Push Gravity

Is there a zone in which the various planets orbiting the sun all come
much nearer to the sun than in the remainder of their respective
orbits?

If so, is that the zone in which they are all orbiting fastest?

If so, is that zone between the sun and is most pushy neighbours?

Peter Kinane
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Peter Kinane" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0401110411.4c7ea8d3@posting.google.c om...

Moron

Franz

Peter Kinane wrote:

Newton figured out that bodies falling under the influence of a central
force, gravity, such as planets falling around the Sun or projectiles on,
or around, the Earth follow the curves of conic sections.

Orbital Elements
[Only registered users see links. ]

Celestial Mechanics
[Only registered users see links. ]


Isaac Newton lived in a time when technology was VERY limited compared to the
twentieth century and had much less data to work with... I am still in awe of
his developing calculus and realizing that bodies under the influence of a
central force follow conic section curves. Suggestions:

o "Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995)
Clarendon Press . Oxford
ISBN 0 19 851744 0

o Newton, Isaac "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy" Trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, with the
assistance of Julia Budenz (University of California Press: Berkeley,
1999)

Note: When I was posting on the subject of "Time", the points oozed
Effectuationist principles. This "gravity" matter, in contrast, does
not seem to feature any such principles, and so I am far less
confident of the weight of the views. Further to drafting this post,
apart from this sentence, I have gone on-line, and based on my
understanding of the two co-operative replies I received to an earlier
post - thanks to you both - this theory may have no weight -
nonetheless, at this stage, I might as well let it fly.



The Earth 'spins' at approx. 1,030 m/p/h (miles per hour) at the
equator ...


Let's assume a Big Bang splashing material outward into freer-space in
somewhat different concentrations, because of the type of collision
through which it occurs or the type of explosion it is, thereby
creating galaxies. Within these secondary (second generation)
explosions occur, and perhaps, too, third generations develop. Within
these different generations, suns and solar systems with planets
develop. But the speeds of motion of these subsequent generations
would, perhaps, be faster than the immediately preceding one.
(Explosions, presumably, would speed things up, and collisions slow
things down).

Any acceleration of speed of material within systems would gradually
dissipate through being acted upon by slower neighbours.


Also, through splashing- -exploding apart, out into freer-space, in
somewhat different concentrations, (at least some of) the material,
would be coming out in the shape of an arc, unless sustaining
secondary action. I presume all continuous arcs in free-space, unless
acted upon, end up as circles. So, these 'arcs', caused by pressure
which is decreasing, would almost become circles.


Up to this stage, and continuing, the systems are acting on each
other.

The suns in their turn, or some of them, would get their rotation
through the pressure of their immediate neighbours moving outwards -
the most immediate inner ones generally being the strongest
neighbours. This interactive movement outwards of the chambers causes
the chambers to rotate. As well as being pushy, let's think of these
chambers as spongy. Such a rotating, spongy chamber, from the sun at
the centre to the periphery, would be one spinning system.

An explosion of a sun or nucleus, within the pressure chamber of the
tension of itself and its neighbours, sends materials outward in the
chamber. The system- -sponge would impact more, or better catch, the
'heavier' material issuing, and so the 'heavier' materials would end
up shorter distances from the sun. The explosion would also have some
impact on the paths, etc., of the neighbours.


The sun and the material scattered by the sun within the chamber is a
solar system or world - a spinning- -revolving chamber of pressure,
driven by the spongy neighbours, pushing outwards and, as they do so,
increasing their circumferences. The various weight materials, having
been thrown out their respective distances from the sun, and been
caught by the spongy environment also revolve - somewhat as rings.
Each ring should retain its position from the sun, unless sustaining
novel action. However, the material in such 'rings', in the early
stages colliding a good deal as it settled and so slowing down, would
tend to pile up in their respective orbits.

When the various materials settled as planets, and, carried in the
spongy environment of a system which is slightly increasing its
circumference, they would tend to lag to the periphery of the system -
to outward of orbit - in effect anti-sunwise (anti-clockwise), and
this would be their spin direction. In their slip stream, lesser
bodies- -neighbours might spin in the opposite direction.


The speed of orbit of each respective planet would, presumably, be
influenced by the 'weight', or catchiness, of its material, by its
volume, by its distance from the axis- -sun of the system, and by any
possible moons, etc. Perhaps it would be further influenced by its
position along its orbit, as, for example, when passing through the
squeeze area with the most pushy neighbours of the system. If so, this
should change the rate of spin - which presumably does not happen.
Likewise, in the most spacious- -free position along its orbit. So,
does the rate of orbit (and consequently of spin) vary?

What frame of reference (FOR) should apply if measuring such rate:
Presumably, if the rate of spin is constant then so is the rate of
orbit. Consequently, it would be incorrect to think of the rate of
orbit _in relation to the sun_. Rather, what catches the attention -
the event - would be the fluctuation along the radius from the sun -
in accordance with whether the planet was in a squeeze or a freer
area; in accordance with whether the planet was in an area of the
sponge which was being compressed or expanding.


This leaves the matter of the term "weight" ...

Peter Kinane
[Only registered users see links. ]

Due to the situation of the post, I should say that the "thank you"
was intended for tadchem and Sam Wormley.

"Peter Kinane" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0401110411.4c7ea8d3@posting.google.c om...

Short answer: No.

Long answer:

The point at which the orbit of a planet comes closest to the sun is called
the perihelion. Its location is identified by a heliocentric (sun-centered)
longitude. Each planet has a distinct longitude of its perihelion, given as
omega in the first table of the following page:
[Only registered users see links. ]

Examination of the second table shows an entry for omega as well. This
table includes "centennial rates" - the amount of change in the
corresponding parameter per hundred years. The rate given for earth, for
example, is -18228.25 arc-seconds per hundred years. There are 1,296,000
arc-seconds (360*60*60) in a circle, so it takes 1296000/(-18228.25) =
71.098 centuries for earth's perihelion to move in a complete circle around
the sun.

You will observe that the perihelions for the other planets are at different
longitudes, and move at different rates.


Kepler's Laws imply that each planet is moving fastest when it is closest to
the sun.


The sun's nearest "neighbor" is the star system Proxima Centauri, about 4.3
light-years (about 4.13 * 10^13 km), about 7000 times as far away from Sol
as Pluto (5.95*10^9 km). The direction to Proxima Centauri is roughly
"south" and well out of the plane (the ecliptic) in which the planets orbit.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"Peter Kinane" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0401110411.4c7ea8d3@posting.google.c om...
Yes, if by "sun" you mean another star. Algol demonstrates a period of circa
70 hours.
If you mean our own sun, Pluto crosses the orbit (comes closer than)
Neptune. I don't understand "much".
Go to
[Only registered users see links. ]
and play the game.


Don't know what you mean by "all". Pluto, when nearer to the sun than
Neptune is, is in the fastest part of its orbit.


'Pushy' is not understood.
Androcles

[Only registered users see links. ] (Peter Kinane) wrote in message news:<d8097fcc.0401110411.4c7ea8d3@posting.google. com>...

No. The perihelion of each planet precesses at a different rate.
After a few million years, each planet will have it's perihelion
at a very different place from where it is now, and from where
it was relative to the perihelions of the other planets.
Socks

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c7976c46.0401111337.737966ab@posting.google.c om...
news:<d8097fcc.0401110411.4c7ea8d3@posting.google. com>...
Remarkable insight, Socks. Well done.
Androcles

Peter Kinane wrote:
[snip]

If empirical reality tells you that you are a jackass, you are an
empirical jackass. Look at an orrery - assuming it doesn't explode
your brain through your inch-thick skull. Or if it does.

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Do something naughty to physics)