I don't. My mailbox doesn't. Newton's slow cannon ball doesn't. These objects are subject to gravity force, and yet they don't orbit. Yes, all objects orbit if you restrict 'objects' to things that are in orbit, which is like saying every red object is red.I mean free objects in space. We are all part of Earth mass.
51 Our own moon is currently stopped in its own frame (by definition), and in that frame, Earth is moving fast enough that the moon misses it and instead goes into an eccentric orbit. Thus my statement is exactly correct.It seems that you didn't understand my message:
Let's look at the following two options:
1. The moon is in the Earth frame
You have already agreed that:
54 Our moon is gravity bonded with Earth...In this case, if you stop it, you stop it with reference to earth.
Therefore, it should be clear that it is similar to the idea that we just drop the Moon at its current location.
In that frame, the planet is always moving, so when you stop the moon, the planet keeps on going.I disagree. We stop the moon with reference to Earth.
In this case, it should collide directly with the earth.
2. The moon is in another orbital frame.
Let's assume that the moon orbits around the Sun instead around the Earth ("Gravity bonded" with the Sun).
So, yes in this case it could miss the Earth.
However, as it is "gravity bonded" with the Sun, it will continue to orbit around the Sun.
Therefore, there is no way for the Moon to start orbiting around the earth unless it really collide with the Earth and break itself to several objects.
There is no magic 'match' required for Vo and Vf. If you take a random asteroid from the asteroid belt and give it a random Vo and Vf with no regard to 'matching' them, so long as the sum of them (V) yields a kinetic energy that when added to its potential energy is a negative figure, the object will probably orbit the sun.This is totally incorrect.
The Earth is crossing again and again the orbital path of the asteroids that actually orbit the Sun.
So, far we can clearly assume that it had crossed the orbital path of Million over billions asteroids.
How many of them had been really captured by the earth gravity and set a circular orbital path around the earth?
You have told me that we have discovered one object and even this one is not orbiting in a circular orbit.
So, do you agree that the chance to set any sort of orbital path even with eccentric that close to 1 (Very sharp elliptical orbit) is less than one to million over billions.
However, the chance to set a circular orbital cycle is virtually ZERO!!!
I still claim that all the comets were orbiting the Sun from day one.
However, the shape of their orbital cycle (eccentric close to one) shows that they are in their way to totally disconnect from the Solar system.
So, they can't be used as a prove or evidence for setting an orbital cycle but on the contrary - they are a clear indication that the orbital system is losing "gravity bonded" over time.
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that those comets should eventually be ejected from the Solar frame.
I wonder if we can find a proof for that.
In other words, I claim that an eccentric orbital system can be converted to circular orbit!!!
That brings me again to Newton
It is quite clear that you refuse to accept Newton explanation.
So, Please let me know which one from the following explanations you reject:
Do you agree that for a Circular Orbit - A magic orbital velocity is needed?
For example, Mercury's velocity is currently decreasing, and yet the force of gravity is decreasing because of this, or "causing the 'falling' to have a lesser influence" as that quote words it.Somehow you insist to take an eccentric orbital system and try to understand how the forces works based on location in the orbital cycle.
This is not relevant to our discussion.
We want to understand how external forces can affect the orbital system.
Actually we wish to understand how orbital system can be created from the first stage.
Especially with regards to the Accretion disc around the SMBH.
Do you agree that all the atoms/particles in that disc/ring are actually orbiting at a perfect circular orbit at almost the speed of light?
If so, what is the chance that a falling star from outside could be break down to its atoms/particles and start orbiting in that velocity in a pure circular orbit?
I claim that the chance for that is less than a ZERO!!!
The accretion disc can't be created based on falling in matter.
This MUST be a direct outcome from Newton!