Imagine school teachers teaching us topics things like the way this video did, this one video helped literally learn about the ellipse and much in just 5 mins, this channel deserves more subscribers!!
The teachers in my schools DID teach us that the orbits are elliptical. So you are kinda beating a dead horse. The interesting fact is, they stressed the elliptical thing so much, that basically everyone grows up thinking that the orbits are visual ellipses. They arent. Take the 2 with the GREATEST eccentricity, Pluto and Mercury. Plutos minor axis is 97% of its major. Merc is 98%. Those are visual circles. Look in the vid at 1:44. Mercs actual orbit looks nothing like that. If he had it correctly in scale, it would basically just look like a true circle. Merc has an eccentricity of 0.206. Measure/calculate carefully -- the ellipse shown has a minor axis of 80% of its major That is an eccentricity of 0.60, FAR from the actual 0.206
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question, there is a room and two persons are counting some identical objects say x, one person is counting x and putting it inside a bag, the role of another person is to just watch so that there is no mistake in counting. To save the time the person watching just says some random three digit number between 700 and 800 based on his visual judgement, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the actual quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question, there is a room and two persons are counting some identical objects say x, one person is counting x and putting it inside a bag, the role of another person is to just watch so that there is no mistake in counting. To save the time the person watching just says some random three digit number between 700 and 800 based on his visual judgement, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the actual quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
@@Scienceabc your visualization of the planetary ellipses at 1:43 is in error. FI look at Merc, which has an eccentricity of 0.2056. this would make the minor axis 97.9% of the major axis. cos(arcsin 0.2056)*100% In your visualization the mA of Merc is 75% of the MA Even plutos mA (which has the largest eccentricity), mA is 97% of the MA All the planets orbits, even Merc and pluto, are visual circles
and back in my day, it was planet X for planet 10. Is it NOT "planet 9" because we already have a 9th planet, Pluto in all seriousness, it makes sense why it was downgraded to a dwarf planet.
All the planetary orbit paths are basically visual circles Here I list the eccentricity and the percentage which the minor axis is of the major. I list them from least elliptical to most elliptical Ven 0.0068 99.998% Nep 0.0086 99.996 Earth 0.0167 99.986 Uran 0.0472 99.889 Jup 0.0484 99.883 Sat 0.0541 99.854 Mar 0.0934 99.563 Merc 0.2056 97.864 Plu 0.2488 96.855% So one can see that (even in the case of the most elliptical), no planetary orbit path is really a visual ellipse
At 1:39 when you first show the shapes of the planets' orbits: while the orbits of Mars and Mercury have the largest eccentricities, their shapes are still so circular that indeed they should not show as apparent ovals in your diagram. Their orbits are still so very near-circular that we cannot tell.
The way I think about elliptical orbits is this: if celestial bodies only interacted by gravity and could pass through each other, then if two of them were attracted and were moving on paths directly toward each other, when they got close, they'd oscillate along a straight path. However, celestial bodies can't pass through each other, so if they are headed straight at each other, they collide, and either break apart of form a single body. Therefore, orbits can only happen when bodies are on trajectories that aren't directly at each other. Orbits have both a circular component and an a linear component, and these add up to an ellipse.
@@Scienceabc You know..... When ever they show orbital mechanic, and planets orbiting our sun they always depict ideal perfect circles....why..?? .. Why not try to emphasize elliptical shape orbits???? You helped me understand that indeed they are elliptical but not very 🙂.....and you pointed out that Halley's commet is the most elliptical.....unless planet ninth shows up one day soon..... Now that would be really elliptical.... 🙃... Right?
Pluto had quite an elliptical orbit, so if planet nine were to appear in the outer boundaries of the solar system like pluto, it may have an elliptical orbit. But note that this is just speculation, the orbit would be a factor of the planet's mass, distance from the Sun, and interactions with nearby celestial bodies.
i am more confused than before after watching this video. what is the reason for elliptical orbits? why is that equilibrium of mass velocity not there?
I would add the initial angle of the planet path when captured by the center star would play into the circular or elliptical orbit of the planet. This is the case when the planet is captured into this orbital path, or the collision of planets creating the new one(s), etc
when you are in a car and the speed changes 5 miles per hour you feel it. heliosphere model has the earth changing speed with an elliptical orbit and we never feel speed changes during june/jan. WHY DONT WE FEEL THE CHANGE? noone ever has been able to answer this for me
I would think circular orbits would be rare just on the basis of probability. There is only one possible circular orbit a planet could have at a specified distance from its star but many elliptical ones. There is only one orbit with eccentricity 0 (a perfect circle) but many elliptical orbits with eccentricities anywhere between 0 and 1. So it is not at all surprising planetary orbits are elliptical. Of course in solar systems like our own perfectly circular orbits would be impossible since gravitational attractions of other planets would quickly distort the orbit of any planet with a circular orbit into an ellipse.
Thanks for this great explanation. What I stillI would like to understand is where the two focal points of the eclipse are situated. Especially in case of comets. Thanks for taking time to clarify.
I don't know much about astronomy - but it does stand to reason that if you observe enough data about the location of a comet, you should be able to use some basic equations about ellipses in order to figure out the basic measurements : the big axis, the little axis, the 2a numberof the big axis ( which also is the constant for the foci ) , etc.
dont really know what you are asking, but obviously the sun is in one foci, and the other foci is the same distance away from the opposite edge of the ellipse, along the major axis If you have an ellipse, but dont know the distance between the foci, measure the major axis (MA) and minor (axis mA). sine[arccosine(mA/MA)] x MA = distance between the foci Or subtract that result rom the MA, and divide by 2 gives the distance the foci is from the ends of the MA Draw a ellipse, roughhand, draw in the mA and MA. Draw in representations of the foci. Do some trig. You will easily notice that these things are true
4:40 that might have happend when the moon was formed. A protoplanet that crashed into earth, de debree formed the moon, and the rest of it may be swallowed by earth. With remnants deep below our surface
This video is very unelucidating, if not outright misinforming. The question is "why aren't planetary orbits circular" when many (such as Earth) actually are very close to it. It then asks where that tiny deviation comes from, and neglects to mention that elliptical orbits are just as stable as circular ones-in fact this is blatantly contradicted as is said that orbits would be circular if not for interactions. Nature doesn't have a natural preference for circles and the question is more interesting the other way around ("why are they circles at all?"); the answer is that they evolved from rotating dust clouds to the protoplanetary disk to planets. This evolution also explains why our planets "stood the test of time": each planet swept out the dust of its own orbit, and therefore they would space out, and wouldn't intersect unless some great collision event from outside altered their courses. The video also doesn't explain why orbits are elliptical and not, say, egg-shaped, or a closed shape at all, which is a really interesting physical theory but about which the description gives a gibberish explanation of "gravitational interaction over time". Even before Kepler it was long known that planets do not move in perfectly circular orbits. Astronomers have tried to salvage this by adding circles upon circles; so-called epicycles. It was not the Catholic Church who promoted this vision, as is suggested in the animations, but was in fact the scientific consesus of the time, and great astronomers like Tycho Brahe and even Nikolaus Copernicus relied on them. In fact, Kepler wouldn't have had any correspondence Rome at all, seeing that he was a devout Protestant. The Church's problem lay with heliocentricity, not with subtle orbital shapes. Lastly, the scale of eccentricities at 1:10 is strongly exaggerated, for instance "e = 0.25" seems closer to 0.40 (and the path Haley's comet is not eccentric enough), at 3:10 there is a typo "Oribital velocity," and the planets at 4:20 are animated with constant velocity when elliptical orbits have strongly fluctuating velocities. It's also not true that a planet in parabolic orbit escapes from the gravitational influence of the star.
All the planetary orbit paths are basically visual circles Here I list the eccentricity and the percentage which the minor axis is of the major. I list them from least elliptical to most elliptical Ven 0.0068 99.998% Nep 0.0086 99.996 Earth 0.0167 99.986 Uran 0.0472 99.889 Jup 0.0484 99.883 Sat 0.0541 99.854 Mar 0.0934 99.563 Merc 0.2056 97.864 Plu 0.2488 96.855% So one can see that (even in the case of the most elliptical), no planetary orbit path is really a visual ellipse
Yes, the ellipse representing Merc is WAY off . The one shown has an ecc of 0.60, while Mercs is actually 0.206. Probably 99.9% of people do not understand that all the orbit paths of our planets are visual circles. And Ear, Ven, Nep are so accurately circles that their ellipses are MUCH more accurately circles than a circle drawn with a students compass
There is not a damned thing wrong with his vid, forgoshsake. If you desire to go into further depths than he did, make your own vid. As for now, all you have done is use his vid the strut and posture
I enjoyed your video; however, you still haven't answered the question "Why are Planetary Orbits Elliptical as Newton did. It all has to do with gravity.
One does not need Einsteins theories to competently/completely explain planetary ellipses Btw, Eistein was all about explaining things as simply as possible. (Remember the barmaid quote?) He would never have used his theory to explain planetary ellipses. Just the same as he would never have used his theory for the calculations to go to the moon or mars Posturing much?????
Does a rock "have some sort of memory that it will suddenly turn back after" rising 100 ft from you after you threw it? This is exactly the same question you asked about Halleys Comet, and the answer is exactly the same
@@millicentsmallpenny5837 No it isn’t. It’s nothing of the sort. What is the cause of Haley’s Comet turning around each 38 years at its furthest point from the sun? If the sun can let it go for 38 years, and then pull it back, why does it turn a relatively tight corner and head back? What is the observable cause?
@@Mike-pf1ru its called gravity. Exactly the same reason as the rock turning that tight corner and falling back to earth. Does the fact that it took 38 years rather than a few seconds make this "nothing of the sort"?? Because that is all you seem to have. The sun does not "let it go", and the corner cant be said to be "tight" You seem to be trying to prove something here, but in reality, your "proofs" are only proofs through incredulity. That is not a real proof of anything at all. Literally everything in the universe is incredible, but that does not mean everything in the universe is unreal Ultimately, what exactly are you trying to say here? That nothing in the universe revolves around anything? Is that it? Does the Earth revolve around the sun? It revolves in an ellipse. Just the same as Hally revolves in an ellipse. Both are "turning a corner" at each and every moment of their orbit
@@millicentsmallpenny5837 Look at a diagram of an ellipse. There are two focal points. In Haley's comet, the sun is one, and its gravity pulls the comet towards it and slings it back out the other side. What is the cause of the comet hugging the corner of the far side of the ellipse 38 years after it makes it's close curve around the sun? It can't be the sun as it's too far away. The question isn't difficult to understand. The answer appears to be impossible though.
@@Mike-pf1ru I know all there is to know about ellipses and planetary orbits. YOU ARE NOT TEACHING ME ANYTHING BY ASKING THESE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS, which you VERY willfully refuse to answer for yourself. Do you believe that Mercury revolves around the sun? It does. In a relatively circular orbit. And relatively small orbit. AT EACH AND EVERY MOMENT IN ITS ORBIT, ITS CURVE IS FAR, FAR TIGHTER THAN THE TIGHTEST CURVE HALLY EVER MAKES. Does this make Mercs orbit "impossible"? You have absolutely zero knowledge that the sun is "too far away". AGAIN, these "proofs" are simply proofs from incredulity". (You find it incredible that gravity could have an effect at that distance, so it "doesnt"). That is the most poor "proof" you could ever have for anything at all. Answer these questions for yourself first, rather than presuming to teach me. I have learned NOTHING about the subjects of orbits from you, but I am certainly learning a whole lot about YOU. Open an encyclopedia and learn about your subject of interest forgoshsake!!! That would be the honest thing to do!
Because they absorb a certain frequency based on mass distance from the sun and nearby planets and types of planets. The entire movers are light. Absorption is a process of storage. All chemical reactions on earth are not possible on Mars. Associated friction surface tension and pressure. The maximum time you can gain out of matter is light.
The orbits are elliptical because of two things that are not usually equal, first gravitational influence and second distance from the star, orbital velocity and mass of planet. HE EXPLAINED THIS IN SUCH A EASY MANNER, IT'S JUST U MAYBE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. btw ty.
To me this still doesn't answer the question. Why doesn't Halley's comet simply get sucked into the sun's gravitional field when it gets close the the sun on its crazy orbit?
It doesn't pass close enough to the sun with the velocity and trajectory it has to fall into the sun. For it to fall into the sun one of two things would have to happen. First if its trajectory were somehow changed so that it approached much closer to the sun it may get pulled into the sun by the sun's gravity. Second if its velocity decreased near the sun it may get pulled into the sun. But of course neither of these events will happen for no reason. Only an impact or gravitational encounter with a massive object like a planet would cause a major change in the velocity or trajectory of Halley's comet. As it is it doesn't get close enough to the sun for the sun to overcome Halley's momentum enough to cause Halley to fall into the sun. All the sun can do now is cause Halley to change its direction and head back out into the outer solar system. But the sun does not give Halley enough energy to escape the sun's gravity so Halley comes back to the sun every 76 years.
Halley's comet's orbit intersect with the Earth's orbit so theoretically it is possible. But for collision to take place, our planet needs to be at the intersection point just when Halley's comet is over there. Practically, chances are very less for our planet and comet to be exactly at the same point. Or not at least till 2061 when Halley's comet will be close enough 😉
Look now you didnt explain exactly how these three relative measurements are connected to the process of creating an ellipse orbit, you just gave the answer. Not satisfied.
The main hallmark of genius is simplicity, not complication. If one doesnt need maths to explain something to the layman, , one shouldnt complicate things with maths. That can come later To paraphrase Einstein, "if you cannot explain it to a barmaid, perhaps you do not understand it yourself" Btw, if one is going to examine ellipses in depth, one is going to need to understand trig, and even calculus, not just algebra. Newton did not tackle this subject with just algebra, and in fact even invented a new branch of mathematics (calculus) to conquer it
Literally everyone understands that the sun moves. So give it a rest. Relative to the sun, earth revolves in a flat plane, and it can be very accurately examined and calculated that way You need to realize that Vsause will make vids on ANY useless subject, just to get one, (or a 1000) more aimless videos to put on utbe
Throughout the video, you just proved planetary orbits are elliptical. But why elliptical ? What makes the Earth's intent to revolve around and not falling over the Sun ?
Earth is constantly falling toward the sun, but it has a velocity along its path, so it never does fall into the sun, It is moving at 66700 mph along its orbit path, so it constantly misses ever falling into the sun
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine school teachers teaching us topics things like the way this video did, this one video helped literally learn about the ellipse and much in just 5 mins, this channel deserves more subscribers!!
Does the Halley comet has some sort of a memory that it will suddenly turn back after departing to such huge distance away from the sun?
@@wilsont1010 Its called "gravity"
The teachers in my schools DID teach us that the orbits are elliptical. So you are kinda beating a dead horse.
The interesting fact is, they stressed the elliptical thing so much, that basically everyone grows up thinking that the orbits are visual ellipses. They arent. Take the 2 with the GREATEST eccentricity, Pluto and Mercury. Plutos minor axis is 97% of its major. Merc is 98%. Those are visual circles.
Look in the vid at 1:44. Mercs actual orbit looks nothing like that. If he had it correctly in scale, it would basically just look like a true circle. Merc has an eccentricity of 0.206. Measure/calculate carefully -- the ellipse shown has a minor axis of 80% of its major That is an eccentricity of 0.60, FAR from the actual 0.206
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question, there is a room and two persons are counting some identical objects say x, one person is counting x and putting it inside a bag, the role of another person is to just watch so that there is no mistake in counting. To save the time the person watching just says some random three digit number between 700 and 800 based on his visual judgement, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the actual quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question, there is a room and two persons are counting some identical objects say x, one person is counting x and putting it inside a bag, the role of another person is to just watch so that there is no mistake in counting. To save the time the person watching just says some random three digit number between 700 and 800 based on his visual judgement, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the actual quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
I always wondered y it is soo... finally understand it.Brilliant explaination and good animation. Thank u!
Thanks a lot ❤️
This is simply an outstanding video for conveying very complex theories cohesively and clearly . Thank you so much for putting this up.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Such a neat, beautiful video! Thanks for creating it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@Scienceabc your visualization of the planetary ellipses at 1:43 is in error.
FI look at Merc, which has an eccentricity of 0.2056. this would make the minor axis 97.9% of the major axis. cos(arcsin 0.2056)*100%
In your visualization the mA of Merc is 75% of the MA
Even plutos mA (which has the largest eccentricity), mA is 97% of the MA
All the planets orbits, even Merc and pluto, are visual circles
This video is really helpful for me and clear my all doubts in this topic
This video made me understand the concept more clearly. Thank you
'Back in my days, there were more planets' : That's so cool!
and back in my day, it was planet X for planet 10. Is it NOT "planet 9" because we already have a 9th planet, Pluto
in all seriousness, it makes sense why it was downgraded to a dwarf planet.
Yes, why was it necessary to treat poor Pluto this way? What did he do to incur this treatment?
This is the best explanation in the entire internet. I subscribed.
This video was great. Super easy to follow and understand 👍😎
Outstanding video, really helped me a lot for clarifying my wonders!
BRILLIANT VIDEO I HAVE NEVER FOCUSED ON SOMETHING SO MUCH!
This is such a beautiful video. Thanks channel!
Congratulations 🎊 You got a new Subscriber.😃
Yay! Thank you!
Beautifully explained
All the planetary orbit paths are basically visual circles
Here I list the eccentricity and the percentage which the minor axis is of the major. I list them from least elliptical to most elliptical
Ven 0.0068 99.998%
Nep 0.0086 99.996
Earth 0.0167 99.986
Uran 0.0472 99.889
Jup 0.0484 99.883
Sat 0.0541 99.854
Mar 0.0934 99.563
Merc 0.2056 97.864
Plu 0.2488 96.855%
So one can see that (even in the case of the most elliptical), no planetary orbit path is really a visual ellipse
At 1:39 when you first show the shapes of the planets' orbits: while the orbits of Mars and Mercury have the largest eccentricities, their shapes are still so circular that indeed they should not show as apparent ovals in your diagram. Their orbits are still so very near-circular that we cannot tell.
Wow so much necessary information in this one video.
Glad it was helpful!
Very knowledgeable video 👍 Thanks 🙏
The way I think about elliptical orbits is this: if celestial bodies only interacted by gravity and could pass through each other, then if two of them were attracted and were moving on paths directly toward each other, when they got close, they'd oscillate along a straight path. However, celestial bodies can't pass through each other, so if they are headed straight at each other, they collide, and either break apart of form a single body. Therefore, orbits can only happen when bodies are on trajectories that aren't directly at each other. Orbits have both a circular component and an a linear component, and these add up to an ellipse.
Interesting video 🤔.
Very nice explanation
It was fun watching this video !!
Thank you 👍 😊 this 65 year old child loved this basic explanation 👍👍👍👍👍
Most welcome 😊
@@Scienceabc You know..... When ever they show orbital mechanic, and planets orbiting our sun they always depict ideal perfect circles....why..?? .. Why not try to emphasize elliptical shape orbits????
You helped me understand that indeed they are elliptical but not very 🙂.....and you pointed out that Halley's commet is the most elliptical.....unless planet ninth shows up one day soon..... Now that would be really elliptical.... 🙃... Right?
Pluto had quite an elliptical orbit, so if planet nine were to appear in the outer boundaries of the solar system like pluto, it may have an elliptical orbit. But note that this is just speculation, the orbit would be a factor of the planet's mass, distance from the Sun, and interactions with nearby celestial bodies.
@@Scienceabc thanks for taking the time to explain 🙂👍👍👍
Very good explaining
Thanks
"Things are getting messier now"
-underrated, educated dad joke
What if mass of the planet or orbital velocity or distance from star increases. Then what will be he shape of the orbit ?
This is a Creator at work! And thanks for the video, also good created content :)!
i am more confused than before after watching this video. what is the reason for elliptical orbits? why is that equilibrium of mass velocity not there?
I would add the initial angle of the planet path when captured by the center star would play into the circular or elliptical orbit of the planet. This is the case when the planet is captured into this orbital path, or the collision of planets creating the new one(s), etc
Still doesnt explain the physics behing why planets follow an elyptical orbit (and energy related) but good video
when you are in a car and the speed changes 5 miles per hour you feel it. heliosphere model has the earth changing speed with an elliptical orbit and we never feel speed changes during june/jan. WHY DONT WE FEEL THE CHANGE? noone ever has been able to answer this for me
That is because the velocity changes at such a frightfully small rate compared to the change in that car. Comparatively it is basically non existent.
Silly flat earth drivel. The reason it has never been answered for you is that you have never sought an answer
thanks man!
Happy to help!
I would think circular orbits would be rare just on the basis of probability. There is only one possible circular orbit a planet could have at a specified distance from its star but many elliptical ones. There is only one orbit with eccentricity 0 (a perfect circle) but many elliptical orbits with eccentricities anywhere between 0 and 1. So it is not at all surprising planetary orbits are elliptical. Of course in solar systems like our own perfectly circular orbits would be impossible since gravitational attractions of other planets would quickly distort the orbit of any planet with a circular orbit into an ellipse.
Thanks for this great explanation. What I stillI would like to understand is where the two focal points of the eclipse are situated. Especially in case of comets. Thanks for taking time to clarify.
I don't know much about astronomy - but it does stand to reason that if you observe enough data about the location of a comet, you should be able to use some basic equations about ellipses in order to figure out the basic measurements : the big axis, the little axis, the 2a numberof the big axis ( which also is the constant for the foci ) , etc.
dont really know what you are asking, but obviously the sun is in one foci, and the other foci is the same distance away from the opposite edge of the ellipse, along the major axis
If you have an ellipse, but dont know the distance between the foci, measure the major axis (MA) and minor (axis mA).
sine[arccosine(mA/MA)] x MA = distance between the foci
Or subtract that result rom the MA, and divide by 2 gives the distance the foci is from the ends of the MA
Draw a ellipse, roughhand, draw in the mA and MA. Draw in representations of the foci. Do some trig. You will easily notice that these things are true
if this channel doesn't blow up, I'll lose faith in humanity
How to make such conceptual videos can someone please assist 🤔
Glorious!
4:40 that might have happend when the moon was formed. A protoplanet that crashed into earth, de debree formed the moon, and the rest of it may be swallowed by earth. With remnants deep below our surface
Perfect🙂👍
Thanks 😄
Does this mean that Earth's orbit is also deviating? And how will 2 planets merge at a very high velocity🤔
19th century experiment showed we are standing still. Or 20th. Or your subjective feeling and Reality.
@@dusandragovic09srb utterly ridiculous
This video is very unelucidating, if not outright misinforming. The question is "why aren't planetary orbits circular" when many (such as Earth) actually are very close to it. It then asks where that tiny deviation comes from, and neglects to mention that elliptical orbits are just as stable as circular ones-in fact this is blatantly contradicted as is said that orbits would be circular if not for interactions. Nature doesn't have a natural preference for circles and the question is more interesting the other way around ("why are they circles at all?"); the answer is that they evolved from rotating dust clouds to the protoplanetary disk to planets. This evolution also explains why our planets "stood the test of time": each planet swept out the dust of its own orbit, and therefore they would space out, and wouldn't intersect unless some great collision event from outside altered their courses. The video also doesn't explain why orbits are elliptical and not, say, egg-shaped, or a closed shape at all, which is a really interesting physical theory but about which the description gives a gibberish explanation of "gravitational interaction over time".
Even before Kepler it was long known that planets do not move in perfectly circular orbits. Astronomers have tried to salvage this by adding circles upon circles; so-called epicycles. It was not the Catholic Church who promoted this vision, as is suggested in the animations, but was in fact the scientific consesus of the time, and great astronomers like Tycho Brahe and even Nikolaus Copernicus relied on them. In fact, Kepler wouldn't have had any correspondence Rome at all, seeing that he was a devout Protestant. The Church's problem lay with heliocentricity, not with subtle orbital shapes.
Lastly, the scale of eccentricities at 1:10 is strongly exaggerated, for instance "e = 0.25" seems closer to 0.40 (and the path Haley's comet is not eccentric enough), at 3:10 there is a typo "Oribital velocity," and the planets at 4:20 are animated with constant velocity when elliptical orbits have strongly fluctuating velocities. It's also not true that a planet in parabolic orbit escapes from the gravitational influence of the star.
Plausible reasoning.
Highly appreciated comment, thanks!
All the planetary orbit paths are basically visual circles
Here I list the eccentricity and the percentage which the minor axis is of the major. I list them from least elliptical to most elliptical
Ven 0.0068 99.998%
Nep 0.0086 99.996
Earth 0.0167 99.986
Uran 0.0472 99.889
Jup 0.0484 99.883
Sat 0.0541 99.854
Mar 0.0934 99.563
Merc 0.2056 97.864
Plu 0.2488 96.855%
So one can see that (even in the case of the most elliptical), no planetary orbit path is really a visual ellipse
Yes, the ellipse representing Merc is WAY off . The one shown has an ecc of 0.60, while Mercs is actually 0.206. Probably 99.9% of people do not understand that all the orbit paths of our planets are visual circles. And Ear, Ven, Nep are so accurately circles that their ellipses are MUCH more accurately circles than a circle drawn with a students compass
There is not a damned thing wrong with his vid, forgoshsake. If you desire to go into further depths than he did, make your own vid.
As for now, all you have done is use his vid the strut and posture
The elliptical orbit is then a geometrical consecuence of physical effects of gravitational forces that keep the universal system in equilibrium!!!
Nice
I enjoyed your video; however, you still haven't answered the question "Why are Planetary Orbits Elliptical as Newton did. It all has to do with gravity.
All orbits are elliptical since universe
Put another way, the gravitational geometry, much defined by Einstein's theory of relativity, would also help explain this.
One does not need Einsteins theories to competently/completely explain planetary ellipses
Btw, Eistein was all about explaining things as simply as possible. (Remember the barmaid quote?) He would never have used his theory to explain planetary ellipses. Just the same as he would never have used his theory for the calculations to go to the moon or mars
Posturing much?????
Is that Preston Jacobs narrating
Good
Thanks
Does the Halley comet have some sort of a memory that it will suddenly turn back after departing to such huge distance away from the sun?
Does a rock "have some sort of memory that it will suddenly turn back after" rising 100 ft from you after you threw it?
This is exactly the same question you asked about Halleys Comet, and the answer is exactly the same
@@millicentsmallpenny5837 No it isn’t. It’s nothing of the sort.
What is the cause of Haley’s Comet turning around each 38 years at its furthest point from the sun?
If the sun can let it go for 38 years, and then pull it back, why does it turn a relatively tight corner and head back? What is the observable cause?
@@Mike-pf1ru its called gravity. Exactly the same reason as the rock turning that tight corner and falling back to earth.
Does the fact that it took 38 years rather than a few seconds make this "nothing of the sort"?? Because that is all you seem to have.
The sun does not "let it go", and the corner cant be said to be "tight"
You seem to be trying to prove something here, but in reality, your "proofs" are only proofs through incredulity. That is not a real proof of anything at all.
Literally everything in the universe is incredible, but that does not mean everything in the universe is unreal
Ultimately, what exactly are you trying to say here? That nothing in the universe revolves around anything? Is that it?
Does the Earth revolve around the sun? It revolves in an ellipse. Just the same as Hally revolves in an ellipse. Both are "turning a corner" at each and every moment of their orbit
@@millicentsmallpenny5837 Look at a diagram of an ellipse. There are two focal points. In Haley's comet, the sun is one, and its gravity pulls the comet towards it and slings it back out the other side. What is the cause of the comet hugging the corner of the far side of the ellipse 38 years after it makes it's close curve around the sun? It can't be the sun as it's too far away. The question isn't difficult to understand. The answer appears to be impossible though.
@@Mike-pf1ru I know all there is to know about ellipses and planetary orbits. YOU ARE NOT TEACHING ME ANYTHING BY ASKING THESE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS, which you VERY willfully refuse to answer for yourself.
Do you believe that Mercury revolves around the sun? It does. In a relatively circular orbit. And relatively small orbit. AT EACH AND EVERY MOMENT IN ITS ORBIT, ITS CURVE IS FAR, FAR TIGHTER THAN THE TIGHTEST CURVE HALLY EVER MAKES. Does this make Mercs orbit "impossible"?
You have absolutely zero knowledge that the sun is "too far away". AGAIN, these "proofs" are simply proofs from incredulity". (You find it incredible that gravity could have an effect at that distance, so it "doesnt"). That is the most poor "proof" you could ever have for anything at all.
Answer these questions for yourself first, rather than presuming to teach me. I have learned NOTHING about the subjects of orbits from you, but I am certainly learning a whole lot about YOU.
Open an encyclopedia and learn about your subject of interest forgoshsake!!! That would be the honest thing to do!
Because they absorb a certain frequency based on mass distance from the sun and nearby planets and types of planets. The entire movers are light. Absorption is a process of storage. All chemical reactions on earth are not possible on Mars. Associated friction surface tension and pressure. The maximum time you can gain out of matter is light.
Time to stop smokin the moon cabbage, my friend
:15 So when you were in school there were only eight planets?
Me:-So why are the orbits elliptical?
This Video:- I don't know...
Waste...🙄
The orbits are elliptical because of two things that are not usually equal, first gravitational influence and second distance from the star, orbital velocity and mass of planet. HE EXPLAINED THIS IN SUCH A EASY MANNER, IT'S JUST U MAYBE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. btw ty.
Is I am not wrong orbit are elliptical also it's have some angle also means it's not in a horizonal axis
nice
To me this still doesn't answer the question. Why doesn't Halley's comet simply get sucked into the sun's gravitional field when it gets close the the sun on its crazy orbit?
It doesn't pass close enough to the sun with the velocity and trajectory it has to fall into the sun. For it to fall into the sun one of two things would have to happen. First if its trajectory were somehow changed so that it approached much closer to the sun it may get pulled into the sun by the sun's gravity. Second if its velocity decreased near the sun it may get pulled into the sun. But of course neither of these events will happen for no reason. Only an impact or gravitational encounter with a massive object like a planet would cause a major change in the velocity or trajectory of Halley's comet. As it is it doesn't get close enough to the sun for the sun to overcome Halley's momentum enough to cause Halley to fall into the sun. All the sun can do now is cause Halley to change its direction and head back out into the outer solar system. But the sun does not give Halley enough energy to escape the sun's gravity so Halley comes back to the sun every 76 years.
I know this is a short video but you really haven't answered the question.
but is the question answered?
U didn't explain the why.....
Video forgot to answer it's own question.
So will halley's comet hit the Earth one day?
Halley's comet's orbit intersect with the Earth's orbit so theoretically it is possible. But for collision to take place, our planet needs to be at the intersection point just when Halley's comet is over there. Practically, chances are very less for our planet and comet to be exactly at the same point. Or not at least till 2061 when Halley's comet will be close enough 😉
4:52 T²=4(pi)²a³/GM
Still didn't answer the why question
Would a moon with a square orbit have a dark and light side what would the east west libration be like
Moot. It couldnt have a square orbit
Rationale is not convincing. For elliptical shape, there must be some external force.
Look now you didnt explain exactly how these three relative measurements are connected to the process of creating an ellipse orbit, you just gave the answer. Not satisfied.
that teachers voice is a little off bet she got an adams apple
Enter the world of pure imagination, but let’s rebrand it as “science”.
Been hitting the ol' moon cabbage again, bud?
@@archimedesmaid3602 I don't even know what that means, nor do I care.
so still treating gravity like a force ....
Ophadamia eccentricity:
0.6
It is a spiral motion.
Watching the sun n the moon at day time , how it's repeat is not frequently.
one can see the sun and moon (at the same time) during daytime basically about every day in a month................... So............?????
V need a face reveal
Algebra
In others words we don't know
2:59 - 3:25
Family Guy Florida!
❤❤❤
Wow
Very nice
Moj kar di
No calculations and maths involved
What is l.k. advani doing here?😂 04:56
Not bad, but I would put in some of the math. Nothing worse than algebra is needed.
The main hallmark of genius is simplicity, not complication. If one doesnt need maths to explain something to the layman, , one shouldnt complicate things with maths. That can come later
To paraphrase Einstein, "if you cannot explain it to a barmaid, perhaps you do not understand it yourself"
Btw, if one is going to examine ellipses in depth, one is going to need to understand trig, and even calculus, not just algebra. Newton did not tackle this subject with just algebra, and in fact even invented a new branch of mathematics (calculus) to conquer it
spiral
Literally everyone understands that the sun moves. So give it a rest. Relative to the sun, earth revolves in a flat plane, and it can be very accurately examined and calculated that way
You need to realize that Vsause will make vids on ANY useless subject, just to get one, (or a 1000) more aimless videos to put on utbe
Jeez, 3 minutes in and still no answer ;) bye
Omg
i didnt understand jackshit
Throughout the video, you just proved planetary orbits are elliptical. But why elliptical ? What makes the Earth's intent to revolve around and not falling over the Sun ?
Earth is constantly falling toward the sun, but it has a velocity along its path, so it never does fall into the sun,
It is moving at 66700 mph along its orbit path, so it constantly misses ever falling into the sun