# The effect of the Doppler effect on planetary orbits

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.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-sunlight-earth.html#:~:text=Photons emitted from the surface,the Sun to the Earth.

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.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

If the Sun should suddenly disappear , its rotation would and the consequences would still be present in space .

If the Sun should suddenly disappear , its rotation would and the consequences would still be present in space .
Disagree all you like...that's why this is in the fringes.

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.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-sunlight-earth.html#:~:text=Photons emitted from the surface,the Sun to the Earth.

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.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I'm in trouble about this one. Gravitational waves seem to travel at the speed of light, therefore, just like Light and therefore the earth will follow a straight path in space time after about those eight minutes.
But since we're in fact talking about the curvature of the sun, bending spacetime in such a way that the earth follows a straight path around the sun in the by the sun curved space. In my idea curvature is instantaneously, so when the sun would disappear the curvature of the sun would immeadiately disappear and the earth's straight path through space time will instantaneously change from a circle to a straight line for an outside observer.

Which of the two above described cases is true? The gravitational scenario or the curvature scenario (or which third option)?

I'm in trouble about this one. Gravitational waves seem to travel at the speed of light, therefore, just like Light and therefore the earth will follow a straight path in space time after about those eight minutes.
But since we're in fact talking about the curvature of the sun, bending spacetime in such a way that the earth follows a straight path around the sun in the by the sun curved space. In my idea curvature is instantaneously, so when the sun would disappear the curvature of the sun would immeadiately disappear and the earth's straight path through space time will instantaneously change from a circle to a straight line for an outside observer.

Which of the two above described cases is true? The gravitational scenario or the curvature scenario (or which third option)?
Gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime caused by catastrophic events. According to Einstein and GR, gravity propagates at the speed of light.
Gravity is simply spacetime geometry...warp, curve, twist, spacetime in the presence of mass/energy, and we will feel the effects of gravity.
Therefor if we remove this mass, the vanishing warpage will move outwards from the direct source at "ç"or the speed of light.
The curvature or disappearance of it, is not instantaneous.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...etime-how-does-it-un-curve-again-ce51a391cdc4

And for your information being a relative newbie, river is confined to the fringes and banned from posting in the sciences, because of the unsupported nonsense he continually posts. This is fact.
If you require more accepted reputable information on cosmology, try googling some professional links, or go to the astronomy/cosmology sections where the more scientifically inclined members post and ask questions.

Newton's gravity was assumed to be instantaneous.

Gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime caused by catastrophic events. According to Einstein and GR, gravity propagates at the speed of light.
Gravity is simply spacetime geometry...warp, curve, twist, spacetime in the presence of mass/energy, and we will feel the effects of gravity.
Therefor if we remove this mass, the vanishing warpage will move outwards from the direct source at "ç"or the speed of light.
The curvature or disappearance of it, is not instantaneous.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...etime-how-does-it-un-curve-again-ce51a391cdc4

And for your information being a relative newbie, river is confined to the fringes and banned from posting in the sciences, because of the unsupported nonsense he continually posts. This is fact.
If you require more accepted reputable information on cosmology, try googling some professional links, or go to the astronomy/cosmology sections where the more scientifically inclined members post and ask questions.

Newton's gravity was assumed to be instantaneous.

Highlighted

Then Newton was right .

Highlighted

Then Newton was right .
That's why GR supercedes Newtonian and is our best theory of gravity.
That's why Newton's gravity could not explain the perhelion shift of Mercury.

That's why GR supercedes Newtonian and is our best theory of gravity.
That's why Newton's gravity could not explain the perhelion shift of Mercury.

And GR still doesn't completely explain Mercury movements .

And GR still doesn't completely explain Mercury movements .
You wish river!!
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/tests-of-general-relativity/
By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe unusual motion of Mercury around the Sun and explain how general relativity explains the observed behavior
• Provide examples of evidence for light rays being bent by massive objects, as predicted by general relativity’s theory about the warping of spacetime

Gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime caused by catastrophic events. According to Einstein and GR, gravity propagates at the speed of light.
Gravity is simply spacetime geometry...warp, curve, twist, spacetime in the presence of mass/energy, and we will feel the effects of gravity.
Therefor if we remove this mass, the vanishing warpage will move outwards from the direct source at "ç"or the speed of light.
The curvature or disappearance of it, is not instantaneous.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...etime-how-does-it-un-curve-again-ce51a391cdc4

And for your information being a relative newbie, river is confined to the fringes and banned from posting in the sciences, because of the unsupported nonsense he continually posts. This is fact.
If you require more accepted reputable information on cosmology, try googling some professional links, or go to the astronomy/cosmology sections where the more scientifically inclined members post and ask questions.

Newton's gravity was assumed to be instantaneous.

Thank you. I dived into the article and tried to understand it. A lot is clear to me, I understand the basal mechanism and it's outcome concerning gravitational waves.
But like you more or less said, I have to dive a little deeper, because I don't grasp the interaction of the gravitational waves, their energy and their masslessness at the mathematical level, so therefore I can not exactly see what cause leads to what action.

Thank you. I dived into the article and tried to understand it. A lot is clear to me, I understand the basal mechanism and it's outcome concerning gravitational waves.
But like you more or less said, I have to dive a little deeper, because I don't grasp the interaction of the gravitational waves, their energy and their masslessness at the mathematical level, so therefore I can not exactly see what cause leads to what action.
No problems...
We have some bright individuals on this forum...David c426913 is one.....or google as I suggested. And some pretty good articles in the astronomy/cosmology sections, rather then alternative/fee thoughts, which are essentially populated by unproven, unevidenced and speuscience concepts.

Thank you. I dived into the article and tried to understand it. A lot is clear to me, I understand the basal mechanism and it's outcome concerning gravitational waves.
But like you more or less said, I have to dive a little deeper, because I don't grasp the interaction of the gravitational waves, their energy and their masslessness at the mathematical level, so therefore I can not exactly see what cause leads to what action.

Dive deeper means , exploring the pros and cons .

Dive deeper means , exploring the pros and cons .

Indeed. I still linger on to the intantaneous model of curvature of spacetime. That is, on a lower level of spacetime fabric itself.

When specific particles (or clusters of particles) are involved, with specific properties, there can be something like a ripple effect between the particles, like soundwaves going through an atmosphere. This might be what is happening in, amongst others, the case of gravitational waves.

As long as there is no TOE (GR and QM still are not combined) there's always room for new/other models (as long as they pass the test of the scientific method).

Last edited:
Indeed. I still linger on to the intantaneous model of curvature of spacetime. That is, on a lower level of spacetime fabric itself.

When specific particles (or clusters of particles) are involved, with specific properties, there can be something like a ripple effect between the particles, like soundwaves going through an atmosphere. This might be what is happening in, amongst others, the case of gravitational waves.

As long as there is no TOE (GR and QM still are not combined) there's always room for new/other models (as long as they pass the test of the scientific method).
Yes, certainly the scientific method! And that same methodology has GR overwhelmingly accepted and matching observational evidence every day. The thing you need to understand about the instantaneous concept is that it goes against all we understand.
Even in Newton's day, and many years before Newton, the speed of light was known to be finite. Ole Roemer was the first person to measure that light travels at a finite speed. He observed that Jupiter’s moons and the moment they were eclipsed, took place sooner than when Earth was nearer to Jupiter then when Earth was further away.
Add that to the fact that light follows geodesics in spacetime, and the fact that gravity essentially is not really a force, just spacetime curvature and we have the evidence that gravity propagates at the same speed. The probably latest evidence of that would be gravitational waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...y-must-equal-the-speed-of-light/#77e2897a2fc0
"The speed of those ripples is determined the same way the speed of anything is determined in relativity: by their energy and their mass. Since gravitational waves are massless yet have a finite energy, they must move at the speed of light!"

The propagation of gravity is observed and must be at the speed of light.
It's great to be open minded and prepared to look at all facts and figures and alternatives, but its also great to know some basic physics and cosmology first.
If the cons go against established theories and observation, throw them out...it's as simple as that.
Again research some reputable links or ask questions in the sciences, rather then here where all sorts of ignorant agenda laden replies will be forthcoming...particularly from our friend river, who rejects totally and out of hand, all 20/21st century cosmology...even direct proof and evidence. That's why he is confined to the "nonsense sections'

Yes, certainly the scientific method! And that same methodology has GR overwhelmingly accepted and matching observational evidence every day. The thing you need to understand about the instantaneous concept is that it goes against all we understand.
Even in Newton's day, and many years before Newton, the speed of light was known to be finite. Ole Roemer was the first person to measure that light travels at a finite speed. He observed that Jupiter’s moons and the moment they were eclipsed, took place sooner than when Earth was nearer to Jupiter then when Earth was further away.
Add that to the fact that light follows geodesics in spacetime, and the fact that gravity essentially is not really a force, just spacetime curvature and we have the evidence that gravity propagates at the same speed. The probably latest evidence of that would be gravitational waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...y-must-equal-the-speed-of-light/#77e2897a2fc0
"The speed of those ripples is determined the same way the speed of anything is determined in relativity: by their energy and their mass. Since gravitational waves are massless yet have a finite energy, they must move at the speed of light!"

The propagation of gravity is observed and must be at the speed of light.
It's great to be open minded and prepared to look at all facts and figures and alternatives, but its also great to know some basic physics and cosmology first.
If the cons go against established theories and observation, throw them out...it's as simple as that.
Again research some reputable links or ask questions in the sciences, rather then here where all sorts of ignorant agenda laden replies will be forthcoming...particularly from our friend river, who rejects totally and out of hand, all 20/21st century cosmology...even direct proof and evidence. That's why he is confined to the "nonsense sections'

I must admit that I lack knowledge of a lot of scientific details. But I'm always eager to learn. That's the reason that for the moment and maybe always I confine myself posting in and responding to the alternative theory section.

That does not mean that I do not believe in modern science, but that's just it for me, I lack the mathematical background to understand GR and QM like a physicist would. I read populair scientific magazines written for the general public, like Scientific American and such. So I am acquinted with a lot of scientific subject, but on the level of an educated layman.
So in a way science is like believe for me, because I can't do fact checking due to my lack of mathematical knowledge.

My math skills aren't that good, and I like Science Fiction, therefore I'm mostly found on the alternative sections. I even have my own crackpot theory .

Indeed. I still linger on to the intantaneous model of curvature of spacetime. That is, on a lower level of spacetime fabric itself.

When specific particles (or clusters of particles) are involved, with specific properties, there can be something like a ripple effect between the particles, like soundwaves going through an atmosphere. This might be what is happening in, amongst others, the case of gravitational waves.

As long as there is no TOE (GR and QM still are not combined) there's always room for new/other models (as long as they pass the test of the scientific method).

Highlighted

Yes there is .

I lack the mathematical background to understand GR and QM like a physicist would. I read populair scientific magazines written for the general public, like Scientific American and such. So I am acquinted with a lot of scientific subject, but on the level of an educated layman.

My math skills aren't that good, and I like Science Fiction, therefore I'm mostly found on the alternative sections. I even have my own crackpot theory .
Funny, that just about describes me to a "T" although I have read more authorative and professional stuff like Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne, and Gravity's Fatal Attraction by Begalman and Rees. I'm just an old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder.
And yes, I also have thoughts on what I may presume happened, but I also understand that's all they are...not "scientific" theories but just thoughts and ideas.
So in a way science is like believe for me, because I can't do fact checking due to my lack of mathematical knowledge.
So? I mean if your doctor sends you to a specialist telling you, you need surgery or similar, are you going to argue?
Science is a discipline in eternal progress...that's why we have scientific theories as our best explanations...scientific theories of course do grow more certain over time, and as long as they keep passing all tests thrown their way. GR is a good example...It's being tested everyday...it predicted over 100 years ago, gravitational waves...that has now been borne out...BH's are another...now been borne out and in line with GR,,,,But by the same token scientists understand that GR is still not the be all and end all. It fails us at the quantum/Planck level.
The BB theory of the evolution of the universe/space/time is overwhelmingly supported because it matches the four main observational pillars of astronomy....But!! there are still some minor unexplained anomalies. But we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are thousands of young up and coming scientists that would love to discover some aspect of the universe to over throw Einstein's relativity!!
Newton once remarked when given some praise for his discoveries, "I stand on the shoulders of giants"
None of us, none, including river can do without science, and all of us, including river, use it many times every day, to complete and/or undertake a task, no matter how small.
Yet he stands there and claims to know more then all the giants of the past.
Another old saying worth remembering. "If one attempts to think outside the box, make sure you are familiar and understand all that is in the box first"

And yes, I also have thoughts on what I may presume happened, but I also understand that's all they are...not "scientific" theories but just thoughts and ideas.

So? I mean if your doctor sends you to a specialist telling you, you need surgery or similar, are you going to argue?
Science is a discipline in eternal progress...that's why we have scientific theories as our best explanations...scientific theories of course do grow more certain over time, and as long as they keep passing all tests thrown their way. GR is a good example...It's being tested everyday...it predicted over 100 years ago, gravitational waves...that has now been borne out...BH's are another...now been borne out and in line with GR,,,,But by the same token scientists understand that GR is still not the be all and end all. It fails us at the quantum/Planck level.
The BB theory of the evolution of the universe/space/time is overwhelmingly supported because it matches the four main observational pillars of astronomy....But!! there are still some minor unexplained anomalies. But we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Another old saying worth remembering. "If one attempts to think outside the box, make sure you are familiar and understand all that is in the box first"

I agree on your thoughts. But not on the old saying. Knowing everything that's in the box might prevent you to think outside that box.

What remains is that there's always the necessary scientific method to test whatever thoughts may come outside the box.

I agree on your thoughts. But not on the old saying. Knowing everything that's in the box might prevent you to think outside that box.

What remains is that there's always the necessary scientific method to test whatever thoughts may come outside the box.
Yeah, sure, but the problem is that many attempting to think outside the box, ignore the scientific method, when it conflicts with their "baby" idea.
We have that here often. This thread is a good example.

The GR physical model describes a chasing effect between gravitational field and object, and it is a rough model. In addition to the accurate calculation of the Mercury's precession deviation 43", GR failed to calculate the precession of other planets.

I used the new gravitational equation F = G*M*m/R^2 * (c-v)/c, and also accurately calculated the Mercury's precession deviation 43.05", which is not a coincidence.

My paper has also given detailed calculation steps.