Questions about the solar system

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Thinking about your other post about the mechanism, it occurs to me that
once the orientation of the sun had settled down in the very early solar
system there would be nothing to change it, because the Sun is a perfect
sphere. You won't get tidal effects as you do on the Earth, with the
Moon constantly tugging it.

But Jupiter (and to some extent the other gas giants) must exert a
certain influence on the inner planets; I would think that over time
the orbital planes of the smaller bodies -- Mars especially -- would
tend to be drawn into closer alignment with the 'dominant' planet's plane.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

I don't think you can just add the inclinations; the planes of the
planets' orbits -- WRT, say, the sun's equator -- don't all pass
through a common line, i.e. their nodes don't all lie in the same
direction. Moreover the nodes all precess at various rates (along
with the perihelia IIANM), so their relations to each other are
rather complicated and change over time.

--
Odysseus

Thanks, Odysseus... with further thought, it does appear that
i jumped the gun on the adding of the inclinations. In a perfect
stellar system with no collisions and such, there would be no
anomalies like Mercury's orbit. The question makes me
wonder if tidal-locking includes more than just locking one face
of a body toward its primary?

E.g., could the Moon have been inclined less than 5 degrees
off the ecliptic in the past? or IOW, has tidal-locking caused
the Moon's orbit of the Earth to move away from the ecliptic
and toward Earth's equator?

Is Mercury's orbit, while Mercury is gradually tidal-locking to
the Sun, moving closer to the Sun's equator?

Can't find much on this stuff, but it's fascinating!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
a Secret of the Universe...
so please don't breathe a word of this--
the Moon above will smile perverse
whene'er it sees two lovers kiss;
(breathe not a single word of this!)

Paine Ellsworth

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

I don't think you can just add the inclinations; the planes of the
planets' orbits -- WRT, say, the sun's equator -- don't all pass
through a common line, i.e. their nodes don't all lie in the same
direction. Moreover the nodes all precess at various rates (along
with the perihelia IIANM), so their relations to each other are
rather complicated and change over time.

--
Odysseus

Thanks, Odysseus... with further thought, it does appear that
i jumped the gun on the adding of the inclinations. In a perfect
stellar system with no collisions and such, there would be no
anomalies like Mercury's orbit. The question makes me
wonder if tidal-locking includes more than just locking one face
of a body toward its primary?

E.g., could the Moon have been inclined less than 5 degrees
off the ecliptic in the past? or IOW, has tidal-locking caused
the Moon's orbit of the Earth to move away from the ecliptic
and toward Earth's equator?

Is Mercury's orbit, while Mercury is gradually tidal-locking to
the Sun, moving closer to the Sun's equator?

Can't find much on this stuff, but it's fascinating!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
a Secret of the Universe...
so please don't breathe a word of this--
the Moon above will smile perverse
whene'er it sees two lovers kiss;
(breathe not a single word of this!)

Paine Ellsworth

Hi Painius I would think the moon should orbit the Earth going over
its poles. My reason being the poles have a half of one percent greater
gravitation force. Bert

Hi Painius I would think the moon should orbit the Earth going over
its poles. My reason being the poles have a half of one percent greater
gravitation force. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Painius I would think the moon should orbit the Earth going over
its poles. My reason being the poles have a half of one percent greater
gravitation force. Bert


That's silly. You failed to think.

The gravitational acceleration at the poles is greater
for an object *at the surface* of the Earth due to a
combination of the geometry of the Earth (the poles are
closer, radially, to the center of mass than are points
at the equator), and the centrifugal effect at non-polar
regions due to the Earth's rotation.

For an object in orbit at a given radius from the center
of mass of the Earth, the greater force will be at the
equator due to the mass of the equatorial bulge.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Painius I would think the moon should orbit the Earth going over
its poles. My reason being the poles have a half of one percent greater
gravitation force. Bert


That's silly. You failed to think.

The gravitational acceleration at the poles is greater
for an object *at the surface* of the Earth due to a
combination of the geometry of the Earth (the poles are
closer, radially, to the center of mass than are points
at the equator), and the centrifugal effect at non-polar
regions due to the Earth's rotation.

For an object in orbit at a given radius from the center
of mass of the Earth, the greater force will be at the
equator due to the mass of the equatorial bulge.

Greg Right you are. it is only good for surface gravity effect. I jumped
to soon. The fact is the moon is 13 miles further from the poles than
the equator. Bert

Greg Right you are. it is only good for surface gravity effect. I jumped
to soon. The fact is the moon is 13 miles further from the poles than
the equator. Bert