# Thread: Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves

1. The following is a discussion between me and a professor.
Hi professor,
I have noticed that the Venus precession data 8.6" obtained by GR calculation is very inconsistent with actual observations. Is there any accurate data now? I also calculated the precession data of the eight major planets in the solar system.

Mercury 43”
Venus 240”
Earth 3”
Mars 1”
Jupiter 0.8”
Saturn 0.1
Except for Venus which is 240", other data are consistent with GR. I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.

Thanks.
Tony

I am not an expert on astronomy so I cannot answer your question whether your calculations are right. But since 5 out of 6 answers are correct ... there are good reasons to assume also your Venus-computation is correct. But since I have worked with GR for 50 years now - I can assure this theory is misleading. So, we are stuck in the classical problem - we know THAT GR is misleading - but not HOW. But we will find out some day! This problem in fact has stalled all science --- we know THAT it doesn't work - but cannot yet say HOW .... This is a serious scientific problem ... the sciences refuse to address the issue of theirs own impotencies. This attitude is called Ockham's razor - or refusing to cut down the sick branch you yourself are sitting on. However --- children know how to solve this problem - jump off the branch first and cut it down afterwards! Best wishes.

I have a lot of exchanges with Professor of Austin, Texas. He said that my theory is a strong proof of GR, but I don't think so. GR is a mathematical model of gravity, and mine is a physical model of gravity. Gravitational waves are real, and the chasing effect of gravitational waves is also real. According to this physical model, a new gravitational equation is derived. Applying this gravitational equation to planetary orbit calculations, the obtained precession data is also in line with actual observations. I am also convinced that the mathematical model described by GR is essentially the gravitational force under the influence of the chasing effect(Doppler effect) of gravitational waves.

I hope I can find the answer here.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Tony2021
The following is a discussion between me and a professor.
Hi professor,
I have noticed that the Venus precession data 8.6" obtained by GR calculation is very inconsistent with actual observations. Is there any accurate data now? I also calculated the precession data of the eight major planets in the solar system.

Mercury 43”
Venus 240”
Earth 3”
Mars 1”
Jupiter 0.8”
Saturn 0.1
Except for Venus which is 240", other data are consistent with GR. I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.

Thanks.
Tony

I am not an expert on astronomy so I cannot answer your question whether your calculations are right. But since 5 out of 6 answers are correct ... there are good reasons to assume also your Venus-computation is correct. But since I have worked with GR for 50 years now - I can assure this theory is misleading. So, we are stuck in the classical problem - we know THAT GR is misleading - but not HOW. But we will find out some day! This problem in fact has stalled all science --- we know THAT it doesn't work - but cannot yet say HOW .... This is a serious scientific problem ... the sciences refuse to address the issue of theirs own impotencies. This attitude is called Ockham's razor - or refusing to cut down the sick branch you yourself are sitting on. However --- children know how to solve this problem - jump off the branch first and cut it down afterwards! Best wishes.

I have a lot of exchanges with Professor of Austin, Texas. He said that my theory is a strong proof of GR, but I don't think so. GR is a mathematical model of gravity, and mine is a physical model of gravity. Gravitational waves are real, and the chasing effect of gravitational waves is also real. According to this physical model, a new gravitational equation is derived. Applying this gravitational equation to planetary orbit calculations, the obtained precession data is also in line with actual observations. I am also convinced that the mathematical model described by GR is essentially the gravitational force under the influence of the chasing effect(Doppler effect) of gravitational waves.

I hope I can find the answer here.
Can you post your physical model of gravity?

PS What exactly is a professor that does not know, good for?

4. [QUOTE=Quantated;631868]
Originally Posted by Tony2021
The following is a discussion between me and a professor.
Can you post your physical model of gravity?

5. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Can you post your physical model of gravity?
Actually when your model means something it will be available from a real page.

Connecting to facebook or google is just a way to gather info that I rarely give.

6. Originally Posted by Quantated
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Can you post your physical model of gravity?
Actually when your model means something it will be available from a real page.

Connecting to facebook or google is just a way to gather info that I rarely give.
So far, I have not encountered a physics professor or scholar who can point out any errors in my paper. But they dare not express supportive remarks. Because my theory challenges GR.

A physics professor at the University of Texas Austin said that my theory, like GR, is a strong evidence of GR, but I don’t think so. Mine is a physical model of gravity, and GR is a mathematical model. My theory is simple, clear, accurate and easy to understand.

In the calculation of the orbital precession of Venus, GR is wrong, the correct result is 240", not 8.6". In my paper, there is a detailed description.

7. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by Quantated
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Can you post your physical model of gravity?
Actually when your model means something it will be available from a real page.

Connecting to facebook or google is just a way to gather info that I rarely give.
So far, I have not encountered a physics professor or scholar who can point out any errors in my paper. But they dare not express supportive remarks. Because my theory challenges GR.

A physics professor at the University of Texas Austin said that my theory, like GR, is a strong evidence of GR, but I don’t think so. Mine is a physical model of gravity, and GR is a mathematical model. My theory is simple, clear, accurate and easy to understand.

In the calculation of the orbital precession of Venus, GR is wrong, the correct result is 240", not 8.6". In my paper, there is a detailed description.
Is GR general relativity or gravity. Because general relativity has been disproved already, however it might take generations for the fools who believed that nothing can outspeed light to die off and let the next generation fix the errors of hairy

PS if your theory is simple it's wrong because someone would have come up with it before you. So are you a billionaire stock picker or all you have is debt?

8. Originally Posted by Quantated
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by Quantated
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Can you post your physical model of gravity?
Actually when your model means something it will be available from a real page.

Connecting to facebook or google is just a way to gather info that I rarely give.
So far, I have not encountered a physics professor or scholar who can point out any errors in my paper. But they dare not express supportive remarks. Because my theory challenges GR.

A physics professor at the University of Texas Austin said that my theory, like GR, is a strong evidence of GR, but I don’t think so. Mine is a physical model of gravity, and GR is a mathematical model. My theory is simple, clear, accurate and easy to understand.

In the calculation of the orbital precession of Venus, GR is wrong, the correct result is 240", not 8.6". In my paper, there is a detailed description.
Is GR general relativity or gravity. Because general relativity has been disproved already, however it might take generations for the fools who believed that nothing can outspeed light to die off and let the next generation fix the errors of hairy

PS if your theory is simple it's wrong because someone would have come up with it before you. So are you a billionaire stock picker or all you have is debt?
General relativity is a gravitational model and a mathematical model.

My theory has been shared on my home page. And using this theory has been well verified in planetary orbit calculations.

And I can point out that GR is wrong in the calculation of Venus precession.

Professor Richard Fitzpatrick ,he believes that my theory and GR are the same, and my theory is the evidence of GR. I do not think so!
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...l/node115.html

I very much hope that my theory is wrong, because if it is correct, then Einstein's theory of relativity will end.

But none of the physics professors who have read my paper can point out any mistakes. This makes me very disappointed. Will Einstein end up in my hands?

I hope GR scholars will use your strength. I am challenging GR, challenging the field you call home.

9. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Can you post your physical model of gravity?
No.
If you have something to say then say it here.

10. Originally Posted by Quantated
Because general relativity has been disproved already
Wrong.

11. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Quantated
Because general relativity has been disproved already
Wrong.
The 8.6" precession per century of Venus calculated by GR is wrong. It is also very inconsistent with actual observations. The correct result is 240".

GR is a mathematical approximation model, it is not a physical model.

12. Originally Posted by Tony2021

I very much hope that my theory is wrong....[snip].....
Relax, Tony.

It is.

13. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021

I very much hope that my theory is wrong....[snip].....
Relax, Tony.

It is.
Nice to meet you here. I can make such progress in gravity and I need to thank you for your continuous questioning and flogging.

I just accidentally started challenging GR. I must say sorry to Einstein.

14. I used being interested in the mechanism of gravity (between two masses) when I was at the university (45 years ago). But when I started my private business after graduation (to design and produce various electronic stuffs needed by the local consumers), I had to forget it.

The following simple picture may show what I mean by 'mechanism of gravity':
If we leave a stone in the air, above ground, what this stone could 'receive' from earth so that it knows to which direction it should move and join it (at ground).

So I wonder to how far the properties of these gravitational waves are known; their frequencies, their amplitudes, their propagation medium and modes ... etc.

I believe that someday it will be possible (if not already done) to transform one energy (nuclear or just electromagnetic) to controlled gravitational waves. This lets flying saucers replace the conventional airplanes and space missiles.

Kerim

15. Originally Posted by KerimF
If we leave a stone in the air, above ground, what this stone could 'receive' from earth so that it knows to which direction it should move and join it (at ground).

I understand gravitational waves are the propagation of changes in the existing gravitational field and do not ,in themselves cause gravitational attraction to any significant degree(if at all)

They do propagate at the speed of light but their effects (caused by accelerations of massive bodies) are so tiny that Einstein believed they would never actually be detected.

Quite a coup ,then when they eventually were.

16. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by KerimF
If we leave a stone in the air, above ground, what this stone could 'receive' from earth so that it knows to which direction it should move and join it (at ground).

I understand gravitational waves are the propagation of changes in the existing gravitational field and do not ,in themselves cause gravitational attraction to any significant degree(if at all)

They do propagate at the speed of light but their effects (caused by accelerations of massive bodies) are so tiny that Einstein believed they would never actually be detected.

Quite a coup ,then when they eventually were.
What we are doing is to open the door of physics, the door of physics blocked by GR.

17. What we are doing is to open the door of physics, the door of physics blocked by GR.
Any theory that supersedes GR will have to incorporate GR since it is so successful in its domain of applicability.

If you understand GR fully you are in a better place to comment than I am.

Do you?

18. Originally Posted by geordief

What we are doing is to open the door of physics, the door of physics blocked by GR.
Any theory that supersedes GR will have to incorporate GR since it is so successful in its domain of applicability.

If you understand GR fully you are in a better place to comment than I am.

Do you?
You can read Link Deleted. I built a model of gravity under the influence of gravitational waves. In this model, I derived a new gravitational equation. I applied this equation to the orbit calculation of planets, and got basically the same result as GR, except for the orbital precession of Venus.

What I can say is that my gravitational equation is more accurate, simpler and easier to understand than GR. Under the new gravitational equation, the orbit of the planet will continue to expand rapidly.

Mod note: for the last time - if you have something to say then say it here.

19. We can see that except for Venus’s precession data of 240” vs 8.6”, the data of other planets are relatively close to GR.
First, let’s look at the characteristics of Venus: Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances [7]. But the angle between its orbit and the vertical plane of the sun is very large 3.39°, so we have reason to believe that gravitational waves will have a great inﬂuence on the orbital precession of Venus. 240” will be more credible.

So why is the data of Venus (240” vs 8.6”) so diﬀerent? GR does not consider the angle between the orbital surface and the vertical surface of the sun. So we want to ask GR a question: Under diﬀerent angles, is the precession data calculated by GR still the same? I am not a GR scholar. I hope that the GR scholar can give an explanation.

20. You can read Link Deleted. I built a model of gravity under the influence of gravitational waves. In this model, I derived a new gravitational equation. I applied this equation to the orbit calculation of planets, and got basically the same result as GR, except for the orbital precession of Venus.

What I can say is that my gravitational equation is more accurate, simpler and easier to understand than GR. Under the new gravitational equation, the orbit of the planet will continue to expand rapidly.
So you don't?

21. Originally Posted by geordief

You can read Link Deleted. I built a model of gravity under the influence of gravitational waves. In this model, I derived a new gravitational equation. I applied this equation to the orbit calculation of planets, and got basically the same result as GR, except for the orbital precession of Venus.

What I can say is that my gravitational equation is more accurate, simpler and easier to understand than GR. Under the new gravitational equation, the orbit of the planet will continue to expand rapidly.
So you don't?
"So you don't" I don't understand what you are saying? Can we be more specific.

22. I don't quite understand why we can't provide links here. But I have to follow the rules here.

You can get my paper by Tony2021------>View Profile------->Home Page. I don't know if that would violate the rules.

23. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by geordief

So you don't?
"So you don't" I don't understand what you are saying? Can we be more specific.
Do you (claim to) understand GR more or less fully is all I was asking.

I made no statement ,or implication (I wasn't "saying" anything and you missed out (purposefully?) the question mark in my post ("So you don't? ")

24. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by geordief
So you don't?
"So you don't" I don't understand what you are saying? Can we be more specific.
Do you (claim to) understand GR more or less fully is all I was asking.

I made no statement ,or implication (I wasn't "saying" anything and you missed out (purposefully?) the question mark in my post ("So you don't? ")
So why is the data of Venus (240” vs 8.6”) so diﬀerent? GR does not consider the angle between the orbital surface and the vertical surface of the sun. So we want to ask GR a question: Under diﬀerent angles, is the precession data calculated by GR still the same? I am not a GR scholar. I hope that the GR scholar can give an explanation.

I think I've given the answer before.

If GR is unable to answer this question, then GR is doubtful of its correctness. Perhaps GR is a mathematical model that is not too accurate, and its essence is the physical model I proposed. That's all I have to say.

25. So you have . I missed that .My apologies.

26. Originally Posted by geordief
So you have . I missed that .My apologies.
I hope that the GR scholar can give an explanation. Can you give me an answer?

27. Sorry I am not a GR scholar (I implied as much in post#16.)

28. Originally Posted by geordief
Sorry I am not a GR scholar (I implied as much in post#16.)

Arne's reply can give you some info.
I am not an expert on astronomy so I cannot answer your question whether your calculations are right. But since 5 out of 6 answers are correct ... there are good reasons to assume also your Venus-computation is correct. But since I have worked with GR for 50 years now - I can assure this theory is misleading. So, we are stuck in the classical problem - we know THAT GR is misleading - but not HOW. But we will find out some day!
This problem in fact has stalled all science --- we know THAT it doesn't work - but cannot yet say HOW .... This is a serious scientific problem ... the sciences refuse to address the issue of theirs own impotencies. This attitude is called Ockham's razor - or refusing to cut down the sick branch you yourself are sitting on.
However --- children know how to solve this problem - jump off the branch first and cut it down afterwards!
Best wishes ... Arne

Without GR, almost every physicist would agree with my theory. But because GR is like a huge gate, it keeps them out of the gate.

29. No idea who Arne is ....

Sorry I can't be any help to you.

My own knowledge in these regards is very limited.

30. Although the following is about the gravitational waves, it is somehow off topic here.

As we know, the gravitational waves propagate also thru vacuum that has no atomic particles of any sort. This also applies on the electromagnetic waves.
Since apparently there is no medium for their propagation, the notion of photon was created (mainly for the latter ones) to solve this dilemma (at least in theory) and to express their transported energy with practical formula.

Now the question is: “Does a perfect vacuum exist?”
To me in the least, it doesn’t. What we call perfect vacuum is actually just a relative one; relative to what we are able to detect.

So the next question is: “What could be the nature of the particles that cannot be detected in any way, in the time being in the least?”

I will try my best to answer it since English is not my native language.

As we know, a piece of matter in our universe is actually formed by atoms. An atom is just an empty space whose shape is determined by the movement of its electrons around a nucleus (a tiny image of the solar system, for example).
Naturally, these tiny atomic systems are made, in their turn, also of matter (in their nucleus, electrons... etc); ‘the atomic matter’.

Now, the crucial question is: Should the 'atomic matter' be different from the matter of our universe?
If it is not different (an axiom to be verified later by its application), the 'atomic matter' is also formed by atoms but of level -2 (if we assume that our universe is of level 0 and the universe of atoms, we detect, is of level -1).

Those who are able to perceive this big picture, they certainly deduce that there are also what we may call atoms of level -3, -4... etc.
(For the time being, let us forget about the universes of level +1, +2... etc.)

Conclusion:
Even if a space (in our universe) doesn't contain any atoms of level -1, it may still contain atoms of the lower levels. In other words, a relative vacuum (relative to our universe of level 0) could be a medium (formed by atoms of level -2 and lower) for waves of ultra high frequencies which are much higher than the frequencies of all known waves. And the gravitational waves running at these ultra high frequencies are the carriers that are modulated by the high frequency waves (as of X ray, light... etc.) while travelling in space.

Cheers,
Kerim

31. Originally Posted by KerimF
(a tiny image of the solar system, for example).
No.
If it is not different (an axiom to be verified later by its application)
Not an axiom. And "'atomic matter' is different from the matter of our universe"
the 'atomic matter' is also formed by atoms but of level -2 (if we assume that our universe is of level 0 and the universe of atoms, we detect, is of level -1).
No.

32. At the university I knew a teacher who kept telling his students that their answers are wrong.
And when a student asked him about the right answer, he got the reply: “You are no more a kid, go and find it yourself”.

He was a great teacher indeed; I couldn't be like him

33. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by geordief
Sorry I am not a GR scholar (I implied as much in post#16.)

Arne's reply can give you some info.
I am not an expert on astronomy so I cannot answer your question whether your calculations are right. But since 5 out of 6 answers are correct ... there are good reasons to assume also your Venus-computation is correct. But since I have worked with GR for 50 years now - I can assure this theory is misleading. So, we are stuck in the classical problem - we know THAT GR is misleading - but not HOW. But we will find out some day!
This problem in fact has stalled all science --- we know THAT it doesn't work - but cannot yet say HOW .... This is a serious scientific problem ... the sciences refuse to address the issue of theirs own impotencies. This attitude is called Ockham's razor - or refusing to cut down the sick branch you yourself are sitting on.
However --- children know how to solve this problem - jump off the branch first and cut it down afterwards!
Best wishes ... Arne

Without GR, almost every physicist would agree with my theory. But because GR is like a huge gate, it keeps them out of the gate.

Who is Arne?

34. "Who is Arne?"
He is a physicist. I don't think this is important. The important thing is that he communicated with me sincerely.

35. Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.

36. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.

37. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Professor Richard WHO, and WHERE, and of WHAT, is he a professor?

38. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Professor Richard WHO, and WHERE, and of WHAT, is he a professor?
Perihelion Precession of the Planets

39. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Professor Richard WHO, and WHERE, and of WHAT, is he a professor?
Perihelion Precession of the Planets
I see. Richard Fitzpatrick of Austin TX.

You do realise the link you refer to models the precession due to Newtonian gravitation only, do you?

There is no GR in anything in that link.

40. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Professor Richard WHO, and WHERE, and of WHAT, is he a professor?
Perihelion Precession of the Planets
I see. Richard Fitzpatrick of Austin TX.

You do realise the link you refer to models the precession due to Newtonian gravitation only, do you?

There is no GR in anything in that link.
Of course I know this. If you have read Richard's article carefully, you won't raise such questions.

Richard: You are presumably not proposing a new theory of gravity, but accept that General Relativity is essentially correct.
My answer: I think what I am revealing is the essence of GR. Space-time is not curved, but the chasing effect of gravitational waves causes the change of gravity.

41. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Professor Richard WHO, and WHERE, and of WHAT, is he a professor?
Perihelion Precession of the Planets
I see. Richard Fitzpatrick of Austin TX.

You do realise the link you refer to models the precession due to Newtonian gravitation only, do you?

There is no GR in anything in that link.
Of course I know this. If you have read Richard's article carefully, you won't raise such questions.

Richard: You are presumably not proposing a new theory of gravity, but accept that General Relativity is essentially correct.
My answer: I think what I am revealing is the essence of GR. Space-time is not curved, but the chasing effect of gravitational waves causes the change of gravity.
Which is ballocks as there are no waves....but we've been through this.

42. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.
Perihelion Precession of the Planets , I also contacted Professor Richard, and he never mentioned the data you mentioned "measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century" . On the contrary, in his article, he clearly pointed out that there is a huge difference between the observation results and the calculation results.

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Professor Richard WHO, and WHERE, and of WHAT, is he a professor?
Perihelion Precession of the Planets
I see. Richard Fitzpatrick of Austin TX.

You do realise the link you refer to models the precession due to Newtonian gravitation only, do you?

There is no GR in anything in that link.
Of course I know this. If you have read Richard's article carefully, you won't raise such questions.

Richard: You are presumably not proposing a new theory of gravity, but accept that General Relativity is essentially correct.
My answer: I think what I am revealing is the essence of GR. Space-time is not curved, but the chasing effect of gravitational waves causes the change of gravity.
Which is ballocks as there are no waves....but we've been through this.
I don't know what you mean? Hope it can be expressed clearly. Because English is not my mother tongue, I think you understand it.

43. Originally Posted by Tony2021
I don't know what you mean? Hope it can be expressed clearly. Because English is not my mother tongue, I think you understand it.
"There are no waves" seems clear enough.

But that point has been made ad nauseam, by me and by others on the other forum, without you being able to take it in at all.

44. Let us try to be realistic. Since always a novel idea/discovery has to be approved clearly by the appropriate scientists who serve directly the powerful world's Elite (each period of time has its Elite) first; otherwise almost no one in the world dares accepting it as a real/true scientific one.

This is why I have chosen, since after graduation, to be a designer in electronics, not a researcher in modern physics, so that I can profit from my novel solutions in my life; no matter if the world is told to believe them (to believe they exist) or not.

45. Originally Posted by KerimF
Let us try to be realistic. Since always a novel idea/discovery has to be approved clearly by the appropriate scientists who serve directly the powerful world's Elite (each period of time has its Elite) first; otherwise almost no one in the world dares accepting it as a real/true scientific one.

This is why I have chosen, since after graduation, to be a designer in electronics, not a researcher in modern physics, so that I can profit from my novel solutions in my life; no matter if the world is told to believe them (to believe they exist) or not.
I used to be a communications engineer at Motorola, where I have worked for 15 years.

46. Originally Posted by KerimF
Let us try to be realistic. Since always a novel idea/discovery has to be approved clearly by the appropriate scientists who serve directly the powerful world's Elite (each period of time has its Elite) first; otherwise almost no one in the world dares accepting it as a real/true scientific one.
Who are these 'Elites' that all the scientist serve? What do you mean by serve, I assume you don't mean that scientists are waiters to the 'Elites'. Why do these 'Elites' stop scientific advances?
This is why I have chosen, since after graduation, to be a designer in electronics, not a researcher in modern physics, so that I can profit from my novel solutions in my life; no matter if the world is told to believe them (to believe they exist) or not.
Why do the 'Elites' allow the implementation of novel ideas but stop the publishing of novel ideas? Are these 'Elites' morons?

47. Originally Posted by Origin
Who are these 'Elites' that all the scientist serve? What do you mean by serve, I assume you don't mean that scientists are waiters to the 'Elites'. Why do these 'Elites' stop scientific advances?
Why do the 'Elites' allow the implementation of novel ideas but stop the publishing of novel ideas? Are these 'Elites' morons?
I am afraid that almost all people in the world are not supposed believing what I said. So, I can't say you are wrong in any way. And if my experience in life was somehow like yours I would react exactly as you did here.

I am sorry for any inconvenience.

Kerim

48. Originally Posted by KerimF
Originally Posted by Origin
Who are these 'Elites' that all the scientist serve? What do you mean by serve, I assume you don't mean that scientists are waiters to the 'Elites'. Why do these 'Elites' stop scientific advances?
Why do the 'Elites' allow the implementation of novel ideas but stop the publishing of novel ideas? Are these 'Elites' morons?
I am afraid that almost all people in the world are not supposed believing what I said. So, I can't say you are wrong in any way. And if my experience in life was somehow like yours I would react exactly as you did here.

I am sorry for any inconvenience.

Kerim
Maybe I am the one who understands your meaning best. Because I have had this experience.

49. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KerimF
Let us try to be realistic. Since always a novel idea/discovery has to be approved clearly by the appropriate scientists who serve directly the powerful world's Elite (each period of time has its Elite) first; otherwise almost no one in the world dares accepting it as a real/true scientific one.

This is why I have chosen, since after graduation, to be a designer in electronics, not a researcher in modern physics, so that I can profit from my novel solutions in my life; no matter if the world is told to believe them (to believe they exist) or not.
I used to be a communications engineer at Motorola, where I have worked for 15 years.
That figures. It is amazing the number of cranks on these forums who have a background in radio engineering.

50. Originally Posted by exchemist
That figures. It is amazing the number of cranks on these forums who have a background in radio engineering.
At least, when you see some others as cranks it helps you discover how fortunate you are for being a useful person; aren't you?

51. Originally Posted by KerimF
At least, when you see some others as cranks it helps you discover how fortunate you are for being a useful person; aren't you?
It's more a case of others showing themselves as cranks rather that seeing those others as cranks.

52. Originally Posted by KerimF
Originally Posted by exchemist
That figures. It is amazing the number of cranks on these forums who have a background in radio engineering.
At least, when you see some others as cranks it helps you discover how fortunate you are for being a useful person; aren't you?
Not really. It is just mildly depressing to reflect on the capacity of human nature for egotistical self-delusion.

53. Originally Posted by Origin
Who are these 'Elites' that all the scientist serve? What do you mean by serve, I assume you don't mean that scientists are waiters to the 'Elites'. Why do these 'Elites' stop scientific advances?
Why do the 'Elites' allow the implementation of novel ideas but stop the publishing of novel ideas? Are these 'Elites' morons?
Originally Posted by KerimF
I am afraid that almost all people in the world are not supposed believing what I said.
So, I can't say you are wrong in any way.
What are you talking about? I didn't state anything I asked questions.
And if my experience in life was somehow like yours I would react exactly as you did here.
How could you possibly know that? Are you going to address my questions?

I am sorry for any inconvenience.
Kerim
The only inconvenience is you not addressing the questions.

54. Originally Posted by Origin
Originally Posted by Origin
Who are these 'Elites' that all the scientist serve? What do you mean by serve, I assume you don't mean that scientists are waiters to the 'Elites'. Why do these 'Elites' stop scientific advances?
Why do the 'Elites' allow the implementation of novel ideas but stop the publishing of novel ideas? Are these 'Elites' morons?
Originally Posted by KerimF
I am afraid that almost all people in the world are not supposed believing what I said.
So, I can't say you are wrong in any way.
What are you talking about? I didn't state anything I asked questions.
And if my experience in life was somehow like yours I would react exactly as you did here.
How could you possibly know that? Are you going to address my questions?

I am sorry for any inconvenience.
Kerim
The only inconvenience is you not addressing the questions.
Sorry, am I doing an exam here?!

On one hand there are certain things that should be discovered by oneself (so I won't be surprised if you didn't live this fact yet and you think it is non-sense).

On the other hand, when someone watch a movie, he won't ask the producer questions afterwards, he just takes or leaves what he saw and heard on the screen without contacting the producer.
But here, one has the possibility to explicitly show that he has another view of what was presented on his monitor.

Please note, I didn't join this forum to convince anyone about anything.
And it is normal that some readers may understand what I say (because they already live it at a certain level) while some others have no reason to be interested in, in the first place. The rest prefer to be indifferent. This is how the world is made, we (or I in the east) like it or not.

55. Originally Posted by KerimF
Sorry, am I doing an exam here?!
Mod Note: See this post.

56. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
I want to know which of 8.6" vs 240" is correct.
According to Wikipedia, the perihelion shift of Venus is theoretically 8.62473 seconds per century, and measured as 8.6247±0.0005 seconds per century, in agreement with general relativity. I don't know where you got 240" from.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

I suspect that some people take the term "perihelion precession" too literally, whereas the more accurate description is a rotation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which is a constant of motion for orbits under a central inverse square law, the rotation being the result of deviation from the central inverse square law.

The other planets experience perihelion shifts as well, but, since they are farther from the Sun and have longer periods, their shifts are lower, and could not be observed accurately until long after Mercury's. For example, the perihelion shift of Earth's orbit due to general relativity is theoretically 3.83868" per century and experimentally 3.8387±0.0004"/cy, Venus's is 8.62473"/cy and 8.6247±0.0005″/cy and Mars' is 1.351±0.001"/cy. Both values have now been measured, with results in good agreement with theory.[11] The periapsis shift has also now been measured for binary pulsar systems, with PSR 1913+16 amounting to 4.2° per year.[12] These observations are consistent with general relativity.[13] It is also possible to measure periapsis shift in binary star systems which do not contain ultra-dense stars, but it is more difficult to model the classical effects precisely – for example, the alignment of the stars' spin to their orbital plane needs to be known and is hard to measure directly. A few systems, such as DI Herculis,[14] have been measured as test cases for general relativity.

It's very interesting:
That's a peculiar notion. However, according to the formula for perihelion shift in general relativity, for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. Interestingly, for a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is 24π3L2T–2c–2, not zero.

There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
Why does the planetary precession need not consider the eccentricity by GR?
Why is it not necessary to consider the angle between the planet's orbital plane and the ecliptic plane by GR?
Why is it so susceptible to interference under Newtonian mechanics? And why does the orbit of Venus become very stable under the GR theory?

57. I calculated that the Moon precession data due to the Earth's gravitational waves is 5500" per century.

Can anyone tell me the value calculated by GR ?

58. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Why does the planetary precession need not consider the eccentricity by GR?
I didn't say that the perihelion shift in general relativity does not depend on eccentricity. What I said was that for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift in general relativity is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. The perihelion shift is inversely proportional to 1–e2. For a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is not zero, which seems peculiar. But I think the perihelion shift for a circular orbit is the difference in the location of the planet in its orbit between general relativity and Newtonian theory. Although a rotation of a circular orbit doesn't produce a visible change in the orbit, it does produce a rotation of the position of the planet in that orbit. Thus, if you think that there can't be a perihelion shift for a circular orbit because there is no perihelion, then you've taken the term "perihelion shift" too literally.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Why is it not necessary to consider the angle between the planet's orbital plane and the ecliptic plane by GR?
The formula for the perihelion shift in general relativity is for a two-body system: a sun and one planet. As such, there is no "ecliptic plane".

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Why is it so susceptible to interference under Newtonian mechanics? And why does the orbit of Venus become very stable under the GR theory?
It's not clear to me what your are asking, but the perihelion shift of an orbit arises for different reasons in general relativity compared to Newtonian theory, and indeed the perihelion shift in general relativity is in addition to the perihelion shift in Newtonian theory.

59. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Why does the planetary precession need not consider the eccentricity by GR?
I didn't say that the perihelion shift in general relativity does not depend on eccentricity. What I said was that for small eccentricity, the perihelion shift in general relativity is quite insensitive to the value of the eccentricity. The perihelion shift is inversely proportional to 1–e2. For a circular orbit, the perihelion shift is not zero, which seems peculiar. But I think the perihelion shift for a circular orbit is the difference in the location of the planet in its orbit between general relativity and Newtonian theory. Although a rotation of a circular orbit doesn't produce a visible change in the orbit, it does produce a rotation of the position of the planet in that orbit. Thus, if you think that there can't be a perihelion shift for a circular orbit because there is no perihelion, then you've taken the term "perihelion shift" too literally.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Why is it not necessary to consider the angle between the planet's orbital plane and the ecliptic plane by GR?
The formula for the perihelion shift in general relativity is for a two-body system: a sun and one planet. As such, there is no "ecliptic plane".

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Why is it so susceptible to interference under Newtonian mechanics? And why does the orbit of Venus become very stable under the GR theory?
It's not clear to me what your are asking, but the perihelion shift of an orbit arises for different reasons in general relativity compared to Newtonian theory, and indeed the perihelion shift in general relativity is in addition to the perihelion shift in Newtonian theory.
fig5

The density of gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun is different in different spatial locations.
Therefore, in my theory, the eccentricity is a very important factor. The smaller the eccentricity, the closer the orbit is to a circle, the more susceptible the orbit is to external interference, and the more likely it is to precess. Venus is an example.

In my theory, the greater the angle between the planet's orbit and the vertical plane of the sun's speed (the red line in the figure), the more likely the planet's orbit to precess.

My theory is based on the influence of gravitational waves on gravity.

However, GR does not consider the angle between the orbital surfaces at all, and the eccentricity (1-e*e) is not the main influencing factor.

60. A simple analogy is that the gravitational field is like the ocean, the sun is like a ship, and the gravitational waves are like waves caused by the ship.

61. KJW, May I ask you some questions?

1. How are gravitational waves caused?
2. Will the revolution of the sun cause gravitational waves?
3. Will gravitational waves affect the surrounding gravity?
4. Does gravitational wave have Doppler effect?
5. Is the density of gravitational waves under the Doppler effect uneven?
6. If all of the above are yes, then my gravitational wave model is clear and reasonable. Do you agree with this view?

My theory is simple, easy to understand, and it is correct in the calculation of planetary orbits.

62. Originally Posted by Tony2021
fig5
This doesn't display.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
The smaller the eccentricity, the closer the orbit is to a circle, the more susceptible the orbit is to external interference, and the more likely it is to precess.
I don't see how this could be the case other than if the precession is a pseudorotation (a type of motion that gives the appearance of a rotation but isn't actually a rotation).

Originally Posted by Tony2021
1. How are gravitational waves caused?
2. Will the revolution of the sun cause gravitational waves?
I should point out that my understanding of gravitational radiation may differ from the commonly held view in a number of ways, and in particular that I disagree with the commonly held view that a rotating rigid dumbbell emits gravitational radiation.

For the second question, if by "revolution", you mean rotation about its spin axis, then no, rotation of the sun does not cause gravitational waves. This is the commonly held view by the way, not just my own view. Spinning objects that possess axial symmetry do not emit gravitational radiation. My own view expands upon this in that a spinning rigid object of any kind does not emit gravitational radiation. In general relativity, a spinning rigid object is actually stationary, and the spacetime surrounding it is also stationary. Therefore, there cannot be emission of any radiation, which would lead to changes in the emitting object. Unfortunately, I am unable to prove that there is no drag that slows the rate of rotation, but I can say that such a slowing of the rate of rotation would violate the conservation of angular momentum in a way that the emission of gravitational radiation would be unable to accomplish.

I should also add that spherically symmetric gravitational radiation cannot exist, and that any change in the distribution of matter that maintains spherical symmetry (eg an expanding or contracting ball of matter) does not emit gravitational radiation.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
3. Will gravitational waves affect the surrounding gravity?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Gravitational radiation and the gravitational field are locally the same type of spacetime curvature. For weak gravitational radiation in a weak gravitational field, the total field is a linear sum of the two fields; but for strong fields, the combination of the two fields is non-linear (although this might be an artefact of the peculiar nature of spacetime curvature).

Originally Posted by Tony2021
4. Does gravitational wave have Doppler effect?
I should remark that solutions to wave equations are not necessarily sinusoidal waveforms, and one shouldn't regard "waves" as necessarily sinusoidal waveforms. However, any waveform can be decomposed as the sum of sinusoidal waveforms of various frequencies. But in general, a gravitational wave is a non-linear combination of component waveforms, so it is not clear how readily one can speak of component frequencies except in the case of weak field radiation (where the combination is linear).

Anyway, the Doppler effect is not a property of the particular field, so the Doppler effect applies to gravitational waves as it applies to other waves (although the question of whether the wave propagates at the speed of light does need to be considered... in the case of weak field gravitational radiation, it does propagate at the speed of light).

Originally Posted by Tony2021
5. Is the density of gravitational waves under the Doppler effect uneven?
I don't understand this question.

63. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
fig5
This doesn't display.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
The smaller the eccentricity, the closer the orbit is to a circle, the more susceptible the orbit is to external interference, and the more likely it is to precess.
I don't see how this could be the case other than if the precession is a pseudorotation (a type of motion that gives the appearance of a rotation but isn't actually a rotation).

Originally Posted by Tony2021
1. How are gravitational waves caused?
2. Will the revolution of the sun cause gravitational waves?
I should point out that my understanding of gravitational radiation may differ from the commonly held view in a number of ways, and in particular that I disagree with the commonly held view that a rotating rigid dumbbell emits gravitational radiation.

For the second question, if by "revolution", you mean rotation about its spin axis, then no, rotation of the sun does not cause gravitational waves. This is the commonly held view by the way, not just my own view. Spinning objects that possess axial symmetry do not emit gravitational radiation. My own view expands upon this in that a spinning rigid object of any kind does not emit gravitational radiation. In general relativity, a spinning rigid object is actually stationary, and the spacetime surrounding it is also stationary. Therefore, there cannot be emission of any radiation, which would lead to changes in the emitting object. Unfortunately, I am unable to prove that there is no drag that slows the rate of rotation, but I can say that such a slowing of the rate of rotation would violate the conservation of angular momentum in a way that the emission of gravitational radiation would be unable to accomplish.

I should also add that spherically symmetric gravitational radiation cannot exist, and that any change in the distribution of matter that maintains spherical symmetry (eg an expanding or contracting ball of matter) does not emit gravitational radiation.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
3. Will gravitational waves affect the surrounding gravity?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Gravitational radiation and the gravitational field are locally the same type of spacetime curvature. For weak gravitational radiation in a weak gravitational field, the total field is a linear sum of the two fields; but for strong fields, the combination of the two fields is non-linear (although this might be an artefact of the peculiar nature of spacetime curvature).

Originally Posted by Tony2021
4. Does gravitational wave have Doppler effect?
I should remark that solutions to wave equations are not necessarily sinusoidal waveforms, and one shouldn't regard "waves" as necessarily sinusoidal waveforms. However, any waveform can be decomposed as the sum of sinusoidal waveforms of various frequencies. But in general, a gravitational wave is a non-linear combination of component waveforms, so it is not clear how readily one can speak of component frequencies except in the case of weak field radiation (where the combination is linear).

Anyway, the Doppler effect is not a property of the particular field, so the Doppler effect applies to gravitational waves as it applies to other waves (although the question of whether the wave propagates at the speed of light does need to be considered... in the case of weak field gravitational radiation, it does propagate at the speed of light).

Originally Posted by Tony2021
5. Is the density of gravitational waves under the Doppler effect uneven?
I don't understand this question.
2. Will the revolution of the sun cause gravitational waves?
The sun's rotation can also cause gravitational waves, but since the sun's revolution speed of 240km/s is much greater than its rotation speed of 2km/s, my physical model does not consider the influence of gravitational waves caused by rotation. If you need more precise calculations, you need to consider this factor.

"This doesn't display."
"This doesn't display."
"I don't understand this question."
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

64. Originally Posted by Tony2021
2. Will the revolution of the sun cause gravitational waves?
The sun's rotation can also cause gravitational waves, but since the sun's revolution speed of 240km/s is much greater than its rotation speed of 2km/s, my physical model does not consider the influence of gravitational waves caused by rotation.
I've already said that the sun's rotation doesn't cause gravitational waves. What motion of the sun do you consider to be its revolution?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1
No thanks. It is customary to answer questions in the forum. That way, hopefully I get definite answers to the specific questions I ask, rather than search through an external document for something that may or may not be an answer to my question.

Also, you haven't addressed my replies to the questions you asked me.

65. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
2. Will the revolution of the sun cause gravitational waves?
The sun's rotation can also cause gravitational waves, but since the sun's revolution speed of 240km/s is much greater than its rotation speed of 2km/s, my physical model does not consider the influence of gravitational waves caused by rotation.
I've already said that the sun's rotation doesn't cause gravitational waves. What motion of the sun do you consider to be its revolution?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1
No thanks. It is customary to answer questions in the forum. That way, hopefully I get definite answers to the specific questions I ask, rather than search through an external document for something that may or may not be an answer to my question.

Also, you haven't addressed my replies to the questions you asked me.
“I've already said that the sun's rotation doesn't cause gravitational waves. What motion of the sun do you consider to be its revolution?”
revolution is the rotation of the sun around the center of the Milky Way.
By the way, the sun's rotation can also cause gravitational waves, but since the sun's revolution speed of 240km/s is much greater than its rotation speed of 2km/s, my physical model does not consider the influence of gravitational waves caused by rotation. If you need more precise calculations, you need to consider this factor.

I think that as long as the gravitational source moves, it will cause gravitational waves.
Just like a ship in the water, waves always accompany the movement of the ship.

66. The discovery of gravitational waves provides a new way for us to reveal the universe. Gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun will aﬀect the orbits of planets and provide some planetary precession data. The chasing eﬀect(Doppler effect) of gravitational waves will also cause the planetary orbital mechanical energy to continue to increase slowly until the planet escapes from the solar system. Gravitational waves are real, and the gravitational model under the inﬂuence of gravitational waves we constructed is a physical model. Through the calculation of planetary orbital precession, the correctness of the gravitational equation under the inﬂuence of gravitational waves is veriﬁed, which shows that the gravitational physical model has certain research value, and it will also be a strong evidence and supplement to GR. GR is the mathematical model of gravity and it also provides ideas for the correction of Newton’s gravitational equation.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/xRHFHEx6QyPhYkLC9

67. Originally Posted by Tony2021
"Revolution" is the rotation of the sun around the center of the Milky Way
Ok. Do you think the motion of the sun around the Milky Way has any significant bearing on the motion of the planets around the sun?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
I think that as long as the gravitational source moves, it will cause gravitational waves.
No, motion itself does not cause gravitational waves. Motion does produce gravitomagnetism, which is the gravitational analogue of magnetism, the gravitational field itself corresponding to the electric field.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Just like a ship in the water, waves always accompany the movement of the ship.
Analogies can be useful in providing a simple explanation to a complicated notion, but one shouldn't treat an analogy as if it were the thing itself.

68. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Gravitational waves are real
I never said that gravitational wave aren't real. But we certainly differ on how they are produced.

69. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
"Revolution" is the rotation of the sun around the center of the Milky Way
Ok. Do you think the motion of the sun around the Milky Way has any significant bearing on the motion of the planets around the sun?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
I think that as long as the gravitational source moves, it will cause gravitational waves.
No, motion itself does not cause gravitational waves. Motion does produce gravitomagnetism, which is the gravitational analogue of magnetism, the gravitational field itself corresponding to the electric field.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Just like a ship in the water, waves always accompany the movement of the ship.
Analogies can be useful in providing a simple explanation to a complicated notion, but one shouldn't treat an analogy as if it were the thing itself.
Yes, the gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun will affect the surrounding gravity. Thereby affecting the planetary orbit of the solar system.

Any movement of m will produce gravitational waves. Large or small. It's like a wave caused by a ship.

Yes, but often they are very similar.

70. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Yes, the gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun will affect the surrounding gravity. Thereby affecting the planetary orbit of the solar system.
I don't know what affect the rest of the Milky Way has on the solar system due to the tidal effect, but I strongly doubt that the gravitational radiation from the sun's orbit about the Milky Way is sufficient to have any measurable affect on planetary orbits of the solar system. Gravitational radiation from sources other than blackholes, neutron stars, and other collapsed matter is really quite weak. For example, according to Wikipedia, the earth emits 200 watts of gravitational radiation orbiting the sun.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Any movement of m will produce gravitational waves.
This statement fails to take into account relativity.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Yes, but often they are very similar.
And often they are not. The problem with arguing from analogy is that you have to prove that the analogy is similar. In what way is a ship moving through water similar to a sun, planet, or whatever moving through empty space? Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.

71. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Yes, the gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun will affect the surrounding gravity. Thereby affecting the planetary orbit of the solar system.
I don't know what affect the rest of the Milky Way has on the solar system due to the tidal effect, but I strongly doubt that the gravitational radiation from the sun's orbit about the Milky Way is sufficient to have any measurable affect on planetary orbits of the solar system. Gravitational radiation from sources other than blackholes, neutron stars, and other collapsed matter is really quite weak. For example, according to Wikipedia, the earth emits 200 watts of gravitational radiation orbiting the sun.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Any movement of m will produce gravitational waves.
This statement fails to take into account relativity.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Yes, but often they are very similar.
And often they are not. The problem with arguing from analogy is that you have to prove that the analogy is similar. In what way is a ship moving through water similar to a sun, planet, or whatever moving through empty space? Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.
You must note that LIGO and others have measured gravitational waves，those gravitational waves come from very far away places and have been attenuated a lot. But the gravitational waves caused by the sun are so close to us. I calculated that the gravitational wave caused by the revolution of the sun is about 0.0004 times that of Newtonian gravity.

Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.
If GR says so, this is so funny, it can even be described as stupid. GR needs to withdraw from the stage of history.

72. Originally Posted by Tony2021
You must note that LIGO and others have measured gravitational waves, those gravitational waves come from very far away places and have been attenuated a lot.
Those waves have mostly come from blackhole mergers, extremely powerful events. And they attenuate at 1/r.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
But the gravitational waves caused by the sun are so close to us.
And yet, LIGO hasn't detected those.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
I calculated that the gravitational wave caused by the revolution of the sun is about 0.0004 times that of Newtonian gravity.
What do you think gravitational waves are?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.
If GR says so, this is so funny, it can even be described as stupid. GR needs to withdraw from the stage of history.
Are you saying that you don't think a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it? It is a consequence of the principle of special relativity that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it. Consider the gravitation as seen by an observer moving at the same velocity as the gravitational object. Do you not accept the principle of special relativity?

73. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
You must note that LIGO and others have measured gravitational waves, those gravitational waves come from very far away places and have been attenuated a lot.
Those waves have mostly come from blackhole mergers, extremely powerful events. And they attenuate at 1/r.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
But the gravitational waves caused by the sun are so close to us.
And yet, LIGO hasn't detected those.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
I calculated that the gravitational wave caused by the revolution of the sun is about 0.0004 times that of Newtonian gravity.
What do you think gravitational waves are?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.
If GR says so, this is so funny, it can even be described as stupid. GR needs to withdraw from the stage of history.
Are you saying that you don't think a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it? It is a consequence of the principle of special relativity that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it. Consider the gravitation as seen by an observer moving at the same velocity as the gravitational object. Do you not accept the principle of special relativity?
Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.
What if the velocity is not constant? By the way, I don't think SR is correct.

74. This is a simulation result of Mercury's orbital precession.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/jL46gn5Kmy8RX22K7 (Enable gravitational waves)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yMuGJp3jjVxFN2Au6 (Disable gravitational waves)

I uploaded my program, you can run it yourself to get planetary orbit data.
1. Select the planet (1 --- 7)
2. Set the time interval (0.01s --- 1.0s)
3. Choose to enable/disable gravitational waves

75. Originally Posted by Tony2021
“Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.”
What if the velocity is not constant?
I think we need to resolve the case of constant velocity before we can deal with the case of non-constant velocity? If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it, then your disagreement with physics goes beyond gravitation.

76. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
“Note that relativity says that when a gravitational object moves at constant velocity, it takes its gravitation with it.”
What if the velocity is not constant?
I think we need to resolve the case of constant velocity before we can deal with the case of non-constant velocity? If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it, then your disagreement with physics goes beyond gravitation.
"If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it"
In fact, I don't understand the meaning of this sentence too much. Can you make it clearer?

77. Originally Posted by Tony2021
"If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it"
In fact, I don't understand the meaning of this sentence too much. Can you make it clearer?
If a gravitational object is moving at a constant velocity, then its gravitational field is moving with it at the same constant velocity. If an observer is also moving at the same constant velocity, that observer will observe the gravitational object at rest, and its gravitational field at rest and the same as the gravitational field of other similar gravitational objects at rest.

You said that gravitational waves are like the waves of a ship moving through water, but if the water is like the gravitational field of a gravitational object, then that water would be moving with the ship, and there would be no waves as in the case of a ship that is stationary in stationary water.

78. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
"If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it"
In fact, I don't understand the meaning of this sentence too much. Can you make it clearer?
If a gravitational object is moving at a constant velocity, then its gravitational field is moving with it at the same constant velocity. If an observer is also moving at the same constant velocity, that observer will observe the gravitational object at rest, and its gravitational field at rest and the same as the gravitational field of other similar gravitational objects at rest.

You said that gravitational waves are like the waves of a ship moving through water, but if the water is like the gravitational field of a gravitational object, then that water would be moving with the ship, and there would be no waves as in the case of a ship that is stationary in stationary water.
The gravitational field has always existed statically. Just like the ocean, the ocean always exists no matter whether the ship is stationary or in motion. Ships of different masses experience different buoyancy forces in the ocean, and moving ships will stir up waves.

You can similarly imagine gravitational fields and gravitational waves.

79. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
"If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it"
In fact, I don't understand the meaning of this sentence too much. Can you make it clearer?
If a gravitational object is moving at a constant velocity, then its gravitational field is moving with it at the same constant velocity. If an observer is also moving at the same constant velocity, that observer will observe the gravitational object at rest, and its gravitational field at rest and the same as the gravitational field of other similar gravitational objects at rest.

You said that gravitational waves are like the waves of a ship moving through water, but if the water is like the gravitational field of a gravitational object, then that water would be moving with the ship, and there would be no waves as in the case of a ship that is stationary in stationary water.
The gravitational field has always existed statically. Just like the ocean, the ocean always exists no matter whether the ship is stationary or in motion. Ships of different masses experience different buoyancy forces in the ocean, and moving ships will stir up waves.

You can similarly imagine gravitational fields and gravitational waves.
Wrong. There is no medium in space that moving masses displace to create a wave. That's the point. You only get gravitational waves when a mass is accelerated.

This is quite unlike a ship on the ocean.

80. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
"If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it"
In fact, I don't understand the meaning of this sentence too much. Can you make it clearer?
If a gravitational object is moving at a constant velocity, then its gravitational field is moving with it at the same constant velocity. If an observer is also moving at the same constant velocity, that observer will observe the gravitational object at rest, and its gravitational field at rest and the same as the gravitational field of other similar gravitational objects at rest.

You said that gravitational waves are like the waves of a ship moving through water, but if the water is like the gravitational field of a gravitational object, then that water would be moving with the ship, and there would be no waves as in the case of a ship that is stationary in stationary water.
The gravitational field has always existed statically. Just like the ocean, the ocean always exists no matter whether the ship is stationary or in motion. Ships of different masses experience different buoyancy forces in the ocean, and moving ships will stir up waves.

You can similarly imagine gravitational fields and gravitational waves.
No. Relativity allows one to calculate the gravitational field of an object moving at constant velocity from the gravitational field of the same object at rest. An object moving relative to an observer is the same as the observer moving relative to the object.

81. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
"If you don't agree that a gravitational object moving at constant velocity takes its gravitation with it"
In fact, I don't understand the meaning of this sentence too much. Can you make it clearer?
If a gravitational object is moving at a constant velocity, then its gravitational field is moving with it at the same constant velocity. If an observer is also moving at the same constant velocity, that observer will observe the gravitational object at rest, and its gravitational field at rest and the same as the gravitational field of other similar gravitational objects at rest.

You said that gravitational waves are like the waves of a ship moving through water, but if the water is like the gravitational field of a gravitational object, then that water would be moving with the ship, and there would be no waves as in the case of a ship that is stationary in stationary water.
The gravitational field has always existed statically. Just like the ocean, the ocean always exists no matter whether the ship is stationary or in motion. Ships of different masses experience different buoyancy forces in the ocean, and moving ships will stir up waves.

You can similarly imagine gravitational fields and gravitational waves.
No. Relativity allows one to calculate the gravitational field of an object moving at constant velocity from the gravitational field of the same object at rest. An object moving relative to an observer is the same as the observer moving relative to the object.
The buoyancy of a stationary ship and a constant-speed ship is the same, but there is no wave around the stationary ship, and there are waves around the moving ship, and the waves will affect the objects around the ship.

In the same way, you can think about gravitational fields and gravitational waves in this way.
GR is to make a simple thing complicated and incomprehensible. Forget GR, let's return to Newtonian mechanics.

82. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Actually, the notion that an object moving relative to an observer is the same as the observer moving relative to the object exists even in Newtonian mechanics. In fact, it was Galileo (before Newton) who described the notion of relativity. Consider the dropping of a ball to the ground. It falls straight down, it does not veer to the west as the spin of the earth causes the ground underneath the ball to move away from underneath the ball. How do you explain this?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
GR is to make a simple thing complicated and incomprehensible.
On the contrary, GR is an beautifully elegant theory that makes perfect sense once you make the effect to understand the mathematics. It explains gravity in a way that Newtonian theory cannot. In fact, treating gravity as a force leads to a contradiction.

83. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Actually, the notion that an object moving relative to an observer is the same as the observer moving relative to the object exists even in Newtonian mechanics. In fact, it was Galileo (before Newton) who described the notion of relativity. Consider the dropping of a ball to the ground. It falls straight down, it does not veer to the west as the spin of the earth causes the ground underneath the ball to move away from underneath the ball. How do you explain this?

Originally Posted by Tony2021
GR is to make a simple thing complicated and incomprehensible.
On the contrary, GR is an beautifully elegant theory that makes perfect sense once you make the effect to understand the mathematics. It explains gravity in a way that Newtonian theory cannot. In fact, treating gravity as a force leads to a contradiction.
When the ball is falling, in addition to the vertical downward velocity, it also has the same tangential velocity as the earth's rotation at the beginning.

GR is a mathematical model that uses mathematics to approximate gravity. Mathematics and physics are interlinked. But physical models are often more accurate.
Just like 1+1=2, you can think very simple or very complicated. Obviously GR chose to be complicated.

84. Originally Posted by Tony2021
When the ball is falling, in addition to the vertical downward velocity, it also has the same tangential velocity as the earth's rotation at the beginning.
Yes, that's called "inertia". But note that regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the ball falls downward. And if we want to calculate the kinematics of collisions, we don't have to include the spin of the earth because, regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the collisions will have all the same velocities. This is a consequence of the principle of relativity. That is, inertia is a consequence of the principle of relativity. And because of the principle of relativity, the gravitational field of an object also has inertia and moves at the same velocity as the object.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
GR is a mathematical model that uses mathematics to approximate gravity. Mathematics and physics are interlinked. But physical models are often more accurate.
Just like 1+1=2, you can think very simple or very complicated. Obviously GR chose to be complicated.
No, this is a misunderstanding of GR. General relativity is often regarded as being about gravity, but it's actually about general relativity... what it's about is in the name! General relativity is first and foremost about the nature of the laws of physics and how to express them in a way that is independent of the frame of reference. General relativity treats space and time as a geometric construct, and applying the notion of invariance of the laws of physics leads to the definition of spacetime curvature. General relativity doesn't simply use spacetime curvature to model gravity. Spacetime curvature is physically real. And given that spacetime curvature is physically real, gravity is the natural consequence.

85. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
When the ball is falling, in addition to the vertical downward velocity, it also has the same tangential velocity as the earth's rotation at the beginning.
Yes, that's called "inertia". But note that regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the ball falls downward. And if we want to calculate the kinematics of collisions, we don't have to include the spin of the earth because, regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the collisions will have all the same velocities. This is a consequence of the principle of relativity. That is, inertia is a consequence of the principle of relativity. And because of the principle of relativity, the gravitational field of an object also has inertia and moves at the same velocity as the object.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
GR is a mathematical model that uses mathematics to approximate gravity. Mathematics and physics are interlinked. But physical models are often more accurate.
Just like 1+1=2, you can think very simple or very complicated. Obviously GR chose to be complicated.
No, this is a misunderstanding of GR. General relativity is often regarded as being about gravity, but it's actually about general relativity... what it's about is in the name! General relativity is first and foremost about the nature of the laws of physics and how to express them in a way that is independent of the frame of reference. General relativity treats space and time as a geometric construct, and applying the notion of invariance of the laws of physics leads to the definition of spacetime curvature. General relativity doesn't simply use spacetime curvature to model gravity. Spacetime curvature is physically real. And given that spacetime curvature is physically real, gravity is the natural consequence.
What you want to express is that the ship is pulling the ocean and sailing together.
This theory is self-contradictory with SR itself. Can you think about it, the ocean at a distance of 10 million kilometers away from the ship is also being pulled by the ship?

The gravitational field cannot be dragged, just like the ocean. Forget SR, it is a contradiction. Let us no longer complicate 1+1=2, the door of physics has been opened, and we don't need to be constrained anymore.

The space is not bent, that is just the spatial density model of gravitational waves.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/6yz5u2C2Zp98wdus6

The door of physics has been opened.

86. Originally Posted by Tony2021
The gravitational field cannot be dragged
The whole point of mentioning "inertia" is that the gravitational field isn't being "dragged" any more than the dropped ball was being "dragged". The gravitational field is moving at the same velocity as the source object due to its own inertia, a consequence of the principle of relativity.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
And if we want to calculate the kinematics of collisions, we don't have to include the spin of the earth because, regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the collisions will have all the same velocities.
I suspect that the significance of this has eluded you.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
The space is not bent
Spacetime curvature is physically real. It is an indisputable fact that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. The experiments that prove that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved are the experiments that measure gravitational redshift (such as the Pound-Rebka experiment). You might think that you have an alternative explanation of the gravitational redshift. But it doesn't matter because the measurement of gravitational redshift is a direct measurement from which spacetime curvature can be calculated. In other words, there is no interpretation of the experimental result to allow one to deny the spacetime curvature.

87. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
The gravitational field cannot be dragged
The whole point of mentioning "inertia" is that the gravitational field isn't being "dragged" any more than the dropped ball was being "dragged". The gravitational field is moving at the same velocity as the source object due to its own inertia, a consequence of the principle of relativity.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
And if we want to calculate the kinematics of collisions, we don't have to include the spin of the earth because, regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the collisions will have all the same velocities.
I suspect that the significance of this has eluded you.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
The space is not bent
Spacetime curvature is physically real. It is an indisputable fact that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. The experiments that prove that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved are the experiments that measure gravitational redshift (such as the Pound-Rebka experiment). You might think that you have an alternative explanation of the gravitational redshift. But it doesn't matter because the measurement of gravitational redshift is a direct measurement from which spacetime curvature can be calculated. In other words, there is no interpretation of the experimental result to allow one to deny the spacetime curvature.
If you read my paper, you will know that there is no Spacetime curvature.

You can look at the picture I shared. The Doppler effect of gravitational waves causes the density of gravitational waves to be dense. Therefore, its gravitational influence on different spatial positions is also different. From the shape, it is a kind of depression, but this is not Spacetime curvature.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/AX5ZstezyTCF5djx9

The paper in the link below is very clear.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

The gravity model under the influence of gravitational waves can explain all the physical phenomena that GR can explain. Of course, including what you said above.

88. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
When the ball is falling, in addition to the vertical downward velocity, it also has the same tangential velocity as the earth's rotation at the beginning.
Yes, that's called "inertia". But note that regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the ball falls downward. And if we want to calculate the kinematics of collisions, we don't have to include the spin of the earth because, regardless of whether the earth is spinning or not spinning, the collisions will have all the same velocities. This is a consequence of the principle of relativity. That is, inertia is a consequence of the principle of relativity. And because of the principle of relativity, the gravitational field of an object also has inertia and moves at the same velocity as the object.

Originally Posted by Tony2021
GR is a mathematical model that uses mathematics to approximate gravity. Mathematics and physics are interlinked. But physical models are often more accurate.
Just like 1+1=2, you can think very simple or very complicated. Obviously GR chose to be complicated.
No, this is a misunderstanding of GR. General relativity is often regarded as being about gravity, but it's actually about general relativity... what it's about is in the name! General relativity is first and foremost about the nature of the laws of physics and how to express them in a way that is independent of the frame of reference. General relativity treats space and time as a geometric construct, and applying the notion of invariance of the laws of physics leads to the definition of spacetime curvature. General relativity doesn't simply use spacetime curvature to model gravity. Spacetime curvature is physically real. And given that spacetime curvature is physically real, gravity is the natural consequence.
What you want to express is that the ship is pulling the ocean and sailing together.
This theory is self-contradictory with SR itself. Can you think about it, the ocean at a distance of 10 million kilometers away from the ship is also being pulled by the ship?

The gravitational field cannot be dragged, just like the ocean. Forget SR, it is a contradiction. Let us no longer complicate 1+1=2, the door of physics has been opened, and we don't need to be constrained anymore.

The space is not bent, that is just the spatial density model of gravitational waves.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/6yz5u2C2Zp98wdus6

The door of physics has been opened.
There is no ocean, dummkopf.

89. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
The space is not bent
Spacetime curvature is physically real. It is an indisputable fact that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. The experiments that prove that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved are the experiments that measure gravitational redshift (such as the Pound-Rebka experiment). You might think that you have an alternative explanation of the gravitational redshift. But it doesn't matter because the measurement of gravitational redshift is a direct measurement from which spacetime curvature can be calculated. In other words, there is no interpretation of the experimental result to allow one to deny the spacetime curvature.
If you read my paper, you will know that there is no Spacetime curvature.

You can look at the picture I shared. The Doppler effect of gravitational waves causes the density of gravitational waves to be dense. Therefore, its gravitational influence on different spatial positions is also different. From the shape, it is a kind of depression, but this is not Spacetime curvature.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/AX5ZstezyTCF5djx9

The paper in the link below is very clear.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

The gravity model under the influence of gravitational waves can explain all the physical phenomena that GR can explain. Of course, including what you said above.
As I said, the measurement of gravitational redshift is a direct measurement and is not open to interpretation. The spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. That is a fact.

I will ask one question: What do you think gravitation is? I mean, you talk about "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" as if these terms make sense. You use the analogy of the ocean and ocean waves generated by the motion of a ship, but analogies don't answer the question of what gravitation really is.

90. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
The space is not bent
Spacetime curvature is physically real. It is an indisputable fact that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. The experiments that prove that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved are the experiments that measure gravitational redshift (such as the Pound-Rebka experiment). You might think that you have an alternative explanation of the gravitational redshift. But it doesn't matter because the measurement of gravitational redshift is a direct measurement from which spacetime curvature can be calculated. In other words, there is no interpretation of the experimental result to allow one to deny the spacetime curvature.
If you read my paper, you will know that there is no Spacetime curvature.

You can look at the picture I shared. The Doppler effect of gravitational waves causes the density of gravitational waves to be dense. Therefore, its gravitational influence on different spatial positions is also different. From the shape, it is a kind of depression, but this is not Spacetime curvature.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/AX5ZstezyTCF5djx9

The paper in the link below is very clear.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

The gravity model under the influence of gravitational waves can explain all the physical phenomena that GR can explain. Of course, including what you said above.
As I said, the measurement of gravitational redshift is a direct measurement and is not open to interpretation. The spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. That is a fact.

I will ask one question: What do you think gravitation is? I mean, you talk about "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" as if these terms make sense. You use the analogy of the ocean and ocean waves generated by the motion of a ship, but analogies don't answer the question of what gravitation really is.
Ocean ====> Gravitational Field
Great Wheel ====> Sun
Wave by Great Wheel =====> Gravitational wave by Sun
Boat =====> planet

A simple analogy, this will help your understanding. You can read my paper, which will give you all the answers you want. You can look directly at parts 4, 5, and 6.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1

91. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
I will ask one question: What do you think gravitation is? I mean, you talk about "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" as if these terms make sense. You use the analogy of the ocean and ocean waves generated by the motion of a ship, but analogies don't answer the question of what gravitation really is.
Ocean ====> Gravitational Field
Great Wheel ====> Sun
Wave by Great Wheel =====> Gravitational wave by Sun
Boat =====> planet

A simple analogy, this will help your understanding. You can read my paper, which will give you all the answers you want. You can look directly at parts 4, 5, and 6.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1
I'm not interested in an analogy. I asked you what "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" are.

92. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
I will ask one question: What do you think gravitation is? I mean, you talk about "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" as if these terms make sense. You use the analogy of the ocean and ocean waves generated by the motion of a ship, but analogies don't answer the question of what gravitation really is.
Ocean ====> Gravitational Field
Great Wheel ====> Sun
Wave by Great Wheel =====> Gravitational wave by Sun
Boat =====> planet

A simple analogy, this will help your understanding. You can read my paper, which will give you all the answers you want. You can look directly at parts 4, 5, and 6.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1
I'm not interested in an analogy. I asked you what "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" are.
Do you know the electric field? Electrons are subjected to force in the electric field.

If the space is full of gravitational fields, the gravitational field will exert force on objects with masses. Can you agree with this statement?

Gravitational waves are disturbances in the gravitational field.

93. Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
I'm not interested in an analogy. I asked you what "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" are.
Do you know the electric field? Electrons are subjected to force in the electric field.

If the space is full of gravitational fields, the gravitational field will exert force on objects with masses. Can you agree with this statement?

Gravitational waves are disturbances in the gravitational field.
With this, you've taken us back to the 19th century. It still isn't really an explanation. For example, why would the gravitational field exert force on objects with mass?

94. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Tony2021
Originally Posted by KJW
I'm not interested in an analogy. I asked you what "gravitational field" and "gravitational waves" are.
Do you know the electric field? Electrons are subjected to force in the electric field.

If the space is full of gravitational fields, the gravitational field will exert force on objects with masses. Can you agree with this statement?

Gravitational waves are disturbances in the gravitational field.
With this, you've taken us back to the 19th century. It still isn't really an explanation. For example, why would the gravitational field exert force on objects with mass?
Yes, just like 1+1=2, GR is studying why it is 2 instead of 3 from a mathematical level.

We discover the laws of nature and use them to explore more unknowns. My theory returns physics to Newtonian mechanics, and the improved gravitational equation becomes more accurate, but it is simple and easy to understand.

All calculations and physical phenomena that prove the correctness of GR can be calculated and explained by my theory. My theory is based on the physical model of gravitational waves, which reveals the physical nature of GR.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-384421/v1
I think science students who do not have poor academic performance can understand this paper, even high school students.