Determining the Argument of the Perihelion of the Earth: Which Value is Correct?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Philosophaie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Argument of the Perihelion of the Earth has two conflicting values: w=114.20783 at J2000 and w=282.9404*4.70935e-5*d, where d represents the Julian Date. The discrepancy arises from the fact that the Earth's orbit is defined with respect to the ecliptic plane, which has no inclination, making the ascending node poorly defined. Additionally, the winter solstice, occurring on December 21, is unrelated to perihelion, which is influenced by lunisolar precession and anomalistic precession. Astronomers prefer using the longitude of perihelion for clarity in describing Earth's orbit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of orbital mechanics and celestial dynamics
  • Familiarity with the concepts of True Anomaly and orbital elements
  • Knowledge of Julian Date calculations
  • Basic grasp of precession effects on celestial bodies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the calculation of Julian Dates and their application in astronomy
  • Study the effects of lunisolar precession on Earth's axial tilt
  • Learn about the differences between the Argument of Perihelion and Longitude of Perihelion
  • Explore the implications of orbital inclination on celestial mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and students of celestial mechanics who are interested in understanding the complexities of Earth's orbital parameters and their implications for astronomical observations.

Philosophaie
Messages
456
Reaction score
0
I have seen conflicting values for the angle where the Argument of the Perihelion of the Earth or where the Winter Solstice(Dec 21) strikes. This is where the ellipse value of the True Anomaly is zero. The two values are: w=114.20783 @J2000 or w=282.9404*4.70935e-5*d where d is a formula encompassing the Julian Date. These values have different Longitude of the Ascending Node by that is just where all the planets are referenced at and does not change the Argument of the Perihelion. My question is: which is the correct Argument of the Perihelion of the Earth?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Normally, orbital elements are given with respect to the ecliptic plane. Argument of perihelion is the amount of degrees that separates the longitude of perihelion from the longitude of the ascending node. But Earth's orbit by definition has no inclination since Earth's orbit defines the ecliptic. Therefore, it has no ascending node.

In reality, Earth does have a little bit of inclination since inclination is an oscillating orbital element, we can only define it at 0 for an instant in time, which was Jan 1, 2000. Although it has drifted a small amount since then, it is still effectively 0, meaning that the ascending node is weakly defined, and can rapidly change.

Winter solstice has nothing to do with perihelion. It's when Earth's tilt is directed away from the Sun from the Northern hemisphere.
 
Philosophaie said:
I have seen conflicting values for the angle where the Argument of the Perihelion of the Earth or where the Winter Solstice(Dec 21) strikes.
The winter solstice does not occur at perihelion, and neither value is constant. The Earth's axial tilt changes largely because of lunisolar precession. The time between solstice and perihelion passage changes because of anomalistic precession.

Note that longitude of ascending node is not a particularly well-defined concept for the Earth's orbit, and hence neither is the argument of perihelion particularly well-defined. Astronomers prefer to use longitude of perihelion when describing the Earth's orbit.

This is where the ellipse value of the True Anomaly is zero. The two values are: w=114.20783 @J2000 or w=282.9404*4.70935e-5*d where d is a formula encompassing the Julian Date.
A couple preliminary questions: Where did you get these values? Are you sure you are interpreting them correctly? Regarding your values: One value is specific to a particular epoch and to that epoch only. The other is a more general expression that represents the time variability as a linear function of time. Both might well be correct; post your sources.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
83K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K