Robittybob1

If Jupiter moved further away the barycenter between the the Sun and Jupiter would get further away too, but Jupiter's influence on the movement of the Sun would diminish. The over all influence is based more on the force of the gravitation attraction. As I said originally "For the proto-Sun must have been sitting in the middle of the protoplanetary disc so how does it get orbital energy to start orbiting a barycenter?" When the matter of the protoplanetary disc was more evenly distributed the SS barycenter would not have swirled around as it does on a 12 yearly cycle. My prediction is that it may have moved a bit but less than it does now. Do you agree with that prediction? (It was posted a bit early in the morning, sorry for the spelling errors)

But do you know if it was as lopsided as it is today with the two big gas giant planets Jupiter ans Saturn especially when they are on the same side of the solar system? I have never seen any suggestion before that this was the case. I understand about the angular momentum and the gravitational potential in the early proto-sun/protoplanetary disc, but it is the mass distribution imbalance (resulting from the formation of the massive planets) that I was question questioning. The Sun doesn't fall back to balance this, no, but is always drawn toward the imbalanced forces, but the planets are moving and hence the Sun begins wobbling. Now you tell me if you think I have come to an ill formed conclusion please? I don't think the barycenter of the SS is a stationary point in the SS. Am I right or wrong about that?

I'm getting the picture now.

one more: https://astrogeek.wordpress.com/2007/01/08/technicality-jupiter-does-not-orbit-the-sun/ So what doesn't make sense as yet is that as the barycenter alters when the planets rearrange but what makes the Sun orbit at different rates? Does its orbital energy continually change? I can see how it might have been brought up at some stage but then how does it get rid of it? For those who like a visual representation: Only thing I can't get was them saying "When Jupiter and Saturn are on the one side the Sun must recede from the barycenter to offset these planet's significant mass". How can it? The barycenter can move but the Sun, can it be moved? In fact when both of them are on the same side together the Sun would tend to move toward Jupiter and Saturn, gravity would not make the Sun recede from them!

That would be true initially but once Jupiter starts getting real massive the Solar System (SS) becomes lopsided wherever Jupiter is there is more mass on that side, so unless the Sun was orbiting a common barycenter too it would be drawn toward Jupiter. Just to check I got my facts straight: Barycenter in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29 But before Jupiter formed the Sun wasn't orbiting any barycenter with Jupiter, so explain what makes the Sun start orbiting? If we look at the data collected we see a complex pattern. Just glancing at diagram you see they are approximately 12 year loops so one could assume the major influence on this pattern is the 11.86 year orbital period of Jupiter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter Look I have found an article that asks the same question as I am. http://solarchords.com/solar-chord-science/astrophysicists-earth-orbit-sun-or-barycentre/ So I have to look at that now. But if I'm not mistaken the SS barycenter isn't a stationary point either, it would be shifting depending on the arrangement of the of the planets in particular Jupiter.

Do we orbit the center of mass of the solar system or just the center of mass between the Sun and The Earth? It was discussed on another thread on the forum but I've lost track of it. So if the two biggest objects in our Solar System have a Barycenter outside of the radius of the Sun then would Mercury be orbiting this center of mass as well? Maybe that is the solution to the 3 body problems - do we have to go back to the combined Center of mass and orbit that. Even if we say that Mercury orbits the center of the Sun, and the Sun orbits around the barycenter (between it and Jupiter) that would mean Mercury is orbiting in some unusual way too. How does that start off? For the proto-Sun must have been sitting in the middle of the protoplanetary disc so how does it get orbital energy to start orbiting a barycenter? Please I would still like someone to answer these question if possible. Here is my first attempt: As the mass of material that formed Jupiter gathered together the mass of the Sun would gravitate toward it, but that mass is orbiting so it would drag the Sun behind it gradually build up momentum, so that means jupiter would have to migrate inward losing gravitational potential energy to make up for the energy transferred to the Sun.

Please: I would still like someone to answer this question if possible.

Do we orbit the center of mass of the solar system or just the center of mass between the Sun and The Earth? It was discussed on one thread on another forum but I've lost track of it. So if the two biggest objects in our Solar System have a Barycenter outside of the radius of the Sun then would Mercury be orbiting this center of mass as well? Maybe that is the solution to the 3 body problems - do we have to go back to the combined Center of mass and orbit that.

How do the tides fit in within the picture? Can you explain your concept of it please?

Then why doesn't it just enter matter and make stars and planets many times denser than they are then? What is stopping it?

Interesting. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21866464 Scientist in the interview confirmed the dark matter finding. Dark matter content has gone up and Dark Energy has gone down. (Cambridge University's George Efstathiou being interviewed)

That is OK he/she would then be able to plug in different mass planets at the distance of the Asteroid Belt region and see how stable they behave.

I think "Enthalpy" has a program that will run the 3 body problem.

Fair enough, you've said exactly what I tried to say. So do you agree it is not the size of Ceres that matters the most when it comes to stability but rather its resonance based on the orbital frequency of the nearby planets

There is rather a large gap between Mars and Jupiter. Since gravitational acceleration is proportional to mass, a small planet (Ceres) would be affected by gravity from another body the same (in one locality all objects fall the same rate due to gravity), hence I say size does not matter.

I reasoned the mass of Ceres would not matter. In your opinion if it was more massive what difference would that make?

Or even troll-like crap toasted. Fair dinkum!

If it had a surface at all, wouldn't it be more like the shell of a ping pong ball? Or even solid like a neutron star but forever incrementing in size?

What makes you think you are on the right path that we should listen to you?

Some say Length Contraction is not physical others do, so at the moment why do you need length contraction, and besides when was the synchronization was done? Some say before others say after the train accelerated. Am I allowed to say I think you misunderstood me? We now have multiple observers and multiple clocks, all the clocks on the moving train read the same time, and all the clocks on the platform have the same time. So if the center points both agree it is 12:00 each opposing clock set should be agreeing with each other. I understand no one will agree as to the time of a particular event, but we are NOT describing the event, but just saying the opposing clocks will all agree at 1 time only and thereafter won't agree any more.

That surely can't be right. if all the train clocks are reading identical times, and all the platform clocks are reading identical times, if at the mid point both agree it is 12:00 then I can't see why at each point along the train a clock there won't read exactly the same time as one on the platform opposite it.

In this case the event is synchronized by the two observers passing each other, middle of the train meets middle of platform, or done by timing devices equidistant from the center.

"such situations ...... are beyond thinking the problem through." Can you predict what amounts to the chaotic behaviour of the "Three body problem"? The situation would need to be run through a computer using something like Wolfram Mathematica "Three body problem". But since the Asteroid ring has survived at all bodes well for an Earth sized planet there, in my opinion, but I'm not a computer!

A flashlight goes off on the far rear corner of the train and light from that goes along the train on the inside and along the outside. Does the wavefront of light travel side by side both inside and out? But as the observer inside the train is moving forward with the light front, he won't be seeing the flash at the same time as the observer on the platform, will he? And if there were two flashlights attached to the train that go off so that the platform observer sees them simultaneously the observer on the train will see the front flash before the rear flash. Agree or disagree? The observer in the train will not believe they went off simultaneously, but it can be explained if he realises he is moving forward and light travels at c to both observers.

Could you see the logic of this? You asked me to explain it but you have not commented. I know it changes things around a bit.