Mentor

## Net acceleration of the Earth

 according to ?
Me, and probably the majority of all other physicists who might join that thread (again).

Let's see:

 Quote by slayerwulfe Both sides of the argument are flawed.
Which argument?

 The answer may be hidden in a question, the why of an elliptical orbit.
How is the question "what happens to earth without sun" related to elliptical orbits? What about parabolas and hyperbolas, the other solutions of the Kepler problem?

 the star that is the central point to our solar system
The sun is not the exact center of our solar system - it is quite close in terms of the center of mass, however.

 the star that is the central point to our solar system has a trajectory and also a velocity dictated by?
What?
The trajectory of the sun is determined by the gravitational influence of other objects (and partially by its mass ejections, but that is not relevant here).

 at times this star is pulling us and at other times is on a collision course with us.
The sun always attracts earth (and everything else), and we are not on a collision course.

 Theoretically the farther away a planetary body, the more elliptical the orbit (considering mass).
This is just plain wrong. Eccentricity is independent of the mean distance to the star. See Kepler problem for details.

 Is there a fixed point upon this star,as it travels in a circular path that defines one revolution?
Fixed point where? Which circular path do you mean, and revolution of what?

 and this probably doesn't make sense either, Schrodinger's cat: Why the box, strap it to the cats neck.
In order to get a superposition, you have to isolate the system from its environment. The box stands for that isolation, while a real box would not provide sufficient isolation anyway.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by mfb @slayerwulfe: Your post does not make sense at all.
I was going to say the same thing, but I'm trying to cut back on my use of the word "nonsense" on this forum.