| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
Careful; there are some around here who will think you're serious....
I'm thinking it is time we set forth the exact criteria for characterizing elliptical Orbits, so that folks like "G3K" won't be so confused in the future:
Orbital Eccentricity | Correct Scientific Adjective
0.0.................................Really, really round
0.0 < e < 0.25..................Slightly elliptical
0.25 < e < 0.50..................Moderately elliptical
0.50 < e < 0.75..................Highly elliptical
0.75 < e < 0.90..................Ludicrously elliptical
0.90 < e < 0.99..................Unbelieveably elliptical
0.99 < e < 1.0...................Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Of course, not too many planets actually do that.
Actually, we can't do that. e>=1.0 has very specific meaning; behold:
0 < e < 1.0 ...... => elliptical orbit
e = 1.0 ......... => parabolic trajectory
1.0 < e ......... => hyperbolic trajectory
Note that for e greater than or equal to 1.0, it isn't an orbit at all, meaning the object appears once, never to return.
The difference between a parabolic and hyperbolic trajectory is this: an object in a parabolic trajectory (which can be thought of as being on the boundary between elliptical orbits and hyperbolic trajectories) will have a velocity that approaches 0 as time approaches infinity. That is to say their kinetic energy is exactly equal to the work that must be done to overcome the graviational attraction it experiences. Objects in hyperbolic trajectories have an excess of kinetic energy, and thus their velocities will NEVER reach zero, even in an infinite amount of time. In fact, their velocities will asymptotically approach some constant value, in the limit, as time tends to infinity.
I gather that hyperbolic coincides with "escape velocity."
Escape velocity = parabolic trajectory.
Greater than escape velocity = hyperbolic
less than escape velocity = elliptical
No more wine for you tonite!
IF, of course, he can be bothered to climb off of his throne and set us straight.
Well, your Majesty? Definitively, what values of e, respectively, are defined by the terms "wildly elliptic", "aggressively elliptic", "naughty but elliptic", and "Walker, Texas Ranger"?
;^P
Such colorful language, you seem to have a special insight into the psyche of No-kin. By the way where is he?
I believe it was the E's that brought that charge into being, along with Sparticus(sic). You E's nearly all confessed. And you've had the gall to accuse others of what you do. Hypocrite.
If you are referring to me, I think you may have confused an important distinction.
Maybe I should have been more explicit and labeled it with < sarcasm> < /sarcasm>. You are not the entity in question, but you have insinuated yourself in a "serious" allegation perhaps inadvertently but since you are responding to a post not mentioning your name nor addressed to you, you do display that involvement. The seriousness of the allegation depends on your viewpoint. As I have pointed out before, the general guidelines "prohibit" the playing of games viz. --Don't play games - Don't represent yourself as another person,
I am blunt to be clear. I have no animosity to you and hope that this will be taken only in the context of clarity.
Cloaked.
Is that the Oriental pronunciation?
I'm sorry, VR, but this puts you squarely in a camp of oddities. That you would continue to play that No-Kin is C-sider is not funny. It's weird. Pathologic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.