Jump to content
Science Forums

Doppler Effect Exists Anywhere


TonyYuan2020
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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

 

 

post-96104-0-69899000-1586144302_thumb.png

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Earth

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, that you are a crank, that's my explanation.

Victor, I don't understand what you mean. These data are from here: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html
Do you think their data is fake?
 
Scientists' observations on the precession of planets in the solar system are all rank?
Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Victor, I don't understand what you mean. These data are from here: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html
Do you think their data is fake?
 
Scientists' observations on the precession of planets in the solar system are all rank?

 

Oh, I guess you have renounced the religion of crankism, welcome to doing actual science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I guess you have renounced the religion of crankism, welcome to doing actual science.

Okay, can you explain these observations? We all know that Mercury's precession is the most obvious. Why is it not so from the observation data?

 

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
Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Okay, can you explain these observations? We all know that Mercury's precession is the most obvious. Why is it not so from the observation data?

 

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

 

Ya planetary orbits is not something I am good at, I will have to pass on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya planetary orbits is not something I am good at, I will have to pass on this one.

Vicotr, my friend, thank you for your attention. I think many of us want this answer.

 

Janus is a famous astronomer, but unfortunately he remained silent on this issue.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that Mercury's precession is the largest, but from the observed data, why is Mercury's precession not as big as Earth? ( 5.75" < 11.45" ) This makes us very confused, hoping to get an answer here. Thank you.

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.
Planet
Mercury 5.75.....5.50
Venus 2.04......10.75

Earth 11.45......11.87

Mars 16.28......17.60

Jupiter 6.55......7.42

Saturn 19.50......18.36

Uranus 3.34......2.72

Neptune 0.36......0.65

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain this observed planetary precession data?

 

When you start out by stating “But we all know that Mercury's precession is the largest” when in fact, we know that isn’t true, why should anyone bother to reply to you?

 

Did you read any of the explanations given at the link you referenced? In particular, this part: “We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion precession of a given planet by treating the other planets as uniform concentric rings, centered on the Sun, of mass equal to the planetary mass, and radius equal to the mean orbital radius.[*] This is equivalent to averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits of the other planets”

 

If you are going to take the average of gravitational effects of all the other planets, (with respect to the planet of interest) which planet do you suppose has the greatest contribution to that average?

Hint: Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all of the other planets in our Solar System combined.

 

Why do you suppose the perihelion precession of Mars, at 16.28, and Saturn at 19.50 arc seconds per year, are the two highest of all the planets?

Hint: they are the two planets that are closest to Jupiter.

 

To answer your question, “I want to know why the earth's precession is bigger than Mercury's every year?”

First answer this question:

Which of these two planets are closer to Jupiter, Earth or Mercury?

 

Now do you know why Earth has a larger perihelion precession than Mercury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When you start out by stating “But we all know that Mercury's precession is the largest” when in fact, we know that isn’t true, why should anyone bother to reply to you?

 

Did you read any of the explanations given at the link you referenced? In particular, this part: “We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion precession of a given planet by treating the other planets as uniform concentric rings, centered on the Sun, of mass equal to the planetary mass, and radius equal to the mean orbital radius.[*] This is equivalent to averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits of the other planets”

 

If you are going to take the average of gravitational effects of all the other planets, (with respect to the planet of interest) which planet do you suppose has the greatest contribution to that average?

Hint: Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all of the other planets in our Solar System combined.

 

Why do you suppose the perihelion precession of Mars, at 16.28, and Saturn at 19.50 arc seconds per year, are the two highest of all the planets?

Hint: they are the two planets that are closest to Jupiter.

 

To answer your question, “I want to know why the earth's precession is bigger than Mercury's every year?”

First answer this question:

Which of these two planets are closer to Jupiter, Earth or Mercury?

 

Now do you know why Earth has a larger perihelion precession than Mercury?

Thank you very much for such a detailed analysis.
I now have a basic understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion precession of a given planet by treating the other planets as uniform concentric rings, centered on the Sun, of mass equal to the planetary mass, and radius equal to the mean orbital radius.[*] This is equivalent to averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits of the other planets”

OceanBreeze,this method is surprising. I still cannot understand why such an approximate calculation can be performed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...