Eccentricity or elliptical orbits.In general relativity, the “curvature of space-time” is expressed by the Einstein tensor in the Einstein field equations. These tensor equations determine how space-time (represented by a manifold) is warped by the presence of
mass-energy (expressed in the
stress energy tensor), producing the apparent phenomenon of gravitation as
a fictitious force. This description is quite informative; but let’s get to my subject:
I’ve said previously (to Dave) that the basic Planck’s length couldn’t be distorted. Which means you can’t stretch it like an elastic. My reason was that if you stretched it, it wouldn’t keep its Planck’s basic length uniformly or consistent. This suggestion has to have consequences that should be observable. So if there is an observable proof that we can find, let’s look for it.
That proof would normally be in our solar system.
We know that, in regard with Euclid’s definition of “space”, the “tissue” of space is a factual “point” (volume) to which we gave a diameter of Planck’s length (10^-33 meter) at Plank’s time (10^-45 sec after time = zero). We know that “mass energy” apply its pressure to that kind of point with the result of “altering” the whole “space tissue” (its geometry) surrounding this point (volume).
The event is that by putting “pressure” on that particular basic volume, this point is stopped in its expansion to create more space (preventing to duplicate other “point volumes”). “The production of duplicated “metrics” is then blocked, and “altered space” ensues.
Let’s try to see what we can find when starting from the effects of gravitational “influences” between volumes of “altered space”:
We will re-use the wine glass drawing, but we will start with the drawing BEFORE making the toast:
Now let us see the difference during the toast while edges of each glasses merge:
Difference no 1: We seen the tidal effect where edges of glasses merge. The merged edge is lower than the rest of edges and the wine flows in the empty glass.
Difference no 2: We have a new shorter distance B between the centers of gravity of the glasses; the merging of edges brought the wine glass legs (center of gravities) closer to one another. That effect is the same as between the center of gravity of the sun and the center of gravity of Jupiter; both centers of gravity are displaced toward one another.
And since we are comparing those wine glasses to the Sun and Jupiter, let’s pursue our analysis using those cosmic objects; the big glass will be the Sun and the small glass will be Jupiter. Naturally, it will be like looking at our glasses from the top.
1) We know that at the equator the Sun rotates in 24.47 days. So the sun is “rotating” on its axis.
2) We also know that Jupiter has more “mass energy” than all planets united. So the “space deformation” containing it, affect greatly the solar system’s space deformation.
3) Jupiter’s rotation is the fastest of all planets (a bit less than 10 hrs). Which supports our opinion for the origin of rotation.
4) The barycenter of the Jupiter/Sun system, despite the thousand fold difference in mass and due to the relatively large distance between them, lies outside the Sun itself.
Officially, a barycenter is the “center of mass” of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other. In reality, the “fact” is that the barycenter is a “point in space” where the intensity of two or more “geometric deformed volumes” are in equilibrium.
On Earth, to find a center of gravity, let’s say on a hammer, we use the gravitational effect on the hammer like so:
But this example is completely wrong. Because we have two parts of different material forming the hammer; and those two parts don’t have the same “weight” in fact, the same “mass energy”. So that designed “center of gravity” of the hammer, is really a barycenter between the wood handle center of gravity and the metal head center of gravity of the hammer.
To describe a “factual” center of gravity, we should rather use a single material object; as, for example, a wood rule like this one:
Where each sides of the center of one kind of object equilibrates themselves. This indicates a “real” center of gravity.
So let us indicate the real centers of gravity of both cosmic object, the Sun and Jupiter.
Let’s add the information, on the drawing, of their personal rotations on their axis which is in counter clock wise direction, just as are their orbits.
A) Newton’s law impregnated an error in the concept of orbit. With Newton’s concept of gravity, there is a constant
tug-of-war between the satellites tendency to move in a straight line, or momentum, and the
tug of gravity pulling it back. In reality,
this “tug-of-war” doesn’t exist at all. Satellites are always going “straight ahead”. The curved trajectory
results from the information given by the “altered geometry” of the volume of space surrounding them.
B) Each planet has a different escape velocity. The object's distance from the planet's center is also important. The escape velocity from the Earth is about 11.3 kilometers (7 miles) per second.
C) Orbital velocity is the speed
needed to stay in orbit. At an altitude of 242 kilometers (150 miles), this is about 17,000 miles per hour. This is just a little less than full escape velocity.
And we have the speed related to that "orbital corridor" around the Earth.
D) Tides (or tidal effect). The earth's rotation is counter clockwise. The moon's gravity creates a bulge on the side near it, because its gravitational pull is stronger there, and an “anti-bulge” on the far side, since its gravity there is weaker (bad explication since we saw the geometrical tidal effect with wine glasses).
Now let us look at the orbits of each objects around their barycenter:
I think that most people will agree with the information given by this last drawing. It sums all data we have. But I voluntarily installed a “mistake” in this drawing. Here it is:
This drawing represents the orbits of both objects around their barycenter. A barycenter is
the balancing point between the centers of gravity of two objects. So this barycenter
has to stay in line with both centers of gravity; which, here,
I voluntarily misaligned.
When we correct that error, a surprising event happens when keeping that barycenter constantly between the sun and Jupiter centers of gravity. We see that the barycenter of both objects
orbits around the sun just as Jupiter does. So, the reality is that the Sun is the actual center of the Jupiter/Sun system. I wonder what will happen to our way of calculating all this celestial mechanic, if this "fact" is taken in consideration?
Let’s put that reality in a new drawing:
We now clearly see that the sun is the center of gravity
around which Jupiter and the system’s barycenter orbit. But we also observe that
Jupiter’s orbit is now “off centered” in regard to the center of gravity of the sun;
which gives it an elliptic orbit. That would indicate that all elliptical orbits of planets in the solar system, could be a result of
each individual planet/Sun system, because they are “off centered”
by their barycenter from the Sun’s center of gravity. It would also explain why most planet have “
nearly” circular orbits since “mass energy” of planets are so much lesser than the Sun’s. I agree that orbits are elliptical in shape, this means they are similar to an oval; that is an accepted “fact”;
but the “reality” is that, for the planets,
the orbits are almost round.
Can you imagine all the questions that this observation erases in front of actual official explanations? I can find a few but certainly not all.
For example: could this mean that the more a planet has “mass energy”, the more its orbit is eccentric? The fact is that the most eccentric we observe is Mercury’s orbit.
Let’s check if this could be a fact?
First what is eccentricity?
The orbital eccentricity of an astronomical object is a parameter that determines the amount by which its orbit around another body
deviates from a perfect circle. A value of 0 is a circular orbit, values between 0 and 1 form an elliptical orbit.
So we will note the eccentricity of each planet, and then, its “gravity” (in g) which should indicate its relative amount of “mass energy”, followed by density and mass (whatever this mass means) and give ranks to each planets subjects wise.
Let’s note that a planet’s size is not necessarily proportional to its mass. In the end, how massive a planet is has more to do with its composition and density.
Mercury’s eccentricity = 0.205 630 no 1 most eccentricity. Gravity = 0.38 g no 7 and no 2 most dense at 5.427 g/cm3, Mass = 0.06 no 8
Venus’s eccentricity = 0.0067 no 8 most eccentric. Gravity = 0.9 g no 5 most massive and no 3 most dense at 5.243 g/cm³, mass = 0.82 no 6
Earth’s eccentricity = 0.0167 no 6 most eccentricity. Gravity = 1.0 g no 4 most massive and no 1 most dense at 5.514 g/cm3. Mass = 1 no 5
Mars’s eccentricity = 0.0935 no 2 most eccentricity. Gravity = 0.376 no 8 most massive and no 4 most dense at 3.9335 g/cm³, mass = 0.11 no 7
Jupiter’s eccentricity = 0.0489 no 4 most eccentricity. Gravity = 2.528 g no 1 most massive and no 6 most dense at 1.326 g/cm3, mass = 317.8 no 1
Saturn’s eccentricity = 0.0565 no 3 most eccentricity. Gravity = 1.065 g no 3 most massive and no 8 most dense at 0.687 g/cm³, mass = 95.2 no 2
Uranus’s eccentricity = 0.0457 no 5 most eccentricity. Gravity = 0.886 g no 6 most massive and no 7 most dense at 1.271 g/cm3, 14.6 no 4
Neptune’s eccentricity = 0.0113 no 7 most eccentricity. Gravity = 1.14 g no 2 most massive and no 5 most dense at 1.638 g/cm3, mass = 17.2 no 3
We find here that there are
none of the planets that shows an equilibrium between their “gravity” and eccentricity, density or mass.
The only thing we can affirm is that
the less massive planet (Mercury) has
the most eccentric orbit.
Which is exactly the contrary of what we are looking for. So there could be something wrong in our way of defining "mass" and its implication. Let’s add that
the most massive with the more gravity (Jupiter) has
the middle most eccentric orbit. The more dense (Earth) doesn’t relate to anything remarkable.
So the elliptic orbit are not decided by the quantity of mass that situates the barycenter of each planets
without considering the distance between the planet and the sun. But that barycenter is, anyway, the reason of elliptic orbit, demonstrated by our drawing.
So I’ll have to work on it furthermore. If someone has ideas, I’m listening.
