# a story about special relativity,who can explain it？

I quite agree.
Tony seems to be like the rest of these anti-relativity cranks. He's just looking for somewhere to spam his junk. He's totally unable to explain what he means by gravitational field Doppler effect: it seems to be just mumbo jumbo.
The gravitational field Doppler effect and light Doppler effect that I explained are the same. It is based on the Doppler effect of classic physics, just like how we process radio signals on 4G LTE.

This is now quite mad. Who in his right mind thinks these tables of numbers are going to be of any interest to anybody on the forum?
These data are from the gravitational field model I built. It takes the Doppler effect into consideration. You can see that Mercury's perihelion precession under the effect of the Doppler effect takes an average of 26" per century. It is closer to 43.11 ".
The calculation principle is relatively simple, that is, the position of the perihelion is calculated every cycle, and then its angle is calculated.
I haven't had time to build a model like the cosmic sandbox. This requires me to invest a certain amount of time. My work is a bit busy.
It would be very exciting if the cosmic sand table could be used to set the gravitational parameters. Unfortunately I am not from their company.

The gravitational field Doppler effect and light Doppler effect that I explained are the same. It is based on the Doppler effect of classic physics, just like how we process radio signals on 4G LTE.
And how does that work ? Gravity waves change frequency depending on you direction of motion within a gravity field?

And how does that work ? Gravity waves change frequency depending on you direction of motion within a gravity field?
Yes, the intensity of the gravitational field in my model changes with speed. This intensity and frequency change are the same concept. The higher the frequency, the greater the energy.

Without considering the Doppler effect, Mercury precession would not have this additional speed under the same procedure.

Last edited:
The gravitational field Doppler effect and light Doppler effect that I explained are the same. It is based on the Doppler effect of classic physics, just like how we process radio signals on 4G LTE.

This thread should be in Pseudoscience. This is not science, this is bs.

Yes, the intensity of the gravitational field in my model changes with speed. This intensity and frequency change are the same concept. The higher the frequency, the greater the energy.

Without considering the Doppler effect, Mercury precession would not have this additional speed under the same procedure.

Tony is making up bs, this should be moved to Pseudoscience.

Mercury's initial position in the program: ( x0=46001200000.0, y0=0.0).
Mercury's initial speed in the program: ( vx0=0.0; vy0=53.681964481*1000.0 m/s)
The x0 is appropriate for perihelion, but vy0 is not, so this is not representative of Mercury's actual orbit.
Vy0 should be 58.98 km/sec

The columns of numbers are cute, but without code, I have no idea what these numbers represent.
I am more interested in where the planet is after 1 orbit.

Your syntax above looks a bit like C, or maybe Java, but no actual code is shown.

The x0 is appropriate for perihelion, but vy0 is not, so this is not representative of Mercury's actual orbit.
Vy0 should be 58.98 km/sec
The columns of numbers are cute, but without code, I have no idea what these numbers represent.
I am more interested in where the planet is after 1 orbit.
Your syntax above looks a bit like C, or maybe Java, but no actual code is shown.
Mercury's velocity needs to be described together with vx0 and vy0.
Tomorrow I will paste the code. Today is too late and I am going to bed.

Mercury's velocity needs to be described together with vx0 and vy0.
Tomorrow I will paste the code. Today is too late and I am going to bed.

When are you going to explain your new terminology, Tony?

Mercury's velocity needs to be described together with vx0 and vy0.
You had vx0 as zero, so total speed was not representative of the actual speed. You're simulating a nonexistent planet, which would be obvious if you had output how long its orbital period is. All I see is precession per century numbers (with deviations! Why would a program produce deviations when simulating a regular process???)

Here are some cumulative data of the x, y coordinate offsets for each circle, they are obtained by the program simulation.
The unit is meter.
up= 3380, left= -10601, down= 3380, right= -21273
You give little clue as to what these four number mean, just 'coordinate offsets for each circle'.
Does this mean that Mercury's perihelion gains 3.4 km of distance with each orbit? What is the new speed after one orbit?
This seems to be the demonstration of violation of conservation of energy I was talking about, but maybe these numbers mean something else.

You had vx0 as zero, so total speed was not representative of the actual speed. You're simulating a nonexistent planet, which would be obvious if you had output how long its orbital period is. All I see is precession per century numbers (with deviations! Why would a program produce deviations when simulating a regular process???)
The Mercury start speed set by the program is 53.681964481 * 1000.0; the direction is perpendicular to the x-axis. So that's why vx0 = 0.

The Mercury start speed set by the program is 53.681964481 * 1000.0; the direction is perpendicular to the x-axis. So that's why vx0 = 0.
You're defending the program, so apparently you didn't write it. 53.68 is wrong. Look it up if you don't believe me.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html is a nice source.
More critique of the program is that it has all these constants to 6-7 digits of precision (or more), but G is specified to only 3 digits. Sloppy.
#define G 0.0000000000667
#define M 1989100000000000000000000000000
#define GM 132672970000000000000.0 //G*M
Better is:
#define G 0.0000000000667408

GM should be defined as (G*M) and not a separate constant. That way it would get the more correct value of 132754000000000000000.0

TonyYuan:

If you want to share your computer code with somebody, here is probably not the place to do it. Why not start your own web page or blog or something? This is a discussion forum.

You say you have some kind of model of gravity, and it sounds like you think it predicts the perihelion advance of the planet Mercury for some reason, although you seem to have got the wrong answer so far. Why would anybody want to examine your model further, based on what you have posted so far?

I used a constant-speed linear motion for a short period of time to simulate the orbit of the planet. I can observe the precession of Mercury's perihelion, but I now suspect that this precession is due to the deviation caused by this uniform-speed linear motion model, and it is just a rule Sexual. Because when I adjust the time step, the rate of Mercury precession also changes.
If anyone can provide me with professional calculation models or mathematical formulas of planet coordinates, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

TonyYuan:
If you want to share your computer code with somebody, here is probably not the place to do it. Why not start your own web page or blog or something? This is a discussion forum.
You say you have some kind of model of gravity, and it sounds like you think it predicts the perihelion advance of the planet Mercury for some reason, although you seem to have got the wrong answer so far. Why would anybody want to examine your model further, based on what you have posted so far?
ok, I won't announce my program here, and it hasn't fully functioned yet.

You're defending the program, so apparently you didn't write it. 53.68 is wrong. Look it up if you don't believe me.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html is a nice source.
More critique of the program is that it has all these constants to 6-7 digits of precision (or more), but G is specified to only 3 digits. Sloppy.

Better is:
#define G 0.0000000000667408

GM should be defined as (G*M) and not a separate constant. That way it would get the more correct value of 132754000000000000000.0
ok, i know your mean. Thanks. and do you know the formula for calculating the planetary orbit coordinates?

TonyYuan:

If you want to share your computer code with somebody, here is probably not the place to do it. Why not start your own web page or blog or something? This is a discussion forum.

You say you have some kind of model of gravity, and it sounds like you think it predicts the perihelion advance of the planet Mercury for some reason, although you seem to have got the wrong answer so far. Why would anybody want to examine your model further, based on what you have posted so far?

This would certainly appear as an anti-relativity crank thread, should it not be moved to the appropriate forum?

Because when I adjust the time step, the rate of Mercury precession also changes.
I think your time step is too short. Your x and y coordinates are 11 digit numbers (meters) which is near the 15 digit limit of an IEEE 754 double variable (assuming you're using that data type). At 0.1 sec time step, it changes by 4 digits of meters at a time, which is 8 digits of precision at best. Make the step much smaller, and the calculation just loses precision and starts to give very wrong results.

I think your time step is too short. Your x and y coordinates are 11 digit numbers (meters) which is near the 15 digit limit of an IEEE 754 double variable (assuming you're using that data type). At 0.1 sec time step, it changes by 4 digits of meters at a time, which is 8 digits of precision at best. Make the step much smaller, and the calculation just loses precision and starts to give very wrong results.
I have improved the program and I have eliminated the effects of time. I have observed some interesting data phenomena.
1. Any celestial body that is undergoing strict circular movements, as long as it is affected by the outside world, the velocity changes, including the magnitude and direction of the velocity, will cause precession, the orbit will become elliptical, and it will accelerate its expansion, and the planets away from The elliptical orbit becomes larger and flatter. Although the rate of expansion is slow, it can be seen that the data is gradually increasing. And it is accelerating.
2. By calculation, the deviation of the precession of Mercury and the precession of the earth due to the Doppler effect of the gravitational field are close to the actual observations every century.
3. The above conclusions are all from the program. I have tested and verified a lot on Mercury and Earth models, and my models are reliable and correct.

The Doppler effect can cause celestial bodies to move away and orbit to expand, which may seem strange, but the computational model does reflect these characteristics. I was surprised by the discovery of the program.

I have calculated that the precession of Mercury is 40.3 " per century and the precession of the earth is 1.85 " per century under the Doppler effect.
I do n’t know what the measurement result of the precession of the earth is. Does anyone know?
I can calculate the precession of any planet, as long as you can tell me some basic information about it, including the distance to the perihelion, the distance to the perihelion, speed, eccentricity e.

I checked the information and according to GR calculations, Mercury ’s progress deviation is 0.41 "per hundred years.
I can now say with certainty that the precession deviation of Mercury is caused by the Doppler effect of the gravitational field!

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node116.html