A Question thats allways bothered me!

how do the planets stay in a constant orbit. Its known that they stay in orbit by the gravitational pull from other planets. But surly that theory is flawed,

All the planets have different orbits bare with me...

Mars 1 year could be in 1 place, the next year at the same time of year would not be at the same place as the previous year, so its gravitational pull upon the earth would be different. Although our orbit remains constant as the year before. Does that make sense. WHY surly the theory that the other planets keep us in orbit is flawed because of this truth.

Sorry if this is a silly question its somthing thats allways baffled me. prob simple answer.

I always thought that it was the sun that kept all the planets in orbit not the planets keeping themselves in it well thats what i've always been told anyway

but how can just 1 magnetic pull keep a planet in orbit you need the counter balance

An "orbit" is just an object falling around another object.

When we have astronauts in spaceships that are orbiting the Earth, in what we see as them being in "anti-gravity" or no gravity, in reality is them being on constant free fall around the Earth.

The planets are the same way as the scenario with the planets being the spaceships and the Sun being Earth.

Slowly every year, by fractions in distance, the planets change their orbit because they fall closer and closer to the sun. The same thing happens with satellites and spaceships that orbit the Earth. Eventually, they will fall back towards Earth and escape the free fall.

I personally feel that we have a very limited understanding of how everything 'works'; hell, we don't even know what everything is yet.

I think I see what you are trying to get at here:

If on Mar. 14'th the earth is at x and mars is at y and then the next Mar. 14'th --one year later-- earth is back at x but mars is at y+20, for example. So how in the hell is earth being affected by gravity in the same way as the previous year?

Earth may be in the same section of 'space' as it was the previous year, but mars isn't. And not just mars, but all the major bodies in our solar system. So why is it that when earth reaches x and the rest of the equation is fudged...the answer comes out to be the same?

The answer to the question--concerning mars and earth-- is probably something along the lines of the size of the body being affected versus the size of the body doing the affecting and how distance in relation to those sizes is instrumental...but the solar system itself is moving through space, not just earth and mars...

...the known variables (not just mars, but our sun, the planets independent locations in space, the condition of whatever area of space we are traveling through and all the area around it, ect...) are so incredibly varied; and, according to how we understand it all to work now, in constant motion. Even more intellectually humbling (and less ironic) is the number of unknown reactive forces playing upon such a seemingly simple problem.

Why the planets maintain their cycle around the sun is something we, as a species, are so damn sure of....

...I wonder how many generations must go by until we are studied by 9th graders learning how the universe doesn't work.

I just don't see how we can claim to understand. We 'knew' that the planets used to move in twirling circular patterns around the sun not too many centuries ago.

I hope that made sense...

reply to post by DJMessiah


I'd like to thank you for brining up the typical mind in an 'enlightened age' of scientific understanding: State what you have been told is true as truth...

The response was very matter-of-fact, I am curious to know if you know the intricate mathematical mechanics of your response. Or, even more importantly, have you considered that the core of your, and popular sciences, belief hangs on the fact that 'space' and 'time' (or if you are Einstein, 'Spacetime') are actual...'things'.

Mass manipulates space. The planets 'free-fall' towards the sun only because the sun is compressing the space under/around it. A body of significant mass warps the space around it and therefore affects others bodies of mass occupying that general area.

For that all to work, space has to be something which can be manipulated and fluidly changed/manipulates and changes. It can't simply be a word used to describe the, apparent, distance between object 'a' and object 'b'.

In order for the accepted answer, DJMessiah's answer for example, to be correct...this assumption of the nature of what space is must be correct. The problem is...it is an assumption which is preached as truth by those who depend on it for their jobs and prestige.

The problem is that the 'equation' doesn't prove space; space proves the equation. People have a difficult time seeing that the very base of our understanding today relies heavily on the existence of assumed existences and made-up 'stuff'.

Pulsars, for instance, made science scratch it's head until it simply went and made up an answer...the answer was the only answer because it has to fit within an already existing model.

Time after time our species has 'figured it all out' patted itself on the back. New information and evidence is ignored, or explained away with make-believe, and eventually, in time, everyone will look back and talk about how stupid we all were.

reply to post by spines


Brilliant post i think you mimic my thoughts exactly although i could not put them into text aswell as your self.

There could be a Bigger magnetic force in play but as seen by earths own magnetic field, this changes also, So does the suns so again it does not explain the 365 CONSTANT Cycle. The only real truth must be a constant and not a variable. Make sense?



[edit on 11-1-2009 by theflashor]

It is a complicated counterbalance of opposing gravitational forces and orbital momentum. A large armillary in the heavens. Ask the creator.

Earth and all the planets in our solar system orbits the Sun.

The gravitational effect from our neighboring planets is minimal due to the fact that the sun is more massive than all the planets in our solarsystem combined.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Slowly every year, by fractions in distance, the planets change their orbit because they fall closer and closer to the sun. The same thing happens with satellites and spaceships that orbit the Earth. Eventually, they will fall back towards Earth and escape the free fall.

Yes, but did you know the Moon is inching away from Earth. In time the Moon will eventually escape from the clutches of Earth's gravity.

Originally posted by spines


The response was very matter-of-fact, I am curious to know if you know the intricate mathematical mechanics of your response. Or, even more importantly, have you considered that the core of your, and popular sciences, belief hangs on the fact that 'space' and 'time' (or if you are Einstein, 'Spacetime') are actual...'things'.

actually you can just figure it out with Newtons laws of gavity, Einstien only had to get involved in solar system gravity equations becasue 1 planet behaved slightly different, mercury was litterally millimeteres in hundreds of years out of sync, Einsteins work gives us a better understanding of how it effects objects in space but Newtons laws are more then sufficent at this level (and its the suns gravity that hold us and them in place in orbit, plaentary gravity isnt enough to seriously effect other planets)

its exactly the same principle birds use to fly, thrust counteracts gravity which is why they only fall down when they stop providing thier own momentum

thier thrust(momentum) generates lift which counteracts gravity in an atmosphere, without an atmosphere you just need momentum as theres nothing to provide lift

a planet provides enough forward momentum to counteract the suns gravity to hold it in a stable orbit, as the planet slows down its orbit is pulled slightly closer to the sun until the momentum/gravity balance is equalled out again

vomit comets use the same principle, build enough momentum by plunging towards the earth you counteract the gravity enabaling a few seconds of freefall

space shuttles and the international space station use the same principle but travel laterally to provide enough momentum, they provide enough momentum to create a constant free fall

this can be observed with the sun/moon in reverse, as the tide drags on the moon it slows its spin but the tide also drags on the earth as the two bodies slow thier gavritational fields weaken allowing the moon to drift away from the earth (currently at a rate of 2.8cm a year and getting faster)

so what your basically arguing is that gravity isnt real or is some how wrong, your just dragging in space time etc to try and take a position of authority to argue against DJMessiah points



your play for authority fails sorry, when you walk off a building and start floating maybe then ill take your argument seriously

[edit on 11/1/09 by noobfun]

Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.

Any member discovered using the [ats] tag for images they have not arranged to host will be subject to a brief or permanent posting ban depending on the severity of the infraction.

[edit on Sun Jan 11 2009 by Jbird]

reply to post by theflashor

I bet you are judging a "year" as an Earth year, and wondering why a different planet would be in a different position. A year for us is different from every other planet.

So, yes, it was a silly question, and it had a simple answer. I wonder if any of these other posters even knew that.

From Wikipedia:
"Of all the planets, Mars's seasons are the most Earth-like, due to the similar tilts of the two planets' rotational axes. However, the lengths of the Martian seasons are about twice those of Earth's, as Mars’ greater distance from the Sun leads to the Martian year being about two Earth years in length."

[edit on 11-1-2009 by flyindevil]

reply to post by yizzel


My question though is to what forces makes us constantly orbit the sun in a 365 DAY orbit. If it was the sun alone that was responsible for our orbit all planets would be in the same orbit as our own! But i suppose it depends on the mass of the planet the sun is interacting with. But still it dont explain the fact we keep in orbit. The free fall theory yes its viable and explains the grasp but it dont explain the near constant (NON CHANGING) orbit! or does it?

Originally posted by flyindevil
reply to post by theflashor

 

I bet you are judging a "year" as an Earth year, and wondering why a different planet would be in a different position. A year for us is different from every other planet.

So, yes, it was a silly question, and it had a simple answer. I wonder if any of these other posters even knew that.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by flyindevil]

No i didnt mean that, at all! please re read my post im talking about how the earth AND all the other planets stay in a CONSTANT orbit around the sun i know other planets take different times to complete 1 full cycle meaning other planets have a different number of days in their year FOOL!

But scientist say due to the interaction of the sun and the other planets around us we stay in a constant orbit (or thats what i was taught at school)
but how can it explain our constant orbit legnth if the other planets positions from year to year is of different value ! Due to their years being of different legnths!

Originally posted by theflashor

My question though is to what forces makes us constantly orbit the sun in a 365 DAY orbit.

its only 365 days now

back in the triasic our days were only around 23 hours long and our orbit took a little longer, the earth had more spin and more momentum, as the moon and tidal drag slows us down we move closer towards then sun so now find our sleves in a position where 1 orbit takes 365 days and our day is around 24 hours long (varies on a daily basis by nano seconds)

If it was the sun alone that was responsible for our orbit all planets would be in the same orbit as our own! But i suppose it depends on the mass of the planet the sun is interacting with.

its a combination of its mass and its velocity

the greater mass somthing has the faster it has to travel to prevent bieng dragged into the sun, to much momentum and it can decrease the gravity enough that it does exactly what it is trying to do fly off in a straight line

everything in space is trying to fly in a straight line, its the gravity acting on it that causs it to curve around the source of the gravity, like tether ball if you hit it gains enough momentum to break the string(counteract gravity) it flys off in a straight trajectory away from the pole(source of gravity)

But still it dont explain the fact we keep in orbit. The free fall theory yes its viable and explains the grasp but it dont explain the near constant (NON CHANGING) orbit! or does it?

our orbit changes just slowly enough we dont notice

[edit on 11/1/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Ok i now understand the theory, But let me throw another spanner into the works say when the planets line up which they do, Say for instance jupiter (the largest planet) lines up with its neibour saturn surly this would change the way saturn orbits the sun as its CONSTANT PULL would be changed! by jupiters as jupiter is much closer to saturn. And why is the moon moving outwards if the rule says we orbit because we are free falling because of a small center of gravity in a respect.. can you not see its flawed? and that there must be a Bigger force more constant force in play, a none changing force. Or do people disagree im prob wrong, i just feel that the constantacy of the orbits must have another force apart from gravity

[edit on 11-1-2009 by theflashor]

reply to post by theflashor

From en.wikipedia.org...:

Owing to mutual gravitational perturbations, the eccentricities of the orbits of the planets in our solar system vary over time. Mercury, the smallest planet in the Solar System, has the most eccentric orbit. At the present epoch, Mars has the next largest eccentricity while the smallest eccentricities are those of the orbits of Venus and Neptune.

From en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy):

is a term used in astronomy to describe alterations to an object's orbit caused by gravitational interactions with bodies external to the system formed by the object and it parent body (e.g. its star for a planet/dwarf planet/minor planet/comet, or its planet for a satellite). For example, the orbits of comets are often perturbed, particularly by the gravitational fields of the gas giants. In April 1996, Jupiter's gravitational influence caused the period of Comet Hale-Bopp's orbit to decrease from 4206 to 2380 years.[1] Planets also perturb the orbits of other planets, a fact which led to the discovery of Neptune as a result of its perturbations of the orbit of Uranus. Other natural causes include other comets, asteroids, and solar flares.

From en.wikipedia.org...:

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is currently about 0.0167. Over thousands of years, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058 as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets (see graph [1]).

And here's a link you can look at: en.wikipedia.org...

I hope that helps. I learned some things, too.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by flyindevil]

reply to post by theflashor


I am not fully in the know about these things, but
I do know that everything in space that has mass also has a magnetic pull of things around it. So a large planetary body would have a lot of pull. So if a large planet came close to Earth, it could in fact impact Earth orbit.

ORBITAL MECHANICS
www.braeunig.us...

Simple Orbital Mechanics
www.go.ednet.ns.ca...

Introduction to Orbital Mechanics
webphysics.iupui.edu...

Originally posted by theflashor
reply to post by yizzel

 

My question though is to what forces makes us constantly orbit the sun in a 365 DAY orbit. If it was the sun alone that was responsible for our orbit all planets would be in the same orbit as our own! But i suppose it depends on the mass of the planet the sun is interacting with. But still it dont explain the fact we keep in orbit. The free fall theory yes its viable and explains the grasp but it dont explain the near constant (NON CHANGING) orbit! or does it?

Okay, The Earth's orbit isn't exactly constant. There are a number of factors like the Poynting-Robertson effect and gravitational radiation which tends to shorten the orbital period by a few nanoseconds per year.
So it's the momentum that keeps the orbital period seemingly constant. Even though it's not.

The other planets orbital periods vary due to mass and distance from the Sun.
Again these do not effect us in respect to the Sun (gravitationally). So even when all the planets are aligned, their combined gravitational effect on Earth is minuscule.

yea it makes sense then but why is the moon moving away whats pulling it? the sun?

Originally posted by theflashor

Ok i now understand the theory, But let me throw another spanner into the works say when the planets line up which they do, Say for instance jupiter (the largest planet) lines up with its neibour saturn surly this would change the way saturn orbits the sun as its CONSTANT PULL would be changed! by jupiters as jupiter is much closer to saturn.

why? its not a piece of string tying them together or like light, one object wont block gravity of another as it travels through objects

becasue its a constant pull it doesnt change (well its mass and spin alter how much gravity it can generate but the pull its self is universal)

and even in planetary alignments the planets gravity isnt enough to casue massive effects on thier neighbours, the suns gravity is still overpowering

jupiters closer to saturn then the sun but the suns angular momentum(spin) and mass far exceded saturn and so the sun accounts for over 90% of all gravity in our solar system and still effects them while thier weak gravity isnt enough enough to effect each other

gravity is a constant becasue it effects everything not becasue its strength is constant, i think this may be where the confusion is comming from

And why is the moon moving outwards if the rule says we orbit because we are free falling because of a small center of gravity in a respect.. can you not see its flawed? and that there must be a Bigger force more constant force in play, a none changing force. Or do people disagree

the moons pulling away because tidal drag is slowing the moon down, but its also slowing us down, and the tides activley press against the earth slowing it down more then the moon

becasue our ability to generate gravity is lessening faster then the moons velocity it allows the moon to creep away, in the tetherball metaphor the strings getting weaker and the ball is able to stretch it allowing the ball to move away from the pole a little more, eventually the string wil weaken enough its unabe to hold the bal in orbit and it drifts off into space trying to fly in a straight line

fear not though we loose our second borrowed moon in around 5000 years but our main true moon(luna) we get to keep for well over a billion years yet

its going to take around 530 million years until full solar eclipses are no longer possible and its still got a long way to go after that to escape earths gravity and float away, and indicates just how slow the process is


p.s. correcting its 3.8cms a year the moon drifts away not 2.8 i said ealier