Is the Sun four days off center in the solar system?

a reply to: artistpoet

So in a thread about planetary orbits you choose to baselessly proclaim that the sun and natural laws are gods? And this adds to the conversation... how, exactly?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: artistpoet

So in a thread about planetary orbits you choose to baselessly proclaim that the sun and natural laws are gods? And this adds to the conversation... how, exactly?

I stated that in archaic times the Sun was considered a god i.e. a natural law ... meaning a god/law that governs as in the planets ... You pulled me up on this and I noted what you said and was admonished ... so what I don't get is why you wish to pursue this

originally posted by: artistpoet

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: artistpoet

So in a thread about planetary orbits you choose to baselessly proclaim that the sun and natural laws are gods? And this adds to the conversation... how, exactly?

I stated that in archaic times the Sun was considered a god i.e. a natural law ... meaning a god/law that governs as in the planets ... You pulled me up on this and I noted what you said and was admonished ... so what I don't get is why you wish to pursue this

I think you just didn't explain yourself well. It kinda sounds like your saying that the sun/god is E=MC2. I guess you ment it in a "your here, but your not here" type way and not literally. But imho it came out weird. I thought the same when I read it, but just didn't reply.

a reply to: Entreri06

Thanks for your reply ...
Yes my post was ill thought out ...

originally posted by: pikestaff
The sun is not central to the orbits of the planets? thinking about it, yes, all orbits are 'egg' shaped, so yes, perhaps that is true?

Yeah it's weird how the person references a measurement of time (4 days) to describe distance. It honestly doesn't make the least bit of sense, but whatever helps em sleep at night. The sun is never in the exact center and the orbits are indeed more egg shaped, rather than an equidistant ellipse or circle.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

are you saying the earth being closer to the sun and farther from the sun has nothing to do with our seasons?

Yes.



As you can see, the earth is closer to the sun during Fall, Winter and Spring, than it is during the summer. It's not about the distance, it's about the direct sunlight hitting the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere. In June, July and August it's summer in the north, while in January, February and March it's summer in the south. It's not just about distance. If Mars had an atmosphere that was was the same density as earth's, the temperature would be similar, despite it being further from the sun.

EDIT: Whoops looks like Peter beat me to it, pictures and every thing

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: pikestaff
The sun is not central to the orbits of the planets? thinking about it, yes, all orbits are 'egg' shaped, so yes, perhaps that is true?

Yeah it's weird how the person references a measurement of time (4 days) to describe distance. It honestly doesn't make the least bit of sense, but whatever helps em sleep at night. The sun is never in the exact center and the orbits are indeed more egg shaped, rather than an equidistant ellipse or circle.

Well it could describe distance. The distance the earth travels in 4 rotations...

Doesn't make more plausible but just trying to be fair. :p

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Entreri06

Thanks for your reply ...
Yes my post was ill thought out ...

Happens to the best of us. There is so much lost in text (voice inflection, exc).


Well handled.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

are you saying the earth being closer to the sun and farther from the sun has nothing to do with our seasons?

Yes.

As you can see, the earth is closer to the sun during Fall, Winter and Spring, than it is during the summer. It's not about the distance, it's about the direct sunlight hitting the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere. In June, July and August it's summer in the north, while in January, February and March it's summer in the south. It's not just about distance. If Mars had an atmosphere that was was the same density as earth's, the temperature would be similar, despite it being further from the sun.

EDIT: Whoops looks like Peter beat me to it, pictures and every thing

Not that I'm disagreeing but how can the tilt have more of an effect then distance lol? The tilt only makes the closer part a couple thousand miles closer, but the earth is way closer/farther then that when revolving. I'm assuming it's just the way I precieve things, since outside of a vacuum the heated air molecules would make distance more important then lean.

originally posted by: Entreri06
Not that I'm disagreeing but how can the tilt have more of an effect then distance lol? The tilt only makes the closer part a couple thousand miles closer, but the earth is way closer/farther then that when revolving. I'm assuming it's just the way I precieve things, since outside of a vacuum the heated air molecules would make distance more important then lean.

Yeah, it's really about the angles and the direct solar energy from the sun, rather than the distance. During the summer months, the northern hemisphere is lined up with the center of the sun, so it gets direct energy warming the whole hemisphere constantly as the earth rotates. Think of the sun like a flashlight. The brightest part is in the middle of the beam. As the year goes by the middle of the beam slowly moves from north to south and then back again. If the earth didn't rotate on an axis, there would be no seasons, only slight variations throughout the year. The temperature would depend exclusively on location, rather than time of year. It's fun to think about what a world like that would be like.

Now obviously there are limits. You're not going to see pluto getting warm and having beaches anytime soon. They refer to it as the Goldilocks zone. Basically, that is the range of distance from the sun that a planet must theoretically be in to be capable of supporting our type of life. In our solar system, Venus, Earth and Mars are all in this zone. Venus is a hot wasteland because its environment is so thick it keeps all the heat inside. Conversely, Mars has an environment that is so thin, the atmosphere cannot absorb enough to stay warm.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because nature isn't as perfect as our models would like them to be.

I disagree with your premise. There is nothing imperfect about an ellipse. The concept that something perfect should be circular is just imperfect human arrogance.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The intent is to figure why the elliptic course of the earth is off by four days.

What EXACTLY do you mean by off by four days.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

here is a 2 dimensional diagram, now is the sun off center to the earths orbit?

No. The sun is NOT 'off center'. The sun is exactly at one FOCUS of the elliptical orbit.

An ellipse has no center - it has foci. Since a circle is nothing but an ellipse that happens to have both foci in the same place - thus forming a 'center', it is just as accurate to say that our Sun is indeed at the one center of the orbit. That is just not a very useful (that is precise) mathematical wording.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

So this is a thread where we just meander from point to point and you don't actually listen to anything unless it's something that scientists don't say?

Yeah. Maybe we should discuss why an earth spin is 8 hours (point something blah blah bhal) too slow.

EDIT: or is that 8 hours too fast?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because nature isn't as perfect as our models would like them to be.

I disagree with your premise. There is nothing imperfect about an ellipse. The concept that something perfect should be circular is just imperfect human arrogance.

Except orbits aren't precise ellipses either. Since every body in the solar system is also orbiting the center of the galaxy, the planets in our solar system are actually making an elliptical spiral. But regardless, the wording I used wasn't scientific wording. It was also the wording used in the link I provided.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: ChesterJohn

here is a 2 dimensional diagram, now is the sun off center to the earths orbit?

No. The sun is NOT 'off center'. The sun is exactly at one FOCUS of the elliptical orbit.

An ellipse has no center - it has foci. Since a circle is nothing but an ellipse that happens to have both foci in the same place - thus forming a 'center', it is just as accurate to say that our Sun is indeed at the one center of the orbit. That is just not a very useful (that is precise) mathematical wording.

I have to admit it was my wording that was incorrect when I said more than 360 degrees but it wasn't degrees I was referring to but I didn't know what word I was looking for. if you take the perfect circle cut it and then lay it out over the oval or slightly longer time it travels the circle and the oval don't match. hence I think you are saying it is foci.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: AgentSmith

your only presenting another theory that has not been proven by fact.

so it has about as much support as the Bibles version of creation.

Actually, you are presenting a hypothesis not a theory, and the reasoning behind planetary motions isn't based on just Scientific Theory. It's based in Scientific Laws. Have you not heard of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion?

Well actually the word can be used many ways. List...
Full Definition of THEORY
www.merriam-webster.com...
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

a reply to: ChesterJohn

if you take the perfect circle cut it and then lay it out over the oval or slightly longer time it travels the circle and the oval don't match. hence I think you are saying it is foci.

The orbit isn't a circle ("perfect" or not - and "imperfect" circles are not circles).

The orbit is a ELLIPSE. Ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are ellipses. Making a circle into an oval by cutting it in half and joining the gaps does not make an ellipse. The Ellipse is one of the Conic Sections along with the parabola, hyperbola, and the circle. A flattened circle is not one of the conic sections. There is a lot of very old maths describing the Conic Sections - they have a lot of very interesting properties.

That the earth traverses an elliptical orbit has been well known for a long, long time. This from Wikipedia:

Several civilizations such as Babylonian and Indians had observed since the first millennium B.C.E. that the Sun's motion along the ecliptic was not uniform, though they were unaware of why this was; it is today known that this is due to the Earth moving in an elliptic orbit around the Sun, with the Earth moving faster when it is nearer to the Sun at perihelion and moving slower when it is farther away at aphelion. In the 17th century, Johannes Kepler discovered that the orbits along which the planets travel around the Sun are ellipses with the Sun at one focus, and described this in his first law of planetary motion. Later, Isaac Newton explained this as a corollary of his law of universal gravitation.

Finally, once again, the time it takes for the earth to spin on its axis (one day) is totally unrelated to the time it takes for the earth to complete one orbit of the sun - there is no physical relation. The Sumerians divided the circle into 360 degrees because they used a mathematical system based on the number 60 and it was extremely convenient in that system. The Sumerians also knew that the year was 'about' 360 days long, not exactly, but about. Most ancient peoples knew this - that is why they had to build calculators like Stonehenge instead of just counting the days.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Full Definition of THEORY
www.merriam-webster.com...
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

And that's what I call the "stoner definition of theory". It is NOT the way a scientist would use it.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Full Definition of THEORY
www.merriam-webster.com...
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

And that's what I call the "stoner definition of theory". It is NOT the way a scientist would use it.

Don't think the user was a scientist but it is an acceptable use of the word.