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.
Similar Threads for: Net acceleration of the Earth
Physorg.com Science News Partner
