How does Special Relativity effect an orbit?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

See this link: How does Special Relativity Effect an Orbit?

This short article forms part of a much more complex set of astrophysics algorithms.
Before we can describe the entirety of effects of relativity on orbits, I would just like
to look at this one aspect. Has anyone ever noted this before?

If we consider just the formula for the reduction of velocity from special relativity:

... then it seems quite clear that any reduction of velocity away from Newton,
would result in an inwards spiral as the orbit loses expected velocity.
This would happen in a most pronounced way for eccentric orbits.
So for near-circular orbits like Venus, its a small adjustment, whereas for Mars and Mercury,
with high eccentricity, the amount is pronounced. But by how much?

For Mars, about 2/3rd of a km per orbit on average that Mars would be moving towards the Earth’s orbit
– if the limit at the velocity of light from Special Relativity causes a decrease in expected velocity.

For Mercury the in-spiral would be about 2km per orbit due to this loss in expected velocity:

Here is the link with more precise details: Relativity and planets orbits

So how do 'other aspects of relativity' allegedly compensate for this?
Well, the relativists would like to believe that there must be something to compensate for it.
But
there is not.

This link:Relativity Simulator Software
shows the software which was used to describe the various orbits evolving under the
various laws of gravity and astrophysics.

Cue: The non-programmer who claims he 'understands' because he uses jargon
instead of writing an algorithm of his own that APPLIES the formulae.

Praise to the Creator of all Creation!

 

[Axe Elf]

I'm only responding so that you will have at least one response.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm only responding so that you will have at least one response.

I was wondering what @LegionOnomaMoi @sayak83 and @Polymath257 have to say.

Popcorn?

 

[Kapalika]

I'm fairly sure it doesn't. That's why it was generalized in 1915.

General relativity - Wikipedia

Special = E=Mc^2
General = gravity stuffs

General Relativity has consistently stood up to every experimental test since, most famously during observations of Solar Eclipses where stars behind the Sun appeared to change into view. I'm not sure what the point of this topic is. Relativity is not in dispute by anyone credible.

 

[idav]

See this link: How does Special Relativity Effect an Orbit?

This short article forms part of a much more complex set of astrophysics algorithms.
Before we can describe the entirety of effects of relativity on orbits, I would just like
to look at this one aspect. Has anyone ever noted this before?

If we consider just the formula for the reduction of velocity from special relativity:

... then it seems quite clear that any reduction of velocity away from Newton,
would result in an inwards spiral as the orbit loses expected velocity.
This would happen in a most pronounced way for eccentric orbits.
So for near-circular orbits like Venus, its a small adjustment, whereas for Mars and Mercury,
with high eccentricity, the amount is pronounced. But by how much?

For Mars, about 2/3rd of a km per orbit on average that Mars would be moving towards the Earth’s orbit
– if the limit at the velocity of light from Special Relativity causes a decrease in expected velocity.

For Mercury the in-spiral would be about 2km per orbit due to this loss in expected velocity:

Here is the link with more precise details: Relativity and planets orbits

So how do 'other aspects of relativity' allegedly compensate for this?
Well, the relativists would like to believe that there must be something to compensate for it.
But
there is not.

This link:Relativity Simulator Software
shows the software which was used to describe the various orbits evolving under the
various laws of gravity and astrophysics.

Cue: The non-programmer who claims he 'understands' because he uses jargon
instead of writing an algorithm of his own that APPLIES the formulae.

Praise to the Creator of all Creation!

There must be some calculations that need tweaking. For example scientists had to tweak mercury orbit calcualtions recently due to the other planets affects. So that is to say you have to take the mass of other bodies into account.
Einstein’s general relativity reveals new quirk of Mercury’s orbit

 

[Woberts]

Praise to the Creator of all Creation!

I have a better idea.

Spoiler: Warning: Wear Sunglasses

How about....... praise our glorious Sun?

 

[shunyadragon]

I was wondering what @LegionOnomaMoi @sayak83 and @Polymath257 have to say.

Popcorn?

No thinks! Too much salt in the first post already!

 

[shunyadragon]

I have a better idea.

Spoiler: Warning: Wear Sunglasses

How about....... praise our glorious Sun?

. . . and pass out the aluminum foil helmets.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, gravity needs to be modified when taking relativity into account. That is why general relativity was created.

The velocity sum formula is almost completely irrelevant here.

 

[Polymath257]

Just one question: at what point did you solve Einstein's equations to deduce the motion in the orbit?

 

[atanu]

See ...

If we consider just the formula for the reduction of velocity from special relativity:

... then it seems quite clear that any reduction of velocity away from Newton,

Quite.

 

[Jake1001]

See this link: How does Special Relativity Effect an Orbit?

This short article forms part of a much more complex set of astrophysics algorithms.
Before we can describe the entirety of effects of relativity on orbits, I would just like
to look at this one aspect. Has anyone ever noted this before?

If we consider just the formula for the reduction of velocity from special relativity:

... then it seems quite clear that any reduction of velocity away from Newton,
would result in an inwards spiral as the orbit loses expected velocity.
This would happen in a most pronounced way for eccentric orbits.
So for near-circular orbits like Venus, its a small adjustment, whereas for Mars and Mercury,
with high eccentricity, the amount is pronounced. But by how much?

For Mars, about 2/3rd of a km per orbit on average that Mars would be moving towards the Earth’s orbit
– if the limit at the velocity of light from Special Relativity causes a decrease in expected velocity.

For Mercury the in-spiral would be about 2km per orbit due to this loss in expected velocity:

Here is the link with more precise details: Relativity and planets orbits

So how do 'other aspects of relativity' allegedly compensate for this?
Well, the relativists would like to believe that there must be something to compensate for it.
But
there is not.

This link:Relativity Simulator Software
shows the software which was used to describe the various orbits evolving under the
various laws of gravity and astrophysics.

Cue: The non-programmer who claims he 'understands' because he uses jargon
instead of writing an algorithm of his own that APPLIES the formulae.

Praise to the Creator of all Creation!

Ainsley, what are your thoughts about the computer simulator Theory ?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, reality check here. All the calculations based on the Theory of General Relativity added to the math of Newtonian Physics does is explain the anomalies in the orbits and relationships of planets and the sun that were not explained by Newtonian physics alone. The difference is very very very small.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Special Relativity is inappropriate for application to orbits since the orbiting object is undergoing a change of velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity that includes direction. Change of direction is a form of acceleration, which brings it out of the domain of SR.

 

[Polymath257]

Special Relativity is inappropriate for application to orbits since the orbiting object is undergoing a change of velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity that includes direction. Change of direction is a form of acceleration, which brings it out of the domain of SR.

Well, it is possible to handle accelerated motion in SR. For example, the motion of charges under E&M fields is quite well done using just SR. The force law has to be modified to use the change in 4-velocity, but it works.

Gravity, though, is a strange beast. That's because the gravitational field has energy and thereby has an affect on the gravitational field. The technical aspect is that the field equations are non-linear: there is a feedback effect.

The upshot is that simple minded changes to the Newtonian force law simply don't give the GR orbits. The full field equations have to be solved for the metric in a whole region around the orbiting particles. This is a very tricky mathematical problem, but the papers I pointed to above manage to deal with it.