Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #374735 > unrolled thread

All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-23 12:42 -0800
    Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 19:01 -0800
      Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 20:35 -0800
      Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-23 23:07 -0600
        Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm Watto Chewbacca <watchu@wattochewbacca.org> - 2016-01-24 21:12 +0000
          Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-25 20:16 +0100
        Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-25 15:18 +1100
          Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 08:41 -0800
            Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 10:17 +1100
            Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 14:57 -0800
        Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 14:59 -0800
        Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 15:01 -0800
          Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 17:27 -0800
            Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 19:42 -0800
              Re: All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 23:41 +1100

#374735 — All orbits are swiveling ellipses albeit very small is the norm

The first swiveling orbit suggest all orbits do but in a very small way.
The swivel of Mercury came from the difference of strength of gravity
by distance that is changing in between gravity centers.. Sun and first planet.

Orbits are in slightly different gravity strengths
this determines swivel degree which can be too small
to see at this time but by required time we might
begin to see...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#374749

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:42:18 PM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> The first swiveling orbit suggest all orbits do but in a very small way.
> The swivel of Mercury came from the difference of strength of gravity
> by distance that is changing in between gravity centers.. Sun and first planet.
> 
> Orbits are in slightly different gravity strengths
> this determines swivel degree which can be too small
> to see at this time but by required time we might
> begin to see...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly circular- which is what I have been saying.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374750

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 9:01:31 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:42:18 PM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The first swiveling orbit suggest all orbits do but in a very small way.
> > The swivel of Mercury came from the difference of strength of gravity
> > by distance that is changing in between gravity centers.. Sun and first planet.
> > 
> > Orbits are in slightly different gravity strengths
> > this determines swivel degree which can be too small
> > to see at this time but by required time we might
> > begin to see...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly circular- which is what I have been saying.

So, if they are not going to give me credit- maybe they will give you credit- good luck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374751

On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> circular- which is what I have been saying.

And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular orbits except 
for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets like Pluto do not have 
circular orbits, and there are more of them than planets. Moreover, there are 
over 700 comets that have been observed, and NONE of them have an orbit that is 
anywhere close to circular.

Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must be 
observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity comparable to 
a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been observed by humans 
because it would have melted or broken up long ago (coming so close to the sun). 
So the only objects in highly elliptical orbits are far from the sun and have 
periods of hundred to thousands of years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered 
"Planet 9"); Halley's comet is a rarity (period only 75 years).

	Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
	within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
	majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.

In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have values 
more than ten times that of earth.

	It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
	things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
	learn how to recognize when you don't know something.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374774

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
>> circular- which is what I have been saying.
> 
> And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular
> orbits except for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets
> like Pluto

This is a saying "no circles are perfect, and therefore PI is varing" :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374809

On 24.01.2016 22:12, Watto Chewbacca wrote:
 > []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

plonk

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374777

On 24/01/2016 4:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
>> circular- which is what I have been saying.
>
> And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular
> orbits except for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets
> like Pluto do not have circular orbits, and there are more of them than
> planets. Moreover, there are over 700 comets that have been observed,
> and NONE of them have an orbit that is anywhere close to circular.
>
> Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must
> be observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity
> comparable to a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been
> observed by humans because it would have melted or broken up long ago
> (coming so close to the sun). So the only objects in highly elliptical
> orbits are far from the sun and have periods of hundred to thousands of
> years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered "Planet 9"); Halley's comet
> is a rarity (period only 75 years).
>
>      Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
>      within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
>      majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
>
> In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have
> values more than ten times that of earth.
>
>      It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
>      things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
>      learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

I think James may have been referring to apsidal precession, first 
noticed in the orbit of Mercury. But saying that it applies to all 
orbits is only stating what's already well known.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374798

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:18:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24/01/2016 4:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> >> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> >> circular- which is what I have been saying.
> >
> > And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular
> > orbits except for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets
> > like Pluto do not have circular orbits, and there are more of them than
> > planets. Moreover, there are over 700 comets that have been observed,
> > and NONE of them have an orbit that is anywhere close to circular.
> >
> > Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must
> > be observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity
> > comparable to a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been
> > observed by humans because it would have melted or broken up long ago
> > (coming so close to the sun). So the only objects in highly elliptical
> > orbits are far from the sun and have periods of hundred to thousands of
> > years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered "Planet 9"); Halley's comet
> > is a rarity (period only 75 years).
> >
> >      Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
> >      within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
> >      majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
> >
> > In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have
> > values more than ten times that of earth.
> >
> >      It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
> >      things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
> >      learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
> >
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> I think James may have been referring to apsidal precession, first 
> noticed in the orbit of Mercury. But saying that it applies to all 
> orbits is only stating what's already well known.
> 
> Sylvia.

Look at the speed of the Earth in orbit. It accelerates by the very small
then it is taken back. The increase in speed is micro for the Earth orbiting
around the sun. Look at the orbital strength of gravity only accelerating by
the smallest difference that creates ellipses (that swivel)

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374822

On 26/01/2016 3:41 AM, jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:18:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 24/01/2016 4:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>>> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
>>>> circular- which is what I have been saying.
>>>
>>> And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular
>>> orbits except for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets
>>> like Pluto do not have circular orbits, and there are more of them than
>>> planets. Moreover, there are over 700 comets that have been observed,
>>> and NONE of them have an orbit that is anywhere close to circular.
>>>
>>> Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must
>>> be observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity
>>> comparable to a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been
>>> observed by humans because it would have melted or broken up long ago
>>> (coming so close to the sun). So the only objects in highly elliptical
>>> orbits are far from the sun and have periods of hundred to thousands of
>>> years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered "Planet 9"); Halley's comet
>>> is a rarity (period only 75 years).
>>>
>>>       Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
>>>       within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
>>>       majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
>>>
>>> In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have
>>> values more than ten times that of earth.
>>>
>>>       It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
>>>       things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
>>>       learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>> I think James may have been referring to apsidal precession, first
>> noticed in the orbit of Mercury. But saying that it applies to all
>> orbits is only stating what's already well known.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Look at the speed of the Earth in orbit. It accelerates by the very small
> then it is taken back. The increase in speed is micro for the Earth orbiting
> around the sun. Look at the orbital strength of gravity only accelerating by
> the smallest difference that creates ellipses (that swivel)
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>
>

Nope - that's completely incomprehensible.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374878

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 10:41:08 AM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:18:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 24/01/2016 4:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> > >> circular- which is what I have been saying.
> > >
> > > And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular
> > > orbits except for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets
> > > like Pluto do not have circular orbits, and there are more of them than
> > > planets. Moreover, there are over 700 comets that have been observed,
> > > and NONE of them have an orbit that is anywhere close to circular.
> > >
> > > Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must
> > > be observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity
> > > comparable to a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been
> > > observed by humans because it would have melted or broken up long ago
> > > (coming so close to the sun). So the only objects in highly elliptical
> > > orbits are far from the sun and have periods of hundred to thousands of
> > > years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered "Planet 9"); Halley's comet
> > > is a rarity (period only 75 years).
> > >
> > >      Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
> > >      within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
> > >      majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
> > >
> > > In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have
> > > values more than ten times that of earth.
> > >
> > >      It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
> > >      things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
> > >      learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > I think James may have been referring to apsidal precession, first 
> > noticed in the orbit of Mercury. But saying that it applies to all 
> > orbits is only stating what's already well known.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Look at the speed of the Earth in orbit. It accelerates by the very small
> then it is taken back. The increase in speed is micro for the Earth orbiting
> around the sun. Look at the orbital strength of gravity only accelerating by
> the smallest difference that creates ellipses (that swivel)
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Yes, the tiny amount of acceleration does for the large part show the Earth's amount of ellipse-id-ness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374879

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:07:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> > circular- which is what I have been saying.
> 
> And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular orbits except 
> for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets like Pluto do not have 
> circular orbits, and there are more of them than planets. Moreover, there are 
> over 700 comets that have been observed, and NONE of them have an orbit that is 
> anywhere close to circular.
> 
> Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must be 
> observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity comparable to 
> a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been observed by humans 
> because it would have melted or broken up long ago (coming so close to the sun). 
> So the only objects in highly elliptical orbits are far from the sun and have 
> periods of hundred to thousands of years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered 
> "Planet 9"); Halley's comet is a rarity (period only 75 years).
> 
> 	Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
> 	within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
> 	majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
> 
> In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have values 
> more than ten times that of earth.
> 
> 	It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
> 	things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
> 	learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Tom, I'm just "what iffing" you know that.  What about the percentages of mass though in our solar system?  Mercury is small and closest and is unstable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374880

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:07:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> > circular- which is what I have been saying.
> 
> And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular orbits except 
> for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets like Pluto do not have 
> circular orbits, and there are more of them than planets. Moreover, there are 
> over 700 comets that have been observed, and NONE of them have an orbit that is 
> anywhere close to circular.
> 
> Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must be 
> observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity comparable to 
> a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been observed by humans 
> because it would have melted or broken up long ago (coming so close to the sun). 
> So the only objects in highly elliptical orbits are far from the sun and have 
> periods of hundred to thousands of years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered 
> "Planet 9"); Halley's comet is a rarity (period only 75 years).
> 
> 	Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
> 	within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
> 	majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
> 
> In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have values 
> more than ten times that of earth.
> 
> 	It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
> 	things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
> 	learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts
...and I am sure the gravity question in involved in there also...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374884

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:07:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > > So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> > > circular- which is what I have been saying.
> > 
> > And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular orbits except 
> > for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets like Pluto do not have 
> > circular orbits, and there are more of them than planets. Moreover, there are 
> > over 700 comets that have been observed, and NONE of them have an orbit that is 
> > anywhere close to circular.
> > 
> > Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must be 
> > observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity comparable to 
> > a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been observed by humans 
> > because it would have melted or broken up long ago (coming so close to the sun). 
> > So the only objects in highly elliptical orbits are far from the sun and have 
> > periods of hundred to thousands of years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered 
> > "Planet 9"); Halley's comet is a rarity (period only 75 years).
> > 
> > 	Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
> > 	within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
> > 	majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
> > 
> > In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have values 
> > more than ten times that of earth.
> > 
> > 	It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
> > 	things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
> > 	learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
> > 
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> ...and I am sure the gravity question in involved in there also...

Did I mention all planets travel on a different ecliptical plane also... and this is why we perceive elliptically oval observations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375439

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 7:27:49 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:07:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > > > So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
> > > > circular- which is what I have been saying.
> > > 
> > > And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular orbits except 
> > > for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets like Pluto do not have 
> > > circular orbits, and there are more of them than planets. Moreover, there are 
> > > over 700 comets that have been observed, and NONE of them have an orbit that is 
> > > anywhere close to circular.
> > > 
> > > Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must be 
> > > observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity comparable to 
> > > a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been observed by humans 
> > > because it would have melted or broken up long ago (coming so close to the sun). 
> > > So the only objects in highly elliptical orbits are far from the sun and have 
> > > periods of hundred to thousands of years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered 
> > > "Planet 9"); Halley's comet is a rarity (period only 75 years).
> > > 
> > > 	Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
> > > 	within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
> > > 	majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
> > > 
> > > In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have values 
> > > more than ten times that of earth.
> > > 
> > > 	It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
> > > 	things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
> > > 	learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > ...and I am sure the gravity question in involved in there also...
> 
> Did I mention all planets travel on a different ecliptical plane also... and this is why we perceive elliptically oval observations.

It's best to freeze instantaneous amounts of time and then measuring the change through time, astronomically isn't it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375458

On 3/02/2016 2:42 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 7:27:49 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:07:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/16 1/23/16   9:01 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>>>> So, you are basically saying that orbits are mostly, nearly perfectly
>>>>> circular- which is what I have been saying.
>>>>
>>>> And you are wrong. Yes, the eight planets have reasonably circular orbits except
>>>> for Mercury. But most large asteroids and dwarf planets like Pluto do not have
>>>> circular orbits, and there are more of them than planets. Moreover, there are
>>>> over 700 comets that have been observed, and NONE of them have an orbit that is
>>>> anywhere close to circular.
>>>>
>>>> Part of this is selection bias -- to be notable an orbiting object must be
>>>> observed. But if an inner solar system object had an eccentricity comparable to
>>>> a long-period comet (0.97-0.99), it would never have been observed by humans
>>>> because it would have melted or broken up long ago (coming so close to the sun).
>>>> So the only objects in highly elliptical orbits are far from the sun and have
>>>> periods of hundred to thousands of years (or longer, c.f. the newly discovered
>>>> "Planet 9"); Halley's comet is a rarity (period only 75 years).
>>>>
>>>> 	Mathematically, the set of circular orbits is minuscule
>>>> 	within the set of all possible orbits. That is, the vast
>>>> 	majority of all possible orbits are not circular at all.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, most extrasolar planets whose eccentricities are known have values
>>>> more than ten times that of earth.
>>>>
>>>> 	It's remarkable (and sad) that you have opinions on so many
>>>> 	things you clearly know nothing about. You really should
>>>> 	learn how to recognize when you don't know something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> ...and I am sure the gravity question in involved in there also...
>>
>> Did I mention all planets travel on a different ecliptical plane also... and this is why we perceive elliptically oval observations.
>
> It's best to freeze instantaneous amounts of time and then measuring the change through time, astronomically isn't it?
>
More gibberish from the Gogo.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web