Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
...
Let me try to consider a very massive star and a single small planet. We
know that an orbit is circular if the initial v=0.5*m*r^2 (in a typical
problem) has no radial component. The same planet is at rest in the frame
of reference whose one axis is always directed from the star to the planet.
How this be explained? By saying that a centrifugal force 0.5*m*v^2, "due
to rotation" happens to be equal to the centripetal force G*M*m/r^2 "due
to gravity". The net force is zero and that is why the planet is at rest.
...
I am not saying the second explanation is better. I am saying it is not
heretical. One way of deciding which model is better, in the long run, is
to compare efforts needed to calculate ellipticities, for example, when
the initial condition is changed by doubling the speed. But that is not
the issue.