Robittybob1

According to the Wiki data the orbital speed of Charon was 210 m/sec (0.21 km/sec) but using the distance to the barycenter as a radius (2*pi*r/period. I thought that should calculate orbital velocity: Distance gone/time taken = velocity) but using that it came out to 199 m/sec. But the 199 m/sec gave a perfect balance with the centrifugal forces against the gravitational attraction formula. I wonder how they calculated the higher speed with those other factors? Can the barycenter not be the point of rotation (as I proposed in an earlier thread?) How much larger would the RADIUS have to be to get 210 m/sec in the orbital period? 18444451.6 meters or an increase in the RADIUS of 908451.5 meters (908 km) but something orbiting a larger radius actually orbital velocity will slow, problem only gets worse. My original idea was to orbit Charon around the barycenter but to move the barycenter on a circle with a radius of 908 km, so that it maintains the correct Gravitation forces, the right centrifugal forces and the calculated velocity of 220 m/sec. I have not seen calculations to do such a thing as orbiting a wobbling point.

Some interesting facts about that planet: No life there Mark!

The problem with that approach is that it appears the orbital period is known to a very high degree of accuracy Whereas if you were to look at the difference between those two periods we get 5261 seconds or 87.68 minutes or roughly an hour and a half yet the orbit only varies by 0.1 of a second.

There doesn't have to be a constant radius. If the mass goes up Earth's gravity as a whole will increase (the "r" in the equation is not the radius of the Earth but the distance between the two masses M1 and M2.

I used the degree of accuracy for distance +/- 4 km and added on another 4 km and it was still slow but not by much. I think this is tending toward the proof I was looking for, trying to show that the larger mass, even the Sun, is not orbiting like a true binary . Here we have Charon racing around Pluto with the centrifugal forces matching the gravitational force but Pluto under rating so if anything it is Pluto that is going slow not Charon but the orbital period for each is the same. I'm not familiar with the mechanics of that yet, and it could come about with Charon being captured by Pluto, so Pluto to start with was not orbiting but this binary pattern (as we see it today) developed over time. Could that be possible? If that was the case Charon would have been further out and came in closer as momentum was given to Pluto, as Pluto gained (is gaining) more and more orbital motion. Just like with the Earth and the Moon there are multiple solutions to their orbital period and the distance apart. The Moon was once real close to the Earth and it is being tidally accelerated further away. There is not just one distance these bodies can be apart, it is more like an infinite number of solutions. If you got the time "A True Story About Planet Pluto: | Passport to Pluto and Beyond"

Random would be the right word if there was no selection.

Using Janus' method to find the orbital period also gave surprising results. 551672.99, from using Janus method and 551856.7 from the actual listed time period in Wikipedia (I assume that is a measured time period), and the difference in the two periods = 183.71 seconds. So Charon is orbiting Pluto a full 3 minutes slower than the physics equations say it should! Anyone got an explanation for that?

So far it looks like Charon has a centripetal force equal to the gravitational force between them but Pluto has less centripetal force than the gravitational force. Could someone check my calculations please? How could that be explained? Is Pluto still being accelerated or are the other Moons around Pluto slowing it down? centripetal force for Pluto = 3.44E+18. centripetal force for Charon 3.46E+18. G force between them 3.46E+18. I have yet to try Janus' formulas. I just compared the G force to the centripetal forces based on the values in Wikipedia (as above). Trying Janus' formulas 1. velocity =sqrt((G*m^2)/(d*(m+M))) for Pluto that gave an incorrect answer of 1.74766E-09 Are the units in kg and meters and seconds? (I see at least 1 error - I forgot to square the mass!) Now I'm getting a better answer =199.6466938 m/sec but still not the same as finding the circumference and dividing by the time. Previous answer using my method velocity for Charon 199.6567905 velocity for Pluto 23.16956938 Using Janus' equation I thought I was calculating Pluto's velocity but the answer came out close (but not the same) to what I had previously got for Charon. By Janus' method: 199.6466938 = Velocity for Charon 23.25386779 = Velocity for Pluto So why were the answers different?

Their orbital periods are the same: Their orbit s are said to be circular in shape so the circumference/ period = velocity So the velocity is proportional to radius and V^2 is proportional to area Data from Wikipedia on Charon Orbital period 6.3872304±0.0000011 d (6 d, 9 h, 17 m, 36.7 ± 0.1 s) Average orbital speed Charon 0.21 km/s[note 2 = Calculated on the basis of other parameters.] Semi-major axis 17536±4 km to system barycenter, 19571±4 km to the center of Pluto (Barycenter closest to Pluto) Mass (1.52±0.06)×1021 kg[3] (11.6% of Pluto) Data from Wikipedia on Pluto: Mass (1.305±0.007)×1022 kg[9] The centripetal force = mV^2/r (the radius from the barycenter in this case) and that should for both objects of this binary be equal to the gravitational force between them.

For two bodies to orbit a common barycenter the centrifugal forces would have to balance the centripetal forces caused by the gravitational attraction between the two masses. With the Pluto-Charon pair we will need to know where the barycenter is (defined by the mass of each body and their separation) and their velocities (defined by their orbital period and orbital radius) This is a representation of what we want to analyse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#mediaviewer/File:Orbit2.gif Here is an actual photo of the two bodies orbiting each other: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20150212

I just think thousands of km of ocean floor, sloping down will result in compression at the bottom of the incline.

Tell me about it! Someone else can do the maths I just need to understand the physics of it. I will be looking at the the Pluto-Charon combination since a spacecraft is honing onto it and it will really give us a perfect example of planets and moons orbiting a barycenter.

Some fairly recent work by Russian scientist found a strong correlation between the conjunction of the 3 planets Jupiter Earth and Venus to the Solar Sunspot Cycle. http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103%2FS0027134912040108 Cycles of solar activity and the configurations of planets V. P. Okhlopkov So if the alignment of the planets acts as the switch what is happening back on the Sun? Still seems to have a large variability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum (Maybe they are not completely linked?).

For two bodies orbiting a common barycenter the centrifugal forces would have to balance the centripetal force caused by the gravitational attraction between the masses. So we would need to know where the barycenter is (defined by the mass of each body and their separation) and their speeds (orbital period and orbital radius)

I have always thought of an orbit a combination of tangential motion combined with falling toward a mass, where there is sufficient tangential velocity that the mass that is falling misses. If it was just instantaneous attractions it might be more like an asteroid passing by or worse still striking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#Understanding_orbits So it sounds about right.

Well then do you agree that the Sun is being wobbled at the same time as Mercury is orbiting the Sun? That to me, and I hope you agree, means that the Solar System mass is wobbling the orbit of Mercury too.

Please explain yourself thanks. "find the SSB at the center of the orbiting bodies - due to inertial frames." What do you mean by that? If all the matter in the nebula was orbiting it would never have collapsed into a star. Can you start me off then using pluto and Charon? How do we know they are orbiting a common barycenter as the .gif was showing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#mediaviewer/File:Orbit2.gif

That question about taking Jupiter further and further away means that the JSB moves as that happens but the SSB would be somewhat more stable I presume. I suppose it is about the right time to answer the orbital energy question. Can it be shown that both Pluto and Charon have both got the right amount of orbital energy to orbit their center of mass? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#mediaviewer/File:Orbit2.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energycovers it pretty well. Orbital energy = Negative sum of the standard gravitational parameters of the bodies/2 times the semimajor axis

I'm starting to favour the idea that each planet orbits it own barycenter with the Sun but the Sun is moving for it is "orbiting" (not orbiting but moves toward) the SSB. Demonstrated by removing each planet one at a time http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

OK and I assume the same works for a ring, disc or a torus . In the middle of the ring, disc or torus there is no gravity either. So when the protosun was forming in the middle of the protoplanetary disc it was in a gravity free zone (only contending with its own collapse.) Everything outside of it depending on its own orbital energy to remain in the disc. At what point is the inner mass going to start orbiting? It had angular momentum but no orbital energy.

I still can't tell if that answers my question, sorry. But the SSB is the center of mass of the SS so that is going to be the largest CoM around in our region.

This one has some connection to NASA: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/ Well Whiskers clear this misunderstanding up please. Do all/any/some of the planets in your view orbit the SSB? And Strange clearly state your view too please.

So are you saying none of the SS planets orbit the SSB, and all those other people who say they do are incorrect? Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29 "The Sun orbits a barycenter just above its surface." I assume they are talking about the SSB. So maybe contrary to my OP thoughts the Sun is the only body orbiting the SSB! another: http://zidbits.com/2011/09/the-earth-doesnt-actually-orbit-the-sun/ Another one: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

I have no particular point of view on all this, but I'm wanting to understand it and you've definitely helped. If it was possible to fire a rocket off the "surface" of Jupiter heading directly toward the SSB it does seem stupid to think that Jupiter's mass contributes to the pull of gravity ahead and behind the rocket.

What did you mean by "universal"?