help me know what you mean by this. Without units, this is nonsense. What is the spatial density where you are now?
    I don't think I mentioned a difference of acceleration in any of that. I'm comparing gravity to gravitational waves, only one of which produces acceleration.
    I also made no mention of different locations.

    I don't think they give out Nobel prizes for applying a principle known for at least 400 years.

    A long rod generates gravitational waves if rotated. At some distance X from its center of gravity, it the gravity is greater if the rod is aligned with X than if it is perpendicular to a line drawn from it to X. The gravity from the rod is not 'conveyed' by gravitational waves or anything else, but changes to the gravitational field are conveyed by such waves. By this argument, no waves at all are sent along the axis of rotation of the rod since the field doesn't change in that direction. Nevertheless, an object there will be drawn by gravity to the rod.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    This is the concept in GR, please tell me your understanding, how to define space bending in GR. Hope it can help us correct understanding. Please note that our space is three-dimensional, not two-dimensional.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,944
    There are no waves. There is nothing for Doppler to affect.

    Stop this and move on to something more productive.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/FGb6LqhESERuZ6zg7
    Assume that the earth speed v0 = 0. Star began to approach the earth at the speed of v. Star came to position B, and the elapsed time was T seconds. The gravitational changes experienced by the earth are as follows:
    T = 0s: F = G * M * m / R^2
    T = 1s: F = G * M * m / (R + 1000)^2 ≈ G * M * m / R^2
    According to the law of conservation of momentum:
    F * T = mv1-mv0 = mv1, then v1 = F * T / m = T * G * M / R^2
    T = 0s: v1 = 2 * G * M / R^2
    T = 1s: v1 = 1 * G * M / R^2
    Because of the speed v of the star, the earth obtained a different speed v1. The larger v is, the larger v1 will be, but the gravitational force on the planet from the star has hardly changed. If the star's v = X * cos(wt), then the speed change of earth will also show volatility.
    The relative speed between them really affects the speed of the earth. Do you still think there is no Doppler effect between them? If you understand the Doppler effect, you will know that it exists anywhere.
     
  8. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    My understanding is that there is nothing in GR called spatial density. You're making things up.

    GR doesn't even have space bending. It has non-Euclidean (bent) spacetime, not bent space. Spacetime is 4D, not 3D. GR equations are not derived from deformed 3D space.

    This is a good point.
    Not sure why I ever joined in.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  9. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    Okay, as you said, the curved space-time. I have already said that no matter what it is in the end (gravitational field or space-time bending ...), what matters is the change in the state of motion of the object.
    "You are no longer suitable for discussion on this topic." This sentence was not written for you, but for the exchemist.
    There is no problem in the discussion, but we all must pay attention to our words and deeds, and we should not talk nonsense.

    https://photos.app.goo.gl/axeDPZggPZAjComR7
    Assume that the earth speed v0 = 0. Star began to approach the earth at the speed of v. Star came to position B, and the elapsed time was T seconds. The gravitational changes experienced by the earth are as follows:
    A: F = G * M * m / R^2
    B: F = G * M * m / (R + 1000)^2 ≈ G * M * m / R^2

    According to the law of conservation of momentum:
    F * T = mv1-mv0 = mv1, then v1 = F * T / m = T * G * M / R^2
    T = 2s: v1 = 2 * G * M / R^2
    T = 1s: v1 = 1 * G * M / R^2

    Because of the speed v of the star, the earth obtained a different speed v1. The larger v is, the larger v1 will be, but the gravitational force on the planet from the star has hardly changed. If the star's v = X * cos(wt), then the speed change of earth will also show volatility.
    The relative speed between them really affects the speed of the earth. Do you still think there is no Doppler effect between them? If you understand the Doppler effect, you will know that it exists anywhere.
    T: elapsed time
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2020
  10. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    Let us return to this topic, we would like to know why the planetary precession calculated by GR is accurate? We ca n’t really see where it ’s accurate.
    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"

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2020
  11. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    Table 2:The observed perihelion precession rates of the planets compared with the theoretical precession rates calculated from Equation (1024) and Table 1. The precession rates are in arc seconds per year.
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/d4AYsA6u9mLuGQW86
    Mercury

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Earth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I want to know why the earth's precession is bigger than Mercury's every year? From the perspective of the universe sand table game, the precession of Mercury should be much larger than that of the earth.

    Who can help me? Thanks very much.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,944
    Since this discussion is based on an egregious lack of understanding of the subject matter by the OP - and he is entirely deaf to hearing about it - he is going down an imaginary rabbit hole to nowhere.

    Since I'm not one for nonsense, I too am no longer suitable for discussion on this topic.

    ... click...
     
  13. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    I will generally respond to your questions and queries, and will explain my point of view. I also did a detailed analysis of the Doppler effect of the gravitational field #106, but you turned a blind eye. So I do n’t know what else to say. I will continue my work. good luck.
     
  14. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    Planetary precession data under the Doppler effect:
    Mercury: e = 0.205608, Precession per century = 568.075883 "
    Venus: e = 0.006811, Precession per century = 277.589395 "
    Earth: e = 0.016780, Precession per century = 240.844614 "
    Mars: e = 0.093332, Precession per century = 216.645123 "
    Jupiter: e = 0.048700, Precession per century = 112.550073 "

    Observed precession data:
    Mercury -------------- 5.75 ------------- 575 "per century
    Venus ---------------- 2.04 ------------- 204 "per century
    Earth ----------------- 11.45 ----------- 1145 "per century
    Mars ----------------- 16.28 ----------- 1628 "per century
    Jupiter --------------- 6.55 ------------- 655 "per century
    Saturn ------------- 19.50 ------------ 1950 "per century
    Uranus --------------- 3.34 ------------- 334 "per century
    Neptune ------------- 0.36 ------------- 36 "per century

    Except for Mercury 575 "PK 568" and Venus 204 "PK 277", the precessions of the other planets differ greatly. But we all know that Mercury's precession is the largest, so I suspect there is a problem with the observation data.
     
  15. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    DaveC;

    Is this what you cited?
    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.
    The angle of inclination to the ecliptic plane was reduced from 90 to 60 deg.
    With the sun orbiting the galactic center at 220 km/sec or .007c, and gravitational influence at c, a cone centered on the sun would be approx. flat. This configuration allows the earth to maintain an approx. constant speed. The motion of the sun is not in the ecliptic plane as shown in the Tony graphics.
     
  16. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Halc;

    How can a fictitious force kill someone who falls from a great height?

    Einstein, 1920 lecture at U of Leiden, ether and general relativity:
    "The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter."
    He kept the concept of a redefined ether in the course of forming a unified field theory, for the remainder of his life.
     
  17. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Tony;

    This will elaborate on what has been posted.

    A gravitational field is static relative to the mass that generates it (via an unknown process).
    Motion is relative per Relativity. The g-field varies 1/x^2 with changing distance x.
    Doppler shift is the perceived change in the frequency of a process resulting from relative motion. This means you need a gravitational source that varies. The varying distances involved in any sun-planet system are too weak. You need large masses and high frequencies. That was the success of the LIGO experiment.

    This may interest you.
    If Newton had considered a finite light speed (discovered in the 1670's), he could have predicted gravity waves.
    In the graphic, a pair of unit masses rotate around a common center. A test object is 3 units distant from the center.
    Where would a single 2 unit mass be located to produce the same gravitational effect, when aligned in the x or y directions?
    The equivalent center of gravity would oscillate between the 2 tick marks in a very eccentric ellipse, at a frequency twice the orbital period.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    Are you just asking me, or are you replying to some comment I've made? I've no context here. The ether quote you included with your post seems irrelevant to the question asked.

    Gravity, interpreted as a force, is not fictitious. Falling from a great height doesn't kill you. High acceleration from collision with the ground does. A sufficiently non-uniform gravitational field can kill you directly via tidal forces without help from the ground.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    From a layman's perspective that is an interesting choice of terms.
    Is a collision a form of relative "acceleration" or is it direct "deceleration"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2020
  20. Halc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    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.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  21. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    I don't understand the model you designed too much. If you can give some hints, I might understand.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/axeDPZggPZAjComR7
    Assume that the earth speed v0 = 0. Star began to approach the earth at the speed of v. Star came to position B, and the elapsed time was T seconds. The gravitational changes experienced by the earth are as follows:
    A: F = G * M * m / R^2
    B: F = G * M * m / (R + 1000)^2 ≈ G * M * m / R^2

    According to the law of conservation of momentum:
    F * T = mv1-mv0 = mv1, then v1 = F * T / m = T * G * M / R^2
    T = 2s: v1 = 2 * G * M / R^2
    T = 1s: v1 = 1 * G * M / R^2

    Because of the speed v of the star, the earth obtained a different speed v1. The larger v is, the larger v1 will be, but the gravitational force on the planet from the star has hardly changed. If the star's v = X * cos(wt), then the speed change of earth will also show volatility.
    The relative speed between them really affects the speed of the earth. Do you still think there is no Doppler effect between them? If you understand the Doppler effect, you will know that it exists anywhere.
     
  23. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    652
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/FNohkKDepHhgx2b29
    To simplify the calculation, we do not consider the displacement in the y direction.
    F = G*M*m/L^2=G*M*m/(R - r*cos(w*t))^2
    F * t = mv1-mv0, assume v0=0 then F * t = mv1, then v1 = F * t / m = t*G*M/(R - r*cos(w*t))^2, then v1 = g(t)*t, g(t) = G*M/(R - r*cos(w*t))^2.
    if R>100r, v1 ≈ t*G*M/R^2 = g*t , g = G*M/R^2.

    The volatility of the gravitational field is obvious. When the celestial body is relatively far away, the g between them is close to a constant, but when they are relatively close, g is a function of relative speed and time.

    post # 119 has shown that when relative motions between celestial bodies are on the same straight line, the speed change of celestial bodies with mass m is related to the relative speed between them. If the relative speed change shows volatility, then the speed change value v1 will also show volatility. Then the gravitational acceleration g (t) will also show volatility.

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

Share This Page