Robittybob1

I was hoping it was a yes, yes and yes. So who is going to sort this impasse out? Have a look at the types of orbits around a barycenter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29 In all cases the distance between the two masses is further than distance from any one of them to the barycenter. So you must agree that "r" the distance between them is greater than the "r" to the barycenter point.

So one "r" is only a proportion of the other "r". The "r" of the gravitation force is the whole distance and the "r" of the barycenter is a proportion of that first "r" but they are not equal. Do you agree with that? so combining the equations as you've done is wrong. Agree?

Envious of you your la Tex skills, but in this case how were you going to define "r"? What is "r"? The two "r" s you are are using are not the same quantity when it comes to barycenter calculations.

Here is one of the strangest stories I've read. "Indian bride marries wedding guest after husband has epileptic seizure during ceremony" http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/indian-bride-marries-wedding-guest-after-husband-has-epileptic-seizure-during-ceremony/ar-BBhI162?ocid=UP97DHP I wonder if she will keep her wedding vows?

Thanks for the encouragement. But now I have these exact figures and I have to to see if they could be physically correct, for the exact figures I have found don't represent the real situation but the ideal situation, and now I am trying to find an explanation why the real measurements are different from the ideal. It is hard work trying to comprehend the situation. So I'm going to have to do some chores and come back to it. I had better see if the ideal figures work for the Sun part of the barycenter as well. I have only calculated for the Jupiter half at this moment, but since I have a way of adjusting the ideal barycenter radii I have every confidence it will, but better to be safe than sorry.

As I posted in the other Sun barycenter thread but is very pertinent here; this point in important. So this is not a repeated post. Why am I using centrifugal force when I have not seen centrifugal force being used? Centrifugal (or is it centripetal force?) for I don't assign a sign to it but I just calculate "mV^2/r" but the r has to be the radius that the body is taking around the barycenter not the "r" of the gravitational attraction force., which is the distance between the bodies (that was the source of my errors yesterday). With this simultaneous equation situation I have been able to find exact solutions to bodies going around a barycenter. (That was where I ended up last night at 1:30 in the morning! I love science to the detriment of my body.) Like if we were to say the masses and times are exact (which they are not, but for the time let's say they are), we then can tell exactly where the masses will orbit (if they are in a true binary orbiting situation). Using these two equations and redefining the distances between the bodies I am able to readjust the two radii of the barycenter continually refining the distances until I got the exact solution. (OK there maybe better math out there but that is how I have been able to do it using a formulated Excel worksheet which automatically recalculates the barycenter distances and both lots of forces every time I adjust the distances between the bodies looking for the situation where each body's gravitational attraction is balanced by the centrifugal force it experiences going around the barycenter with that exact period and mass. I had my doubts about the Sun being a true binary, the reason I started that thread, but to get a lead on the situation we looked first looked at Pluto Charon as an example of a true binary, and later in this thread we are looking specifically at the Jupiter Sun situation. Trying our best to keep on topic.

This is one of the weirdest things to me too, is that I have not seen centrifugal force being used. Centrifugal (or is it centripetal force?) for I don't assign a sign to it but just calculate "mV^2/r" but the r has to be the radius that the body is taking around the barycenter not the "r" of the gravitational attraction force., which is the distance between the bodies (that was the source of my errors yesterday). With this simultaneous equation situation I have been able to find exact solutions to bodies going around a barycenter. Like if we were to say the masses and times are exact (which they are not, but for the time let's say they are), we then can tell exactly where the masses will orbit (if they are in a true binary orbiting situation). Using these two equations and redefining the distances between the bodies I am able to readjust the two radii of the barycenter continually refining the distances until I got the exact solution. (OK there maybe better math out there but that is how I have been able to do it using a formulated Excel worksheet which automatically recalculates the barycenter distances and both lots of forces every time I adjust the distances between the bodies looking for the situation where each body's gravitational attraction is balanced by the centrifugal force it experiences going around the barycenter with that exact period and mass. I had my doubts about the Sun being a true binary, the reason I started this thread, but to get a lead on the situation we looked first looked at Pluto Charon as an example of a true binary, and later in another thread we are looking specifically at the Jupiter Sun situation.

I'm thinking we have to look at the simplest situation first. If we can find a solution to circular orbits (with just two bodies Jupiter and the Sun) then we will introduce eccentricity and complexity after that.

Note: I have withdrawn those figures for the moment.

You will note they are not the same question every time, they are specific questions that I want answered. In this thread I want to discover the barycenter between Jupiter and the Sun, and then to get Jupiter and the Sun to orbit that point perfectly, so that the gravitational attraction between the masses balances both of their centrifugal forces as they orbit the barycenter. Up to now none of the figures were giving consistent answers. If there was just the Sun and Jupiter in the Solar System and they had perfectly circular orbits there are values whereby the Sun and Jupiter with their current calculated mass could orbit their barycenter at the exact time period. Once you throw in all the other planets and their eccentric orbits I have a feeling it is not that easy to do. These are the figures for a perfect orbit of Jupiter around the Sun both orbiting their common barycenter. Distance apart () than best measurement) barycenter from primary (Sun) () than best measurement). If the actual figures exceed these precise values it shows something else is happening. (still being edited)

Of all the planets Jupiter being the largest has the best chance of orbiting its barycenter with the Sun, well so I thought. What does the maths tell us? How to calculate the Barycenter? How to calculate the gravitational attraction between the Sun and Jupiter. Comparing that gravitational force to the centrifugal force of a planet orbiting a point. What do the references tell us at the moment.

Strange thing is math is not my strongest point, yet when I listen to a lecture on math it is really interesting so I'm determined to improve. At the moment I'm just using a formulated Excel sheet with my data in column A and I use each data entry as a referenced cell, so the maths is not hard I just have to write the equations perfectly and not make the sheet too spread out that I'd get lost.

It is tricky even in the situation of Jupiter and the Sun. You would think they would both orbit their common barycenter end of story, maybe I have messed up somewhere.

Thinking this through is quite tricky, lets assume the above conclusion is correct, most of that distance comes off the Jupiter side of the barycenter. So let the Sun orbit with that radius 742794000 m. Now we should recalculate the Gravitation attraction, for we are saying they are closer because the Sun is being drawn toward Jupiter. I call this distance the Effective Gravitational Distance (EGD) and from the centrifugal force calculations I estimate that to be 7.78245E+11 m. If my logic is right that should give a gravitational force equal to the centrifugal force of Jupiter. (Logic correct). There still could be a problem for I am trying to calculate centrifugal force from a modified radius. But ignore that for the moment and we'll come back to it. Centrifugal force of the Sun = mV^2/r, r being 742794000 and v is the circumference/period, the period being that of Jupiter, period being 742794000 seconds. Velocity of the Sun going around its wobble 12.47 m/sec (12.46941459) So the Centrifugal force = 4.16371E+23 - a way more than it should be. All I can say for sure is the Sun does not orbit the barycenter but how to sort it out is beyond me at the moment. The radius was 599,361,605 longer that needs to account for the G force. That is nearly as much as the solar radius 6.96E+08

Yes those two figures (13068.82 m/sec = 13070 m/sec) were considered the same. I was comparing 13056.35 with 13070 (as given by Wiki or 13068.82 as calculated by me using Jupiter-Sun distance), for when I use the average Sun-Jupiter distance their orbital velocity comes out as their calculated value. Well let's see what Janus has to say. I don't know how they got their figure at this stage. What can we say about the Sun's centrifugal forces compared to just Jupiter's gravitational force? I''ll be back later to discuss this.

I would like to try the same analysis we did to Pluto-Charon to the Sun-Jupiter combination. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87761-pluto-charon-combination-how-two-astronomical-bodies-orbit-barycenter/#entry852932 But the Sun has a much more complex pattern of orbit than Pluto does. Where would we start? OK get some orbital distances and masses and accurate periods and plug them into the formula(s). Jupiter mass - 1.898E+27 kg (317.8 Earth mass) Jupiter period around Sun (Jupiter orbits the Sun every 11.86 Earth years (or 4,332 days) * seconds in a day (86400) = 374,284,800 seconds. Distance to Sun Jupiter barycenter. barycenter with the Sun lies above the Sun's surface at 1.068 solar radii * 6.955E+8 m or 778,500,000,000 - 1.068*6.955E+8 = 777,757,206,000 Average total Distance from Sun: 778,500,000,000 m Mass of Sun 1.9891E+30 kilograms Period should be the same??? Distance Of Sun center to Sun Jupiter barycenter? 1.068*6.955E+8 = 742794000 m Find out the force of gravitational attraction. G = 6.67E-11 Fg =G*m1*m2/(r^2) (equal and opposite) = 4.1573E+23 N Find out their centrifugal forces: Fc=mV^2/distance to barycenter (Velocity = 2 * pi * r / T or in words circumference / time period Problem here is that Wikipedia has Jupiter's orbital speed based on it orbiting the Sun and not the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. So we don't agree on orbital speed. 13056.35 m/sec around baycenter 13068.82 m/sec if orbit centered on the Sun (assumed reason for difference) figure given was 13070 m/sec from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter Sun: Jupiter: force = mV^2/r 4.16E+23 Which means the centrifugal force was greater than the calculated Gravitational force which must mean the Sun is effectively drawn toward Jupiter so to increase the Gravitational force (which then will shift the barycenter so the whole thing will require finer adjustments) but supports my original hypothesis that the Sun is displaced from the center of the Solar System, and from raw calculations that looks to be in the order of 254,704,106 meters or 0.37 Solar radii. Compare them. I'll edit this post as the data is found and converted to SI units kg, m and sec.

Yes you would wonder why her mother didn't take her to a doctor years ago. [Phi for All - By "hypnosis" I was meaning had she considered it a type of "self-induced hypnosis"? "Have you considered hypnosis?" wasn't the treatment.]

That is a bit contradictory for if you are dizzy you can't do whatever you want.

Do you operate machinery or drive a vehicle? Anything that makes you feel dizzy while doing these could have severe repercussions so hypnosis seems rather a painless thing to try.

Have you considered hypnosis? If it was someone could hypnotize you and reverse it.

Thanks Mark, and thanks to Janus to for his knowledge of formulas. I just can't wait to see what New Horizons will reveal about Pluto and its moons. I found it weird to see the moon and the "planet" orbiting each other tidally locked it really amazed me and you would wonder what sets this off. If my theory about what causes a magnetic field is correct I predict that Pluto will have no strong magnetic field if any. There may be some magnetism locked into the rock core but that will be all.

I think you'd see the results quite quickly for in the first few generations you'd be selecting for the ones that survive radiation. You could end up producing a problem type bacterium one that is just about impossible to sterilize using radiation!

Since Pluto has 4 moons if you account for all the distance and motion just with Charon you aren't leaving yourself any centrifugal/ centripetal forces to deal with the other Moons. So I am happy that they don't quite fit as that is what I'd expect. The other moons may tend to fix Pluto in its central location giving it a lower value of centrifugal force compared to Charon, so Pluto orbits closer to the barycenter without having to be more massive.

Have you seen the other thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87761-pluto-charon-combination-how-two-astronomical-bodies-orbit-barycenter/ Between now and July when the New Horizons probe gets there! Very very exciting.

Thanks for that. I must have done something wrong earlier as I calculated that Pluto didn't have the correct amount of centripetal force. I'll have double check this before going on. Are these the distances you are using? These are given in Wikipedia but P-B was calculated from the other two, but seems to be where the discrepancy comes in. full C-B P-B 19571 km Full 19571000 meters (C-P) Charon-barycenter 17536000 meters (C-B) Pluto - barycenter 2035000 meters (P-B) What is the P-B figure you are using? Where did you get it from? You and I have different ratios of the velocities and velocity was linked to the distances to the barycenter. My ratio: 8.617199017 Yours: 8.585541454 so we must be using different figures for the radii. NASA site So what does that mean? So roughly full distance in thousand kilometers = 19.6 C-B = 17.6 and P-B = 2.0