Leaderboard

There are a number of elements that are used to fully describe a planet's orbit.: The semi-major axis of the orbit (average orbital radius) The eccentricity ( how elliptical the orbit is) The orbital inclination The longitude of perihelion The longitude of the ascending node. The last three are measured with respect to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The imaginary plane which passes through the Earth's orbit is the ecliptic. The orbital inclination is how much the planet's orbit is tilted relative to this plane.* The longitude of perihelion is measured relative to the Vernal equinox. (draw a line from the Sun that passes through the Earth's orbit where the Earth would be on the date of the spring equinox.) If you draw a line between planet and Sun when the planet is at perihelion ( the closest point of its orbit around the Sun, the angle between this line and the line above will give you the longitude of perhelion. (which also gives you how the major axis of the orbit is aligned). The longitude of the ascending node gives you where the plane of the planet's orbit and the ecliptic cross each other. *Because the Earth is subject to various gravitational disturbance from other planets, this plane can change. To keep things simple, the ecliptic is defined as the plane of the Earth orbit on the starting date of the epoch we are presently in. That way, we aren't always adjusting the inclinations of the other orbits due to the Earth own orbital changes.) All of these elements are subject to change over time due to being perturbed by other bodies in the solar system. The Horizons web site can give the these values and the position of a planet for any date: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#top

Here is an example of a elliptical orbit where we can see the other focus more clearly than your drawings: (From: https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/esm/orbits/orb_ell) If we take the line between the Sun and the other focus, I think you are asking: "what is the angle of that line?" (Here it is aligned with the X-axis, but it could be rotated at any angle) Is that correct? If there is only a single planet (as in that diagram) then it doesn't really matter what orientation you choose because there is nothing to compare it to. If you have several planets, then their ellipses will all be aligned differently. The only way you can know the actual alignments is by making measurements of the planetary orbits. Here is a more realistic diagram of several orbits in the solar system: From: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/orbits-in-the-solar-system/ - that looks like a good page that might answer a lot of your questions. As you can see, the planetary orbits are pretty close to circular. Also, the relative alignment of the ellipses will change over time as the interaction of the bodies will cause the orbits to deviate from perfect ellipses. Like this: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession Note that if you are simulating the orbits by calculating the positions after shot time intervals, you need to be sure your simulation converges. For example, if your time steps are too large, then the simulation will be inaccurate and the orbit will become unstable and you will fling the Earth off into space. Not easy, because the eccentricity the orbit is so small.

Start by realizing that most behavior is classified along multiple spectrums. By arbitrarily picking one aspect where you think someone else has more natural talent than you do, you're ignoring all the other aspects of existence where you may keep pace or even excel. Since we're far beyond the point where any single person could know everything about just one scientific subject, your focus should be learning everything we know about something that really interests you. Don't worry about adding to that knowledge; I think that happens naturally as you learn more about the subject. Don't force insight to come; it grows out of necessity. Perhaps your jealousy is more about feeling a need to catch up rather than feeling others are smarter. We often look at those we think of as "naturally talented" and assume everything comes easier for them, that they got some kind of head start. But learning isn't really a race. You need to know what you need to know, without knowing what for, or how much time you'll have. All you can do is find trustworthy information and learn what you can at your own pace.

I suppose one way of thinking of it (which I am not able to defend with actual statistical data) is that smarter people may have a higher chance of finding an answer or new idea at any given moment, but that it is not a certainty. I am not sure if smart people will by definition come up with more ideas, but since that is a thought that pops up in your head, let's go with it: A smart person at any given moment has a higher chance than you to think of a good idea or some new knowledge, but that doesn't mean that said smart people will do so, therefore you can and probably should (if you want to create new knowledge) try, as there is always the chance that you will come up with a new idea that other people have not. The smarter people may outperform you in quantity, but there is a (almost) limitless amount of new knowledge that can be created, so just go for it, the chance that a smarter person will come up with THAT particular piece of new knowledge before you do is not hundred percent, so if you try enough, you may/will come up with new knowledge. Potentially many times someone smarter will have thought of it before you, so you try again, and again, each time rolling the dice and eventually you can win the jackpot (so to say). That said, I don't think being smart alone is a good determinant for creating knowledge either. Someone has to be interested in something, has to be thinking about the right stuff, at the right time, and combining already existing pieces of knowledge in just the right way to create a new piece of knowledge.T here seems to be some amount of 'randomness' to be involved in that process. People also have to be interested enough to write down and publicize there ideas for it to be a real addition to the common pool of knowledge. Additionally, a smart person may focus too much on a single subject to never come along a new piece of information, so by being interested and reading about many things, you increase the chance of coming up with something new anyway. You said you have a craving for knowledge, so if the above doesn't resonate with you, just go forget creating new knowledge for the sake of creating new knowledge. Instead, pursue finding/inventing new knowledge for the sake of bettering your own understanding of any given subject: in your pursuit of new knowledge, you will gain existing knowledge and new insights (that maybe other people have already had, but for you they will be new knowledge), and remember that every new piece of knowledge (in your mind) does bring you closer to the possible discovery of something truly new, unseen or unthought before. I found the book 'Where good ideas come from' by Steven Johnson, an interesting read about how new knowledge is (generally) created. I don't know how true the book is, but I feel it may be a perspective that can help you remove doubt from oneself (it is not about doubt in the slightest, but about the ideas that new knowledge generally only becomes available when several 'facts' or concepts known today, come together in someone's mind. That mind does not have to be a genius). I hope this helps, and if it does not, then I hope someone else can maybe provide you with something to reduce/eliminate your self doubt. PS. You can always go the Mohammed Ali route and just keep saying that YOU ARE THE GREATEST and that by definition YOU WILL CREATE NEW KNOWLEDGE (I do wonder about the efficacy of this method though).

Two very important concepts you don't seem to grasp. The universe, in the Big Bang model, evolves from a smaller version of itself, where separation between non-gravitationally bound objects decreases, as you go further backwards in time. The logical end result of this backward trip in time, is a singularity, but there are many reasons to discount the singular universal beginning, so we conjecture a hot dense initial state. Once expansion ( and/or inflation ) starts, we have an era that is dominated by radiation, as electrons cannot sick to protons to form atoms. The ambient 'energy' ( temperature ) is like in the Sun, a plasma, and only when the temperature drops below 3000 deg C , will electrons bond to protons without ionizing. If we consider this temperature, and factor in the approximate expansion of the universe since the end of the radiation era ( slightly more than 1000 times, we get the temperature of the CMB ( I believe G Gamow first did this calculation in the 40s ) of 2.7 deg C. And sure enough, Penzias and Wilson found the CMB in the 50s, at just that temperature. You cannot be 'outside' the universe. Saying that 'if you cannot visualize it it doesn't exist', is a cop-out for that reason. Where is the center of a doughnut shape, if you are INSIDE ? And since anytime you are looking into a distance, you are in effect, looking back in time ( finite speed of light ), it makes no sense to consider only 3dimensional volumes. You need to consider 4dimensional space-time. Can you visualize that ??? Both of these concepts also explain why the CMB has not passed by you. The CMB is the relic radiation of EVERY POINT in the universe, not a specific location, so it can never pass you by on its way to somewhere else. One final point... You ask us to discuss your conjecture based solely on 'logic' ( not mathematically defined logic, but personal subjective 'logic' ), yet you demonstrate that you lack the basic knowledge of even some of the things you are trying to explain, such as Dark Matter. ( I would hate to hear what your take on Dark Energy is ) You are basically asking people to waste their time discussing your conjecture, as all indications are that any mathematical model will be similarly flawed. You wan't to build a skyscraper, yet you lack the foundations to build it on; why not ask questions where you lack knowledge, and build a foundation. Then you'll have some idea as to what kind of building you can build on those foundations

two questions, one why are these large children playing on a stage. where are there parents. second, not really a question, I did not know there was such a thing a double violin. I like that

But maybe I'm a creep...

It's in your eye's.

We have two choices: 1. Try harder... 2. Accept and chill... Personally, I choose 2, but there is no right answer; I'm just lazy...

Making the Model Relativistic pt 2.docx

This is an interesting way of putting it, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful way. A farmer might say, "FALAIR, I have had a craving for food and a want to create more". An artist would pick art, and a police officer might choose order, but to me these are different. Knowledge is more fundamental, so I understand the craving, but creating more scientific knowledge seems like a focus on the goal that ignores the journey. In learning anything, I think we create the opportunity to apply knowledge in completely new ways. It happens because we understand better with more knowledge, rather than because we set out to learn something we didn't know. But that's not the way knowledge works. It's not just the "smarter than you" people who advance knowledge. Sometimes perspective can add to knowledge, and everyone has one of those. There was a guy not too long ago that devised a way to light the inside of a simple hut during the day by using recycled two liter plastic bottles and water. Solved a major problem cheaply, and he did it because he learned about refraction of sunlight and applied it to his own circumstances. Another great way of putting it. All those people before you, collecting the total sum of human knowledge so you can start your journey up the mountain with a healthy lead. You're in the best position to learn mainstream science, we've never known this much before. Pick an area and start making sure you know the basics.

The only way to be "so much better than myself" is to be all you can be in the face of the knowledge that you aren't the greatest. I think Ali understood, "rope a dope"...

We all want to be more than we are, growing up I wanted to be as good as Bruce Lee, I knew I couldn't be so I didn't even try, so I just wished it. I wanted to be able to kick arse not just defend myself and loved ones, but TBH that was never needed anyway, besides it completely misses the point of Kung Fu. Only Bruce can be Bruce besides all his ability didn't stop him getting his back broken, but it did cement his legendary status because of what he did next. There are no short cuts, you can't wish an ability into being, besides nobody is infallible or can know everything; all you can do is your best, be content with that, otherwise you're just kicking your own arse.

Good expression I may have to borrow that one

A viable new theory agrees with current theory to the point where the current theory loses viability or where it has nothing to say, then extends beyond it.

It would be "aren't" because we require grammatical agreement. In the same that we say "you are" and not "you is" even when talking to a single person because "you" is a plural pronoun (we lost the singular form, "ye", a long time ago although it is still used in some dialects).

I would think so. Spinning separators work on density, to separate cream from milk, for example. Knock-out pots ( or cyclonic filters ) work on the same principle as a snow fence. Air has to accelerate to go over it, and the heavier snow drops out on the windward side. For this same reason I wouldn't think ventilation systems would spread virus droplets. Going through a high speed fan will get rid of most virus droplets. ( usually the knock-out pot or cyclonic separator is just ahead of the fan to collect dust, liquid or whatever you're separating out of the airstream )

A better question is why [math] 10^{-43}[/math]. Would it help to recognize that number is one unit of Planck time with our current observable universe to the volume of 1 Planck length. The temperature being equivalent to Planck temperature. The Planck units are in essence boundary conditions on which our ability to mathematically describe in essence breaks down into Infinities and nonsensical results. You often only hear the space and time axis in essence flipping roles for the GR descriptive but cosmology must also include both macro and quantum effects. So its good to understand how the limits of the macro and quantum theories apply. (String theory also recognizes these limits) One detail as mentioned in this thread is were describing our Observable portion in essence the limits of shared observable causality with our current universe. Time being a measure of rate of change or duration you in essence need a dimension in order to have something to measure or even something that must be able to change. However one must also realize that the t=0 represents the collective worldlines of all particles in our observable portion extrapolated from the closest we can mathematically describe and potentially measure. In the closest to pointlike we can describe. It does not represent any time outside our region of shared causality. In essence [math]10^{-43}[/math] is the origin of time for all potential worldlines in our observable universe that are extrapolated to the beginning of our observable universe (as the emitter event).

I don't think BBT precludes the universe being eternal. It just describes it emerging from a hot, dense state, which happened 14BY ago.