Lagrange Point and orbital velocity

AI Thread Summary
Lagrange Point 1 (L1) in the Sun/Earth system does not have an orbital velocity around Earth, as it is in a stable position relative to both the Sun and Earth. While the body at L1 appears to move across the celestial sphere at the same angular velocity as the Sun, this does not equate to an orbital motion around Earth. The discussion highlights the complexities of a three-body system, where forces from the Sun and Earth interact. Introducing a centripetal force from Earth at L1 is deemed illogical, reinforcing the notion that L1's orbital velocity around Earth is effectively zero. Overall, L1's dynamics are better understood in the context of its gravitational balance rather than traditional orbital mechanics.
_Stew_
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
When considering the Lagrange point 1 in the Sun/Earth system, Does Lagrange Point 1 have any orbital velocity around Earth?

I suspect a body at L1 has no orbital velocity around earth.
But consider the Earth's position 6months later when it is opposite the sun. The Lagrange point would also have moved to the opposite side of the earth. This would suggest the orbital period of a body at L1 around the Earth would be one year.

So back to my original question:
Does Lagrange Point 1 have any orbital velocity around Earth?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
_Stew_ said:
I suspect a body at L1 has no orbital velocity around earth.
You have not supplied any reasons for your suspicion, while supplying a good reason to the contrary in the following two sentences.
As seen from Earth(disregarding daily rotation), the body at L1 will have indeed moved across the celestial sphere at angular velocity equal to that of the Sun - 360deg/sidereal year.

There are, however, issues with using "in orbit around Earth" when talking about a 3-body system. It's similar to saying that the Sun has got some orbital velocity around Earth - it's not entirely without merit(vide: common barycentre), but not entirely correct either.
 
_Stew_ said:
I suspect a body at L1 has no orbital velocity around earth.
But consider
I used the word “but” to indicate I was talking about something conflicting with that statement.
The reason I suspected that the orbital velocity of the L1 body around Earth was zero is a bit harder to explain. Which is why I didn’t put it in, but I will now.
When trying to find Lagrange point 1, many calculations/proofs I have seen use 3 forces:
1) The gravitational force between the Sun and the L1 body
2) The centripetal force acting at L1 around the Sun
3) The gravitational force between the Earth and the L1 body
I was thinking that there should be another force, the centripetal force acting at L1 from the Earth?
It must be that introducing this new force is illogical for some reason OR the centripetal force acting at L1 from Earth is zero, making the orbital velocity of the L1 body around Earth = 0.
In light of what you said:
Bandersnatch said:
There are, however, issues with using "in orbit around Earth" when talking about a 3-body system. It's similar to saying that the Sun has got some orbital velocity around Earth
I’m guessing that it is illogical to consider L1’s orbit around earth
 
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