What causes the squiggly orbit and how can it be eliminated?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the complexities of orbital mechanics, particularly in three-body systems where a small third mass influences the orbits of two larger bodies. The presence of the third object creates additional gravitational interactions, leading to "squiggly" orbits rather than smooth ellipses. It is suggested that these irregularities can be mitigated by plotting orbits relative to the barycenter of the system instead of a fixed central star. Additionally, the conversation touches on Kepler's laws and the variability of distances in planetary orbits, questioning whether these distances can remain constant. Overall, understanding the gravitational dynamics in multi-body systems is crucial for accurate orbital predictions.
mrjoe2
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Well, my biggest q, isn't exactly about the 2-body, it's more like 3-body I guess.
What I'm trying to accomplish here is to say that we can not ignore a small third mass orbiting around a sun-like object.

I have the Sun-Like Object and another object (L) orbiting around it, now L is following an ellipse shape because the center Sun object is having a gravitation pull on m1. Now a smaller object (K) further away is also being affected by the gravitational pull by the Sun object but even L has a gravitational pull on K, so that K object is (having 2 gravitational pulls effecting it)?
And this cuases turbulation which is why the ellipse is squiggly?
Does this make any sense or am I to ambiguous?

Another question is: Consider kepler's first law. The planets orbit is an eiplse since it's binding energy is near 0 but not equal to 0. As planets orbit around a sun we can see that the distance from the sun on the planet's position is not constant. Can it be constan is my question? When, how?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Replace m1 with L.
mrjoe2 said:
Well, my biggest q, isn't exactly about the 2-body, it's more like 3-body I guess.
What I'm trying to accomplish here is to say that we can not ignore a small third mass orbiting around a sun-like object.

I have the Sun-Like Object and another object (L) orbiting around it, now L is following an ellipse shape because the center Sun object is having a gravitation pull on m1. Now a smaller object (K) further away is also being affected by the gravitational pull by the Sun object but even L has a gravitational pull on K, so that K object is (having 2 gravitational pulls effecting it)?
And this cuases turbulation which is why the ellipse is squiggly?
Does this make any sense or am I to ambiguous?

Another question is: Consider kepler's first law. The planets orbit is an eiplse since it's binding energy is near 0 but not equal to 0. As planets orbit around a sun we can see that the distance from the sun on the planet's position is not constant. Can it be constan is my question? When, how?
 
There are already enough complications with one body in orbit, since both bodies will eventually meet due to gravitational radiation.
Add a third and the problem space is exploding.
 
Last edited:
The reason for your "squiggly ellipse" is because you're probably displaying your orbit with the central star locked to the middle of your diagram, when in reality, it is not still. It orbits the barycenter of the AB pair. If you plot your orbits with respect to the barycenter, the squigglies should go away.

Here is an example. This is a screen shot of a 1 solar mass star being orbited by a 0.5 solar mass star from a distance of 0.1 AU and an eccentricity of 0.2. A more distant massless test particle orbits the pair. With the central star locked in place in the plot, the distant object has the squiggles. But when the plot is centered on the barycenter of the AB pair, it does not:

http://orbitsimulator.com/PF/bc.GIF
 
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...
This hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
Back
Top