How does the Earth move through in 3 separate trajectories?

[Grazing Dogs]

Hello ,my name is Damon and I'm new to this site so please forgive me if I'm not following the rules to the letter. Could someone please provide a link or CGI model of our Earth' three separate curving, spinning,(while corkscrewing) ellliptical, linear paths, while traveling at speeds of 66,600mph to 480,000mph and up to 1,2 million mph...all this while spinning at 1,000mph and all at the 'same time?'...in my minds eye this seems highly improbable (if not impossible).

Many thanks for your interest and informed response...Damon.

 

[Grazing Dogs]

Hello there, could someone please forward a link explaining how the Earth travels in 3 separate trajectories, while on curving, corkscrewing, elliptical linear paths and ranging in speeds from 66,600mph to 480,000mph up to 1.2 million mph, while spinning at 1,000mph and all at the 'same time'...in my minds eye this just does not seem pheasible, hence the question: 'Is their a working CGI model to support the Earths multi-trajectories in space?'

 

[sophiecentaur]

'Is their a working CGI model to support the Earths multi-trajectories in space?'

There are plenty of Models which will predict where the Earth will be in the future and many have proved pretty accurate in the past. I doubt that a Graphical presentation of those results would be of much use except for entertainment purposes and the accuracy needed for entertainment is much less. The problem with displaying Astronomical maps is the vast ratios of distances involved. It would be 'nice' to pick a planet or star, 'zoom in' on it and speed up the action so that you could see its planets orbiting at a rate that would look convincing but would that be a lot of use? My point is, I think, that a visual display of this data is not as important as getting the best accuracy for space navigation and predicting collisions, which are visual things.
Many Astronomy display applications (planetariums) will do that sort of thing for the Solar System. They use a mix of look up tables and stock images to produce a convincing picture to look at and a much cruder model of the distant stars and galaxies. More than that is not demanded. They show phases of the Moon and Venus, for instance, and put an appropriate image in the location that the object will appear at any time. It's all bolted together to the desired accuracy.

PS "Three Trajectories" is a simplification in itself because we are affected by the major Planets in ways that are difficult to predict in the long term (as with the courses of potentially dodgy asteroids).

 

[Grazing Dogs]

There are plenty of Models which will predict where the Earth will be in the future and many have proved pretty accurate in the past. I doubt that a Graphical presentation of those results would be of much use except for entertainment purposes and the accuracy needed for entertainment is much less. The problem with displaying Astronomical maps is the vast ratios of distances involved. It would be 'nice' to pick a planet or star, 'zoom in' on it and speed up the action so that you could see its planets orbiting at a rate that would look convincing but would that be a lot of use? My point is, I think, that a visual display of this data is not as important as getting the best accuracy for space navigation and predicting collisions, which are visual things.
Many Astronomy display applications (planetariums) will do that sort of thing for the Solar System. They use a mix of look up tables and stock images to produce a convincing picture to look at and a much cruder model of the distant stars and galaxies. More than that is not demanded. They show phases of the Moon and Venus, for instance, and put an appropriate image in the location that the object will appear at any time. It's all bolted together to the desired accuracy.

PS "Three Trajectories" is a simplification in itself because we are affected by the major Planets in ways that are difficult to predict in the long term (as with the courses of potentially dodgy asteroids).

Good afternoon Sophiecentaur and thanks for your informed response (and not to put a negative spin on it) but all I'm asking/looking for is a 'working CGI model' or a mock-up if you like on how it is actually possible for the Earth to move in these 3 vastly different separate trajectories in the fashion mention i.e. curving and corkscrewing while also spinning...if one were to take a look at the night sky star-trail long exposure images, one will find these form perfect 360* circles...how is this possible given the afore mentioned stats?...I have wracked my brain trying to visualise/work this out in my minds eye and it seems to me the only obvious conclusion to verify these stats is to see a working CGI model...I would be very, very curious to see this footage as I honestly believe/feel it would show the official stats given to be in serious error.

 

[Nugatory]

how it is actually possible for the Earth to move in these 3 vastly different separate trajectories

There's only one trajectory through space, it just looks different to different observers. If I drop my phone while riding in a car it falls in a straight line to the floor of the car, right? Yes, according to me in the car; but according to someone standing by the side of the road its path will be a parabola.

 

[Grazing Dogs]

Afternoon there Nugatory: It seems to me that if the official NASA stats give the 'great attractor' as moving nearby galaxies along at a rate of 1.2 million mph, while our galaxy is spinning-moving along at 486,000 mph and lastly we have the Earth orbiting the Sun at 66,600mph...it stands to reason if something is moving (whatever it may be) is 'going somewhere' and given the above mentioned this to me (logically) appears to be the case.

 

[sophiecentaur]

@Grazing Dogs My problem is with your use of the term CGI here. You don’t need CGI to prove or disprove the accuracy of the Ephemeris tables that have been produced for many years and which enable Astronavigators to know where they are, without the (albeit more convenient) GPS system. The Earth’s motion relative to the stars and planets has to be known accurately if navigators can use sightings to give their position to within a few tens of meters.
So, although you find it hard to believe, there has been daily evidence that our models are actually pretty damn good.
Have you any credible evidence that they are not?

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's only one trajectory through space

Exactly!

 

[Grazing Dogs]

@Grazing Dogs My problem is with your use of the term CGI here. You don’t need CGI to prove or disprove the accuracy of the Ephemeris tables that have been produced for many years and which enable Astronavigators to know where they are, without the (albeit more convenient) GPS system. The Earth’s motion relative to the stars and planets has to be known accurately if navigators can use sightings to give their position to within a few tens of meters.
So, although you find it hard to believe, there has been daily evidence that our models are actually pretty damn good.
Have you any credible evidence that they are not?

Hello again Sophiecentaur: thanks again for the informed response...not sure what it is re 'my point' that's not to understand but will attempt again...I have grievous doubts concerning our Earths said 3 separate trajectories (or paths if this is a better terminology) through space and in in the fashion/manner in which it is moving i.e. in a curving, corkscrewing, elliptical and linear path (or trajectory) and at the varying speeds of 66,600mph (orbit round Sun) to 486,000mph (galaxy) and up to 1,2 million mph (great attractor)...and all this with a spinning Earth at over 1,000mph... if one were to take each separate path/trajectory and then 'add them all simultaneously together in one working model' then I am of the conclusion that you would be left with an improbable if not impossible model as we understand physics currently...especially as long exposure images of the night sky star-trails reveal perfect circles...this to me is impossible given the official data re 'how the Earth moves in space'...a Working CGI Model would give us the 'telling evidence we need to substantiate (or not) my point.'

 

[sophiecentaur]

Afternoon there Nugatory: It seems to me that if the official NASA stats give the 'great attractor' as moving nearby galaxies along at a rate of 1.2 million mph, while our galaxy is spinning-moving along at 486,000 mph and lastly we have the Earth orbiting the Sun at 66,600mph...it stands to reason if something is moving (whatever it may be) is 'going somewhere' and given the above mentioned this to me (logically) appears to be the case.

If you have ridden on any of the extreme fairground rides, you will have been subjected to translations in two or three planes and probably rotation about two different axes. Motion can be broken down into constituent components, in this case, the designer of the ride has defined each of them independently but you are only following one resultant path at a time. (That's quite near enough to the actual experience for me; I already feel unwell)

 

[Grazing Dogs]

If you have ridden on any of the extreme fairground rides, you will have been subjected to translations in two or three planes and probably rotation about two different axes. Motion can be broken down into constituent components, in this case, the designer of the ride has defined each of them independently but you are only following one resultant path at a time. (That's quite near enough to the actual experience for me; I already feel unwell)

If you have ridden on any of the extreme fairground rides, you will have been subjected to translations in two or three planes and probably rotation about two different axes. Motion can be broken down into constituent components, in this case, the designer of the ride has defined each of them independently but you are only following one resultant path at a time. (That's quite near enough to the actual experience for me; I already feel unwell)

Hello again Sophiecentaur: great answer...now can we please see this as a working CGI model with the Earth and its 3 separate paths/trajectories while spinning at 1,000mph.

 

[Nugatory]

now can we please see this as a working CGI model with the Earth and its 3 separate paths/trajectories while spinning at 1,000mph

You may have to construct that yourself; the equations you would use are straightforward coordinate transformations, but turning them into a CGI video is more work than someone is likely to want to do. But first... do you clearly understand how the trajectory of the dropped phone in post #7 above is both a straight line and a parabola?

 

[Ophiolite]

Grazing dogs, i can't offer you cgi, but I can give you a mental picture to construct. I am stirring a cup of tea. Imagine a stray tea leaf on the surface of the tea swirling around at a few inches per second. Now, continuing to stir the tea I walk forward at two miles per hour. The tea leaf is now moving in a circular motion at those few inches per second and als moving forwar at two miles per hour. However, I am inside a plane. The plane is moving (in the opposite direction to my walk) at 455 mph and is simultaneously descending at 300'/minute. The tea leaf is thus moving with a variety of velocities depending on your point of view (or reference frame).

If you have no trouble understanding that then you should be able to apply the same thinking to the problem you have set. If you do have trouble understanding my example, then I fear I can offer nothing further. Cheers.

 

[sophiecentaur]

a Working CGI Model would give us the 'telling evidence we need to substantiate (or not) my point.

No. A model is a model and confirms only that the model is producing some sort of result. It is no 'evidence'.. It needs have nothing to do with reality at all. A graph of nonsense is no different from a graph of some experimental results until the two are checked against other valid data. If one graph checks out then we're in business.
When CGI shows us that a Man can Fly, it does't mean that's the truth.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You may have to construct that yourself;

You got there first, @Nugatory !
It certainly wouldn't be Physics as I know it. As for "telling evidence"?

 

[Grazing Dogs]

No. A model is a model and confirms only that the model is producing some sort of result. It is no 'evidence'.. It needs have nothing to do with reality at all. A graph of nonsense is no different from a graph of some experimental results until the two are checked against other valid data. If one graph checks out then we're in business.
When CGI shows us that a Man can Fly, it does't mean that's the truth.

Hello Sophiecentaur: If what you are saying is true, then we can pretty much take 'everything' we have been taught up until now about 'space' with a pinch-of-salt...thanks for your time as I will endeavour to get the answer (hopefully) I'm looking for elsewhere...May Almighty God Be With You.

 

[sophiecentaur]

we can pretty much take 'everything' we have been taught up until now about 'space' with a pinch-of-salt.

I am taking everything that you say, with salt because it's not based on anything. Modern Astrophysics is constantly being confirmed by extensive measurements. As with all Science, the 'true' Scientist is quite prepared for the event when we find we need a re-think but CGI is not going to be the source of new Astro knowledge because CGI is just a display technology.

 

[Grazing Dogs]

I am taking everything that you say, with salt because it's not based on anything. Modern Astrophysics is constantly being confirmed by extensive measurements. As with all Science, the 'true' Scientist is quite prepared for the event when we find we need a re-think but CGI is not going to be the source of new Astro knowledge because CGI is just a display technology.

Hello Sophiecentaur: I utterly fail to see/understand how my query is 'baseless' because I am using/working with 'official data from the NASA website'...either the stats given are 'true and thus relevant' or they are not...I have seen no evidence to the contrary that suggests the varying speeds, paths, trajectories, spin and so forth are not constants or subject to drastic change....Shalom.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hello Sophiecentaur: I utterly fail to see/understand how my query is 'baseless' because I am using/working with 'official data from the NASA website'...either the stats given are 'true and thus relevant' or they are not...I have seen no evidence to the contrary that suggests the varying speeds, paths, trajectories, spin and so forth are not constants or subject to drastic change....Shalom.

It has been explained to you that these velocities etc vary only because each is based upon a different viewpoint. You seem unwilling, or unable to accept that. What is about that concept that confuses you, or that you find unconvincing? I refer you again to my example in post #13 above. Do you understand that example?

 

[Grazing Dogs]

It has been explained to you that these velocities etc vary only because each is based upon a different viewpoint. You seem unwilling, or unable to accept that. What is about that concept that confuses you, or that you find unconvincing? I refer you again to my example in post #13 above. Do you understand that example?

Good evening Ophiolite: sorry for not getting back sooner. I have already looked at 'the frame of reference' and the 'viewpoint' I am obviously referencing is that of Earth (as we are sited here)...the star-trails in the night sky that we see in long exposure images are not impacted by the varying frame of reference points as we are taking ours from Earth (or in situ if you like)...I will not be bothering to waste any of yours or anybody else's time on this matter as it's quite clear this forum is unwilling to engage directly with a direct question...Shalom.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Hello Sophiecentaur: I utterly fail to see/understand how my query is 'baseless' because I am using/working with 'official data from the NASA website'...either the stats given are 'true and thus relevant' or they are not...I have seen no evidence to the contrary that suggests the varying speeds, paths, trajectories, spin and so forth are not constants or subject to drastic change....Shalom.

You mean you have no evidence that Physics will not suddenly be proved wrong when you get someone to present the measurements in a different (graphical) way and reveals some great inconsistency? That's a bizarre way of conducting Science. Double negatives are seldom the best way forward.