[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Both formulas show the result - 0.074

[Kryptid]

Both formulas show the result - 0.074

0.074 is wrong, so both formulas are wrong.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be calculated using the following formula. E = Vz / Vl = 0.0411 / 0.55 = 0.0747
Where Vz - Earth's orbital speed - 0.0411 degrees / hour.
Vl - Moon's orbital speed - 0.55 degrees / hour.

The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be calculated using the following formula.
E = (Vz / Sz) / (Vl / Sl) = 0.00071 / 0.0095 = 0.0747
Where Vz is the Earth's orbital speed - 107,218 km / h.
Sz - Distance from the Sun to the Earth - 150,000,000 km.
Where Vl is the Moon's orbital speed - 3683 km / h.
Sl - Distance from the Earth to the Moon 384,000 km.
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit varies, from 0.026 to 0.077.
------------
Both formulas show that the average eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is 0.0747.
And the average eccentricity of the Moon's orbit, which is determined using radar, is 0.054.
http://www.aggregateria.com/R/radiolokatsionnaja_astronomija.html

[Kryptid]

Then, according to these two formulas, the distance from the Sun to the Earth will not be 150 but 200 m. km.

All the more reason to discount your formulas as wrong.

Check your results in advance and make sure they are correct before posting them. The fact that you keep posting wrong answers over and over again makes it look like you are trying to waste everyone's time.

[Bored chemist]

Come back to us when you have a formula that works for Venus and Mercury with eccentricities of 0.0068 and 0.2056 respectively.

Don't come back with the same wrong formula because that's just trolling.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Come back to us when you have a formula that works for Venus and Mercury with eccentricities of 0.0068 and 0.2056 respectively.

You are the author of this formula, E = Vl / Vz = 27.3 / 365.2 = 0.0747
Now show how it works.

[Bored chemist]

You are the author of this formula

No,  I am not.

Come back to us when you have a formula that works for Venus and Mercury with eccentricities of 0.0068 and 0.2056 respectively.

Don't come back with the same wrong formula because that's just trolling.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

You are the author of this formula

No,  I am not.

Come back to us when you have a formula that works for Venus and Mercury with eccentricities of 0.0068 and 0.2056 respectively.

Don't come back with the same wrong formula because that's just trolling.

Venus and Mercury have no satellites.

[The Spoon]

Come back to us when you have a formula that works for Venus and Mercury with eccentricities of 0.0068 and 0.2056 respectively.

You are the author of this formula, E = Vl / Vz = 27.3 / 365.2 = 0.0747
Now show how it works.

Why tell such a stupid obvious lie? It is becoming more and more apparent that you are trolling.

[Bored chemist]

You are the author of this formula

No,  I am not.

Come back to us when you have a formula that works for Venus and Mercury with eccentricities of 0.0068 and 0.2056 respectively.

Don't come back with the same wrong formula because that's just trolling.

Venus and Mercury have no satellites.

So what?
They are in orbit round the Sun.
So, when you can come up with a formula for their orbital eccentricities, let us know.
Otherwise just stop posting.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Perhaps Barnard's flying star revolves around the Sun in a highly elongated orbit and is at perihelion.
Or Barnard's Star, this is a dwarf planet that revolves around the Sun in a highly elongated orbit with an orbital period of more than 1000 years and is at aphelion.
The speed of Comet Halley at perihelion is 54 km/s, and at aphelion 1 km/s. https://www.google.com/amp/s/spacegid.com/zvezda-barnarda.html/amp https://kosmolenta.com/index.php/1710-2021-02-12-farfarout

[Bored chemist]

The statement that the ellipse of the planets is formed due to the disturbance of the planets does not correspond to reality, since Venus and Neptune move in a circular orbit.

No, they do not.

The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets is beyond the cognitive capabilities of modern science.

No, it is not.

So, when you can come up with a formula for their orbital eccentricities, let us know.
Otherwise just stop posting.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/07/2020 17:21:00
So, when you can come up with a formula for their orbital eccentricities, let us know.

You missed this bit.

Otherwise just stop posting.

[paul cotter]

Good grief BC!, what a load of cobblers and it's not even a full moon. I read through the whole thread and now I have a headache.

[Bored chemist]

Good grief BC!, what a load of cobblers and it's not even a full moon. I read through the whole thread and now I have a headache.

It gets worse...

[paul cotter]

 BC, I will gladly take your word on this matter as I have no intention of any further reading.

[pzkpfw]

Next, asteroids are formed from galaxies. ...

I'm at a stage now where I wonder if "from" is the word that's being misused.

[Origin]

This is just a bunch of pseudoscience.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

    I'm slightly puzzled:
    The title(s) of the replies seem to change quite often.   It started with "Stationary Model of the solar system",   became  "The Coriolis force acting on earth and in the universe"   and now seems to be "Why are earthquakes more likely to occur at night...."
     There's also a lot of repetition of posts and You Tube links spanning over the 14 pages of this forum thread, irrespective of the titles under which they appear.  Was the same answer appropriate for everything?

    My best guess:   A few different threads and posts are being re-shuffled and merged (by staff possibly).

Best Wishes.

[paul cotter]

Puzzled?? not surprising. Did you read the whole thread?, I did and i'm still recuperating. Also I do not believe it is a collage of several other threads although I have not been a forum member long enough to be definitive.