The shape of our solar system's orbits.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the shapes of planetary orbits in our solar system, which are primarily elliptical, with most planets having nearly circular paths. Some participants argue that while the solar system's orbits are less eccentric compared to many extrasolar planets, this does not make it unique. The average eccentricity of the eight major planets is about 0.0606, significantly lower than the average of known extrasolar planets at approximately 0.2181. There is debate over whether the solar system's orbits can be considered "round" and how observational biases might affect the data on exoplanet eccentricities. The conversation also touches on the complexities of orbital mechanics and the influence of gravitational interactions among planets.
  • #31
Bzzt. I'm callin' foul. Tom is changing his story.

He was clear - and repeated several times - that he was talking about the movement of the central body. Reread posts 18 and 22.

Now he's claiming he meant orbital regression? Hello?


Anyway:

Even if all post between 18 and 26 magivcally vaqnished and we are forced to grant his new claim, it's kind of silly to talk about "all orbits being a spiral" when there are far, far larger deviations from ellipses, such as the effects from other planets.

If I drew a freehand circularish curve on a piece of paper that had
- an eccentricity of several centimeters
- wandered back and forth from that path by several millimeters,
yet
increased its (average) diameter by only a few angstroms with each pass

would it be sensical to call that a spiral??
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
Bzzt. I'm callin' foul. Tom is changing his story.

He was clear - and repeated several times - that he was talking about the movement of the central body. Reread posts 18 and 22.

Now he's claiming he meant orbital regression? Hello?


Anyway:

Even if all post between 18 and 26 magivcally vaqnished and we are forced to grant his new claim, it's kind of silly to talk about "all orbits being a spiral" when there are far, far larger deviations from ellipses, such as the effects from other planets.

If I drew a freehand circularish curve on a piece of paper that had
- an eccentricity of several centimeters
- wandered back and forth from that path by several millimeters,
yet
increased its (average) diameter by only a few angstroms with each pass

would it be sensical to call that a spiral??

Oh well I only really read his first post and then the original hostility towards him so I thought I would just jump into aid him lol. Yes it is silly to call it a spiral but it's not really wrong...
 
  • #33
Sorry! said:
... but it's not really wrong...
Sure. In the same way it's not really wrong to call it a square, either. :rolleyes:
 
  • #34
If anyone thinks 2.5 cm per year is trivial than what does that say about Hubble's law on the universe's inflation rate.

We believe that Pope Urban VIII is alive and well and lives on the internet.
 
  • #35
Tom Kull said:
If anyone thinks 2.5 cm per year is trivial
when compared to the millions - and in some cases tens of millions - of kilometers of deviations due to other factors. Don't pretend I didn't make this clear.

Besides, that still isn't what you were claiming originally. Your credibility is a bit shaky, having jumped from one train to another.

There's no shame in being mistaken and being corrected. C'mon, man up. Don't make it a bad thing by being bloody-headed about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
The question is answered and the thread is way off topic.

Locked.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 122 ·
5
Replies
122
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K