Question About Elliptical Orbits

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of orbits, specifically whether orbiting bodies can describe circular paths if their centers remain stationary, or if all orbits are inherently elliptical due to the continuous movement of their centers. Participants explore the implications of elliptical versus circular orbits in celestial mechanics, using examples like the Earth, Sun, and Moon.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that orbits are described as elliptical, while questioning if stationary centers could lead to circular orbits.
  • Others argue that the motion of the orbiting body prevents it from retracing its path, emphasizing the dynamic nature of orbits.
  • A participant notes that in a two-body system, both bodies orbit in ellipses with the center of mass at one focus, suggesting that precession occurs independently of the motion of the body being orbited.
  • One participant states that circular orbits are a special case of ellipses, but achieving such perfection naturally is unlikely.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that environmental factors, like space debris, could affect the stability of circular orbits.
  • There is a discussion about whether the definition of elliptical orbits is perspective-dependent, considering the focus of the orbit versus a broader view of the solar system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of orbits, with some agreeing that circular orbits are a special case of elliptical ones, while others maintain that all orbits are elliptical regardless of the motion of their centers. The discussion remains unresolved on certain aspects, particularly regarding the implications of perspective in defining orbits.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of orbital mechanics, including the influence of external factors and the assumptions made about motion and perspective. There are unresolved questions about how these factors interact with the definitions of orbits.

zoobyshoe
Messages
6,514
Reaction score
1,255
The orbits of celestial bodies are described as elliptical.

If we look at the well known means of drawing an ellipse with two tacks and a string, you can keep moving your pencil around and around and it will draw over and over the same line.

The same cannot be said of an orbit. The center of all orbits is constantly traveling. The orbiting body will never retrace a previous path.

My question is: are there some orbiting bodies that would end up describing circles if the centers of their orbits would just stay still, and others that would actually describe ellipses, or do all orbits always describe ellipses because of the fact all centers of orbit are continuously moving?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Wolram,

I have this primitive system called "WebTv", not a computer, which does not allow me to use java, or pdf/adobe. I couldn't view the animation at the link.
If the text there had the answer to my question, I did not recognise it behind the concepts and formulas I don't grasp yet.
 
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The orbits of celestial bodies are described as elliptical.



The same cannot be said of an orbit. The center of all orbits is constantly traveling. The orbiting body will never retrace a previous path.


Do you want to clarify this statement? In terms of the orbit, the focus remains fixed.
 
Originally posted by zoobyshoe The same cannot be said of an orbit. The center of all orbits is constantly traveling. The orbiting body will never retrace a previous path.
Here is what I mean using the earth, sun, and moon as examples.
The Earth orbits the sun. The Earth is, therefore, not standing still, but constantly traveling.
While it is doing this, the moon orbits the earth.

Each time the moon comes round the earth, the Earth has moved from where it was the last time the moon came round. The moon will never, therfore, retrace the exact path of a previous orbit.
 
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html

It fell to Kepler to provide the final piece of the puzzle: after a long struggle, in which he tried mightily to avoid his eventual conclusion, Kepler was forced finally to the realization that the orbits of the planets were not the circles demanded by Aristotle and assumed implicitly by Copernicus, but were instead the "flattened circles" that geometers call ellipses (See adjacent figure; the planetary orbits are only slightly elliptical and are not as flattened as in this example.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
try this one zooby.
as long as a two body system is not perturbed the orbit remain
the same, over a reasonable period, "eliptical".
 


Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Each time the moon comes round the earth, the Earth has moved from where it was the last time the moon came round. The moon will never, therfore, retrace the exact path of a previous orbit.
In a simple two-body system, both bodies orbit in ellipses with the center of mass at once focus. Excepting for general relativistic precession, the two bodies will follow the same two ellipses together, forever, in a resonance.

- Warren
 


Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Here is what I mean using the earth, sun, and moon as examples.
The Earth orbits the sun. The Earth is, therefore, not standing still, but constantly traveling.
While it is doing this, the moon orbits the earth.

Each time the moon comes round the earth, the Earth has moved from where it was the last time the moon came round. The moon will never, therfore, retrace the exact path of a previous orbit.
I think you are mixing two separate principles. Precession of an orbit is not due to the motion of the body being orbited. It happens even without factoring in other sources of motion.

Pick a stationary frame of reference at the center of mass of two objects and both objects will orbit the center of mass in ellipses with precession.

To answer your first question though, YES, it is possible to have a circular orbit, as a circle is simply a special case of an ellipse with a distance of zero between the two foci. This type of perfection is however, unlikely to happen naturally.
 
Last edited:
OK. Each has contributed a piece of the puzzle and the question is answered:

My question is: are there some orbiting bodies that would end up describing circles if the centers of their orbits would just stay stillAffirmative: special case ellipse.

and others that would actually describe ellipses
Yes, all orbits are elliptical.

or do all orbits always describe ellipses because of the fact all centers of orbit are continuously moving?
Answer is No. I guess this one threw people off the most because I didn't know how to explain what I was wondering about explicitly enough.

Thanks everyone for your imput.

Wolram: That keppler/Brahe site looks very readable and easy to understand. Thanks for finding it.

-Zooby
 
  • #10
I think that by the laws of large numbers, assuming of course that planets are in fact common, we can safely assume that circular orbits do occur. However, due to the drag created by the molecules of hydrogen, dust, and any other debris floating around in space, no circular orbit could remain stable.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


Originally posted by zoobyshoe


or do all orbits always describe ellipses because of the fact all centers of orbit are continuously moving?
Answer is No. I guess this one threw people off the most because I didn't know how to explain what I was wondering about explicitly enough.



-Zooby

Weather or not you consider the focus of the orbit as moving or not has no effect on the shape of the orbit around that focus.
 
  • #12


Originally posted by Janus
Weather or not you consider the focus of the orbit as moving or not has no effect on the shape of the orbit around that focus.
This is one of the things I was, clumsily, trying to figure out: do astronomers say orbits are elliptical from the perspective of the focus or from some larger perspective; looking down on the solar system, for instance, and imagining each planet and moon left a trail. I figured out the latter option had to be impossible when I was able to imagine the trail left by the moon over one year: it would look over all like a circle, but made of 12 shallow scallops.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K