Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#16297 11/07/06 08:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136


DA Morgan
.
#16298 11/07/06 11:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Hi DA,

Very dramatic view.

Dr. R.

#16299 11/08/06 01:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Janus was a real problem for me working on my hobby of the Solar System.
I was trying to create a formula that would use the data for ? say Saturn?s satellites in this instance ? that would confirm or disprove the published data. That is a little much to expect but I was eventually able to reconcile all of the major moons of Saturn. Janus was completely wrong based upon the data I was relying upon.

The formula weighs the basic characteristics of the moon and the ?miles mass? for Saturn (the orbited body) and the end result should confirm the moons days of orbit as observed and published by astronomers. The first problem with some objects is that they are not spheres. Janus was described as 97 x 95 x 77 Km. I had previously worked out the probable Mass of Saturn expressed in miles (the point where the planet would orbit a moon at 1 mile per second orbital velocity.) For Saturn that was taken as a Miles Mass value of 9,120,391.75 miles orbit radius for the object representing the result for all of the satellites averaged. .

Janus published data in two text books was completely off and gave me an unacceptable result for the proposed Miles Mass of Saturn that was out of line with the other Moons. The published days of orbit for Janus turned out to be OK but the orbit details did not comply. The eventual resolution was fine using the recent data published by JPL. Also a source that is useful is, http://enclyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com.

The Janus data is semi major axis miles radius 94,137.55, sidereal period days .695, orbital velocity 9.85 mps and Saturn Mass Miles, 9,118,897. This effort requires a unique finding of my creation which I call the objects significant number. The method is straightforward enough requiring us to determine the difference in the potential orbital velocity for the edge of the moon closest to the planet (the fastest) and the velocity for the edge farthest. I then deduct the slowest velocity from the fastest edge of the moon. This is dependent on the respective radius each way for the moon. We will get a value for the center point of the moon.
Janus was said to be non-spherical. I eventually used a hypothetical 59 miles radius.
Sn= 9,118,897

94,137.55 ? 59 = 94,078.5. Sn/ 94,078.5 = 96.928 unsquared = 9.8452295731
94,137.55 + 59 = 94,196.5. Sn/ 94,196.5 = 96.807 unsquared = 9.8390610821
The result # = .0061684910
Radius 59 x 6.2832 = 370.708 / # = 60,097.16 / 86,400 = .695 days. This method disclosed that some of the published data was in error when I ran most satellites in the formula.

This implies that the circumference of the satellite plays a positive part in the rotation of the object and that the significant number for the center of the object turns orbital velocity into a useful means to make other determinations about the mechanics.
jjw

#16300 11/08/06 05:43 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Hi jjw,

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting a new method for computing orbital elements? Perhaps you are attempting to point out some flaw in the literature. I have done lots of work with artificial satellite orbits and yet your nomenclature seems strange. Could you expand on your remark :"useful means to make other determinations about the mechanics" a bit?

If you are new to this a good place to find the basics is a book by Bate et al. entitled Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Dover reprint.) This is a competent but not complete introduction to the subject.

Dr. R.

#16301 11/09/06 12:24 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Dr. R:

You ask ?I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting a new method for computing orbital elements? Perhaps you are attempting to point out some flaw in the literature. I have done lots of work with artificial satellite orbits and yet your nomenclature seems strange. Could you expand on your remark :"useful means to make other determinations about the mechanics" a bit??

I thought that you were into such things by the name you use. I doubt that you are into it in the same way that I am. Over the years I decided that miles and time (seconds) had a kind of synergistic working relationship that was not present when using meters or kilometers.

The ?useful means?, for example means that with my significant numbers I can predict the ?normal? equatorial velocity of a planet in miles per second. Earth?s significant number is .000789. 365.25 days times .000789 = .28818 which I round to .2882. That is the miles per second of the Earth?s equatorial rotation. Or 1/.2882 = 3.4698 seconds, for Earth to rotate one mile. One example.

I had hoped that a formula that would permit an astronomer to double check his observations would be a welcome thing. I am not interested in finding fault- on the contrary ? I have a great deal of respect for the patience and attention that is required for astronomers to gather their data. This formula is just one part of an overall inquisition into the fine point mechanics of the system.

My approach may be strange by accepted means utilized to get the same results. The difference is that I see the Sun/planet relationship very different from the usual. Assume that the minimum radius of the Solar System can be divided up into tracks, say possibly 1,000,000 miles apart from the Sun going out to the edge of the minimum circumference. I contend that each segment, each position, of that space is a speed lane that will cause an object located there to have a mean orbital velocity that is exactly predictable without regard to an object that is located in the spot by way of its Mass. That is part of the basis for my getting the significant numbers I use for the planets and the satellites. It is the most simplified method that I know of and the results are precise.

You may still have doubts or questions and I can understand that.

jjw

#16302 11/09/06 05:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Hi jjw,

I have no further doubts or questions.

Dr. R.

#16303 11/10/06 01:22 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
I would never have guessed.

Nice chat.

jjw


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5