h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Shape of Planetary orbits - A59130524
Author: matterdoc - U14177808

Shape of Planetary Orbit


Introduction

Although many astronomers are aware of the fact that the shapes of planetary orbital paths are wavy about the paths of their central bodies, it is almost not acknowledged in public. All descriptions and mathematical treatments are given on the basis that the orbital paths of planets/satellites are circular/elliptical around their central bodies. This has created false notions in the minds of general public and many physicists. If we consider true shapes of planetary orbital paths as wavy about the paths of central bodies, it can solve many other mysteries in cosmology.


Apparent orbits

Our ancestors had been observing the sky and monitoring the movements of celestial bodies from time immemorial. Earth was the platform of their observation. They observed all celestial bodies as moving in the sky about their location on the surface of earth. Their rational minds attempted to find logical explanations to these observed motions. Many observed discrepancies prevented logical explanations. Exotic and religious explanations often prevailed for long time in the past.
Repeated and daily appearances of celestial bodies in the east and their disappearances in the west were initially assigned to celestial bodies moving around the earth. Gradually, it gave way to the acceptance of a spinning earth. As scientific enquiry developed and advanced, earth gradually lost its prominence as the central figure of the universe. It was further deducted that if the observer is based on another planet of the sun, similar facts would be observed about that planet also. All other celestial bodies would appear to revolve around that planet. Observing from different celestial bodies, the same planetary body may appear to move along different paths in its orbit. Same body cannot move along different paths, simultaneously. Hence, the motion of a celestial body, observed from any other body, is not its true motion but it is an apparent motion related to the observer and his platform. Shape of planetary path or other parameters may change as the observer changes his position in space.
During the first half of sixteenth century AD (Nicolas Copernicus’ time), this kind of thought led to adoption of heliocentric model of solar system. It was conceived that all planets in the solar system orbit around the central body, the sun. It was conformed by direct observation by Galileo Galilei in early seventeenth century AD. At the same time, his contemporary, Johannes Kepler derived his laws of planetary motions with respect to these observed planetary orbital paths around the sun. Apparent motions of planets in the solar system, with respect to an observer on a static sun in the centre, produced the planetary orbits, as we understand today. It is assumed that all planets in the solar system orbit around the sun in circular/elliptical paths. In this case, an important assumption that ‘the planets’ orbital paths were considered about a static sun’ was left unmentioned. All planetary orbital paths were depicted as if they would appear to an observer on the static sun.
Newton carried same assumptions into his laws of motion. He could derive same formulae, as shown by Kepler, from his own laws of motion and thus assert that the orbits of planets are around the sun. This has supplied creditability to Newton’s laws of motion and his theory of universal gravitation. However, even Newton did not mention anything about the assumed static state of the central body of the solar planetary system. Newton’s theories could (in most cases) supply us with mathematically correct explanations to problems in mechanics. Thus, it has come to be universally believed that our earth orbits around the sun, the moon orbits around the earth and similarly, every planet/satellite orbits around its central body in circular/elliptical paths. Even the relativity theories are not different in their conclusions about the shape of planetary orbits being around their central bodies.
Apparent planetary orbit around a central body is a complete geometrical figure. It may be considered equivalent to one of central body’s year (similar to solar year on earth). This helps us to have definite reference points on the orbital path. However, to create an apparent orbit, path of the planetary body has to angularly deflect continuously in the same direction. Central force appears to act continuously towards central body, in perpendicular direction to orbital path. Planetary body appears to have developed its linear speed along its curved path, while developing its orbital motion. Apparent orbit could have developed only by gradual process. Point of highest linear speed of a planetary body has to coincide with periapse and lowest linear speed has to coincide with apoapse of the apparent orbit.
Earth’s imaginary orbital motion, around the sun, in elliptical path and calculations based on it are currently used as proofs for the laws of motion and the laws of universal gravitation. Most other theories of our present-day science are based on these solid foundations, which are derived from imaginary concepts. Elliptical nature of earth’s orbit around the sun is necessary to maintain validity of Kepler’s laws on planetary motion, Newton’s laws of motion and the law of universal gravitational attraction.
Presently, apparent orbits of planetary bodies are used for all practical purposes. Mathematical treatments used for the apparent orbits supply convincing results for instantaneous parameters. However, considering the true shape of a planetary orbital path as wavy about the central body’s path is sure to solve other mysteries like; action of central force, cause of planetary spin motion, displacements of terrestrial tides from true meridian, unequal spin speeds of large planets/stars, illusion of precession of planetary orbits, concept of barycentre, etc. Hence, author of this article suggests that we should reconsider laws on planetary orbital motion (and all other laws of physics, based on apparent planetary orbits) more logically.
However, we can find few things wrong with this belief. If this belief is true, then there are far too many coincidences in cosmology, which we overlook. Eg: Although there are great many free moving bodies in space, there are very few orbiting bodies about each of the central bodies. All planets and their satellites move in or near the same plane. All of them move in the same angular direction. Planetary bodies and the central body spin almost in the same plane. There are no definite relations of size, speed and distance (from central body) of orbiting bodies and their orbital paths. Etc.


Real orbital paths

From the observed angular deflection and distance between a planetary body and its central body, instantaneous linear speed of the planetary body may be estimated. Earth’s instantaneous linear speed in its orbital path is estimated to be about 30Km/sec and moon’s instantaneous linear speed in its orbital path is estimated to be about one Km/sec. It is further clarified that earth’s orbital speed is with respect to (static) sun and moon’s orbital speed is with respect to (static) earth. For the time being, we shall assume the sun is static in space. Let us consider moon’s orbital path for this argument. For this, the moon’s orbital speed has to be related to the moving earth or to the (static) sun. We shall consider a situation, when both bodies are moving in the same direction.
To simplify the argument, we shall substitute two cars, moving on earth’s surface. One car ‘A’ in place of earth and another car ‘B’ in place of the moon, with their speeds scaled down correspondingly. Now we have car ‘A’ that is moving at a linear speed of 30Km/hr, with respect to the ground and car ‘B’ moving at a speed of one Km/hr with respect to the car ‘A’. By simple calculation, we can estimate the speed of car ‘B’ relative to the ground. Depending on its relative direction of motion with respect to car ‘A’, speed of car ‘B’ with respect to ground can vary between 31Km/hr and 29Km/hr. Whichever is the case, car ‘B’ is always moving in the (approximate) direction of motion of the car ‘A’.
In order to move around the car ‘A’, in circular/elliptical path, car ‘B’ has to change its direction of motion through whole of 360°. Since, this does not happen, car ‘B’ never moves around the car ‘A’ in circular/elliptical path. Car ‘B’ moves along with the car ‘A’ in the same direction of motion of the car ‘A’. Car ‘B’ may change its direction of motion within very limited angles during its motion, but generally, it always moves in the direction of motion of the car ‘A’. That is, by varying its speed and direction, car ‘B’ may be able to regulate and deviate its path about the path of the car ‘A’ in a wavy fashion. Path of car ‘B’ cannot be circular or elliptical. In fact, as long as car ‘A’ moves along a straight path (or a path of small curvature), path of car ‘B’ cannot trace any closed geometrical figure at all. It can be seen that unless the central body is absolutely static, no planet can orbit around the central body in circular/elliptical path. There are no static (central) bodies, smaller than galaxies, in space. All celestial bodies are moving. Hence, no free body can orbit around another free body in circular/elliptical paths. A free body is one, which has no attachments to any other body in space, other than their mutual (apparent) gravitational attraction.
An observer, sitting in either of the moving cars ‘A’ or ‘B’, may observe that his own car changes its relative position continuously with respect to the other car so that it may appear that the other car is moving around his own car. However, it is only an imaginary notion due to illusion produced by the observation. Here, the observer’s car ‘A’ is the central body and the other car ‘B’ is the planetary body. True orbital path of a planetary body about a central body is wavy about its central body’s path. Cases of orbits of all planets and satellites about their central bodies are also similar. What we observe and believe to be true are their apparent motions, as they appear to an observer situated on the central body. To substitute these illusory and apparent motions in lieu of their true motions and to base most other scientific laws on these imaginary concepts is highly illogical.
We know that the sun is not static in space. Carrying the above argument farther, it is clear that earth’s orbital path about the sun (its central body) is wavy about sun’s path in space. Orbital path of moon about the earth (its central body) is wavy about earth’s path in space. Similarly, real orbital paths of all planets/satellites are wavy about their central bodies.
Orbital motion of a planetary body is primarily the result of inertia of the body. Central force between the planetary body and its central body does not cause orbital motion but it can only determine the magnitude of the deflections of a planet’s orbital path from the mean path of the central body. Cause of a planetary body’s motion in its orbital path is its inertia, developed before the planetary body entered into the orbit about the central body. For a planetary body to be in a stable orbital path it has to have a linear speed, corresponding to its parameters, at the instant it enters the orbital path about its central body. This absolute linear speed, in cases of planets and satellites, is very high and nearly equal to the linear speed of the central body in its linear path.
Real orbital path about a central body is not a complete geometrical figure (unless we consider the orbital path around the galactic centre). Since there are many identical locations, no point on a real orbital path can provide definite reference points for regular use. To create a real orbit, path of the planetary body has to angularly deflect alternately on either side of central body’s path. Central force acts towards central body, in directions varying in circular fashion through 360° around the planetary body. Planetary body has to enter its orbital path with all parameters corresponding to its matter content and distance from the central body. There is no gradual development of orbital path. An approaching body has only one chance to enter its orbital path, corresponding to its body-parameters. If its body-parameters do not correspond to the orbital path, the body may either fall into the central body or flies away from the central body. To form a successful real orbital path, an approaching body has to enter its orbital path through a very narrow window in space situated in the orbital plane, to the rear. Point of highest linear speed of a planetary body needs not coincide with periapse and the point of lowest linear speed needs not coincide with apoapse. Real orbital paths are oval rather than circular/elliptical.
Any suggestion, which contradicts the circular/elliptical nature of earth’s orbit, is viewed with suspicion by the scientific establishment. Even those few, who privately agree with the argument for a wavy orbital path, insist that (however far from truth) circles/ellipses should represent orbital paths, because the great scientists used them so. There is no logic in this.
For those who are interested, explanation on the mechanism of real orbital motion as the author perceives, is available at http://wbabin.net/science/varghese.pdf . Explanations, in that essay, answer all questions raised in this article and remove all illogical coincidences. A planetary system forms and works under a definite mechanism, based on cause and effect relationship. There are no ‘actions at a distance’ in the concept.

Welcome to h2g2 and to Peer Review.

Your Entry is very well written but a bit over my head I'm afraid (don't worry it's not the only one). I'm sure there'll be more reviewers along with an interest in this field.

Best of luck with your entry

I am a layperson too when it comes to knowing anything about stars, planets and other celestial wonders. However we are very lucky to have others here in h2g2 who will be able to comment from a more informed perspective.


I do think you have a good writing style though, and will continue to keep watching this as it wends it way through Peer Review.


...and just another note to say 'Welcome to h2g2'

I have some knowledge of physics, but not quite up to full understanding but this looks pretty good.

Just a point, no need to drop the entry into your submission post as well as it being an entry.

I'm gonna go try and find GB who can probably help you more than us.

Take that back, hes already found you



There goes my chance of making an intelligent 1st meeting on hootoo, sorry

<>

Allow me to give you some useful advice nbb wrt GB

SHE's already found you: Live long and prosper

HE's already found you: Live short and die, painfully

This just isnt my day on hootoo - i blame onn the fact that i have to go back to school in a couple of hours

<>

When I click on that link, my computer warns me about opening it, as it's not verified virus-free, and I'm not a trusting type (sorry, several times bitten, including lost pcs due to viruses). I don't think the EG allows linking to pdf files, certainly I'd not pass it as a sub-ed, but others may disagree, I don't speak for all.

is it stating the obvious but (as an example) the earth does not orbit the sun (its 'central body')

but it orbits the centre of mass of the system


I'm just skimming through that the moment, but couldn't find the words center of mass / center of gravity anywhere in the entry. this worries me

This post has been removed.

Well now, in the cold light of dawn, let's look at this:

The writer is stating something that is known to every astronomer as if it was a big secret that is being hidden from the masses. The crux of the matter seems to be in the sentence:

"To substitute these illusory and apparent motions in lieu of their true motions and to base most other scientific laws on these imaginary concepts is highly illogical."

This is just plain wrong. Treating the motions in terms of their "illusory and apparent motions" is the most logical way of treating them, as by Newton's Principle of Relativity the results are the same and the calculations are far simpler.

For example, if are playing golf on the deck of a ship (I believe this is possible on some cruise ships), you ignore the motion of the ship when aiming a putt across the deck at right angles to the motion of the ship. The path of your ball along the deck may be "illusory and apparent", but it is logically the most useful one.

The astronomers are not pulling the wool over our eyes here. They're presenting complex information in a simple way that works.

I don't think this Entry has a place in the Guide as it stands.

I will conceed that the orbits of some planets around the sun are a little wavy, for instance earth's wiggles a tiny bit because of its motion around the centre of mass of the Earth-moon system.

But that as as far as I will conceed with this entry as otherwise it has as much scientific basis as the UK drugs policy (ooh, look at me, I'm being topical)

Also, no mention here is made of Einstienian physics, which obvious has an effect on plantary motion.

I don't liek the way that it suggests that it astronomers were more upfront witht he facts, then other cosmological problems may be solved. This suggests that cosmolgists are being outsmarted by lowly astromomers in some kinda scientific grudge.


I have to agree Gnomon that this entry has no place, as is, in the edited guide

Without question, the entry is unsuitable. Without question, Gnomon and others are right about it being drivel.

The researcher may also be the hit-and-run sort that was mentioned, but the question was about how we respond to first time postings when they are unsuitable or just wrong-headed.

Often, someone just points them to the Writing Guidelines, and respectfully requests that they use the 'Remove' button. However, if they continue to defend the undefendable, and rant that they are right while the rest of the world is wrong, the conversation does eventually take the tack of more forceful language; strident, sarcastic, or rude.

This is natural enough, but frowned upon by the site's guidelines for TOS and ROE.

I'm not equipped to draw the lines, but our opinions were requested.

Regardless of the niceness of individual responses, I'm glad that I don't need to worry about it getting in the EG!

TOS ? ROE ?

Terms of service, rules of engagement

Personally whatever the article is we should never sact like this.

If those who have been around hootoo for longer get angry, what chance do newbies have of defending their piece against all comers. If anything it just encourages them to not do anything about their piece.

Thanks for the explanations nbb

Your opinions were not requested here in Peer Review, though, FordsTowel.

Who's angry?