Elliptical orbits and focal points

AI Thread Summary
Elliptical orbits have two focal points, with the Sun as one focal point for planets, while the second has no physical significance and is merely a coordinate point. The precession of orbits, such as Mercury's, causes the position of this second focal point to change over time. Unlike the second focal point, Lagrangian points have practical implications in space exploration, as they are stable locations used by spacecraft. The presence of additional bodies, like moons, complicates orbits beyond simple ellipses, making them non-planar and more complex. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurately modeling celestial mechanics.
Agent M27
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
I was recently studying elliptical orbits and the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. I remembered from my pre-calc class that all ellipses have two focal points. In this case the obvious would be the Sun as on focal point for all the planets, but where would the second be? I have a feeling it is something simillar to the Lagrangian points in that there is no concentration of anything, just a point in coordinate space relative to the repective bodies, i.e. L1 for Earth-Sun. Of course there would be a different focal point for each orbit. How might this point be affected if at all, by the presence of another body such as a moon. I don't know if this is a valid question or not due to the space being 3 dimensional and the material to which I am referring was dealing with 2 dimensional ellipses, but I had no idea how to word that in google or the search. Thanks in advance everyone.

Joe
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
there is no concentration of anything, just a point in coordinate space relative to the repective bodies
Yes, there is nothing special at the second focal point. Precession will change its position with time.
 
Agent M27 said:
n this case the obvious would be the Sun as on focal point for all the planets, but where would the second be? I have a feeling it is something simillar to the Lagrangian points in that there is no concentration of anything, just a point in coordinate space relative to the repective bodies, i.e. L1 for Earth-Sun.
The other focal point has zero physical meaning. In contrast, the Lagrange points have a very real and very practical physical meaning. Several of the space agencies around the world take advantage of the Lagrange points. For example, the http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/about/orbit.html" is in a Lissajous orbit the about the Sun-Earth L1 point. Several vehicles similarly take advantage of the Sun-Earth L2 point.

How might this point be affected if at all, by the presence of another body such as a moon. I don't know if this is a valid question or not due to the space being 3 dimensional and the material to which I am referring was dealing with 2 dimensional ellipses, but I had no idea how to word that in google or the search.
As soon as you move from the ideal world of the two body problem in Newtonian mechanics to the real world with the Sun, [strike]nine[/strike] eight planets, a bunch of dwarf planets, and an even larger number of small bodies, orbits are no longer ellipses. They aren't even planar. The Lagrange points are still real.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top