Not only is Ishmael an idiot in politics and social behavior,

[ubertroll]

He doesn't understand science, mathematics, or meteorology in the least.




https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=322049&page=3

Orbital eccentricity is the dynamic changing of the foci of the ellipse. A panet can rubber band from a near circular orbit to an exagerated elliptical orbit. The earth does it on a 100K year cycle.

Orbital eccentricity is the ratio between the semimajor axis and the semiminor axis. That is, it is a comparison between aphelion distance and perihelion distance.

As for the earth, it is a Planet [not a panet; it comes from the Greek word for Wanderer]. As for going from circle to ellipse--that would require a major external event, such as a near approach by another massive object. A return from a high eccentricity to a near circular orbit would be night to impossible.

 

[Xelebes]

Like, duh!

 

[Matthew Craig]

Dude, you pwn him and me and everyone in so many ways.
Where is the love my friend... Where is the love...

 

[KRCummings]

Ish's idiocy is kinda old news. Always nice to see someone point it out though.

 

[ubertroll]

Ish's idiocy is kinda old news. Always nice to see someone point it out though.

Mathematical illiteracy is one of my pet peeves.

The only thing worse than ignorance is the false perception of knowledge.

The intersection of these two things makes for something that demands a public airing of disgust.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Tell us something we don't know, Ubertroll.... Rob and I went through the same thing with Assmeal's bs about what a deficit decrease really means.

You'll get used to him after a while, just don't get too close to him because his stupidity is indeed infectious.

 

[ubertroll]

Which is exactly why we need public-health threads like this.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I like how he went on and on and on about solar system physics as if he knew what he was talking about. Ishmael could fertilize the entire midwest with his bs...

 

[ubertroll]

His BS is true BS--he's saying it, because he honestly doesn't care if what he says is the truth, or if it's false. Truth and lies are irrelevant, so long as he gets to hear himself talk, and please please PLEASE get adultation out of others.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Cha ching.

Best
Ishmael analysis
EVER!!!

 

[hydrex]

He doesn't understand science, mathematics, or meteorology in the least.




https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=322049&page=3





Orbital eccentricity is the ratio between the semimajor axis and the semiminor axis. That is, it is a comparison between aphelion distance and perihelion distance.

As for the earth, it is a Planet [not a panet; it comes from the Greek word for Wanderer]. As for going from circle to ellipse--that would require a major external event, such as a near approach by another massive object. A return from a high eccentricity to a near circular orbit would be night to impossible.

While I'm no mathematician this seems to contradict what you're saying about going from circle to ellipse. Granted perhaps you're talking of a complete cirlce to a full ellipse.

On the Shoulders of Giants
Milutin Milankovitch
Orbital Variations
Milankovitch Theory
Links and References

Orbital Variations
Changes in orbital eccentricity affect the Earth-sun distance. Currently, a difference of only 3 percent (5 million kilometers) exists between closest approach (perihelion), which occurs on or about January 3, and furthest departure (aphelion), which occurs on or about July 4. This difference in distance amounts to about a 6 percent increase in incoming solar radiation (insolation) from July to January. The shape of the Earth¹s orbit changes from being elliptical (high eccentricity) to being nearly circular (low eccentricity) in a cycle that takes between 90,000 and 100,000 years. When the orbit is highly elliptical, the amount of insolation received at perihelion would be on the order of 20 to 30 percent greater than at aphelion, resulting in a substantially different climate from what we experience today.



Obliquity (change in axial tilt)
As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. It's the cool summers that are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year-to-year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an Earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling.



Left: The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes slowly over time from nearly zero to 0.07. As the orbit gets more eccentric (oval) the difference between the distance from the Sun to the Earth at perihelion (closest approach) and aphelion (furthest away) becomes greater and greater. Note that the Sun is not at the center of the Earth's orbital ellipse, rather it is at one of focal points.

Note: The eccentricty of the orbit shown in the lower image is a highly exaggerated 0.5. Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth's orbit—0.07—it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page. Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion. (Images by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC)



Precession
Changes in axial precession alter the dates of perihelion and aphelion, and therefore increase the seasonal contrast in one hemisphere and decrease the seasonal contrast in the other hemisphere.

 

[ubertroll]

While I'm no mathematician this seems to contradict what you're saying about going from circle to ellipse. Granted perhaps you're talking of a complete cirlce to a full ellipse.

<snip>

Note: The eccentricty of the orbit shown in the lower image is a highly exaggerated 0.5. Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth's orbit—0.07—it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page. Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion. (Images by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC)

No, the article doesn't contradict me.

Minor changes in eccentricity are possible--we live in a very complex solar system.

Furthermore, the Earth's orbit isn't NEARLY an ellipse... because we're ALSO orbiting in an earth-moon system that sends us going haywire.



Rather, the conversation was discussing high eccentricity--say, like Halley's Comet. Nothing's going to EVER make that thing's orbit look like a circle.

 

[hydrex]

No, the article doesn't contradict me.

Minor changes in eccentricity are possible--we live in a very complex solar system.

Furthermore, the Earth's orbit isn't NEARLY an ellipse... because we're ALSO orbiting in an earth-moon system that sends us going haywire.



Rather, the conversation was discussing high eccentricity--say, like Halley's Comet. Nothing's going to EVER make that thing's orbit look like a circle.

High eccentricity, that's what I thought you were talking about.

Seems like Ish had it right but maybe came across as talking about high eccentricity rather than what we actually go through. Not defending just curious.

I thought Milutin Milankovitch's theory was the accepted norm for this subject in todays science.

 

[hydrex]

This may be what Ish was trying to convey.

"Eccentricity
An orbital parameter describing the eccentricity of the orbit ellipse. Eccentricity e is the ratio of half the distance between the foci c to the semi-major axis a: e=c/a. For example, an orbit with e=0 is circular, e=1 is parabolic, and e between 0 and 1 is elliptic." got that off a jpl.nasa.org site.

 

[ubertroll]

High eccentricity, that's what I thought you were talking about.

Indeed. It's not what Milankovitch is talking about. He's talking about minor, periodic, predictable shifts in eccentricty of a stable orbit of an object around a much more massive object in a solar system.

And, as I said, the Earth isn't really orbiting on anything close to an elliptical path, if you want to split hairs

Seems like Ish had it right but maybe came across as talking about high eccentricity rather than what we actually go through.

The conversation wasn't about Earth--it was about a hypothetical planet. Ish claimde that axial tilt couldn't create symmetrical seasons in both hemispheres [in fact, it not only CAN, but DOES], and that the only option would be a massively, dynamically shifting eccentricity. Such a bird does not exist among stable orbits.

I thought Milutin Milankovitch's theory was the accepted norm for this subject in todays science.

Milankovitch's theory IS the accepted norm. But his use of the word 'high' is comparative, rather than absolute--0.07 eccentricty is EXCEEDINGLY low.

Look at the sentence I was quoting--

"Orbital eccentricity is the dynamic changing of the foci of the ellipse."

That's just heinous. Eccentricity is a relation between the semimajor and semiminor.

I would actually wager that all of Ish's commentary in that threat was from Googling that exact article lol.

 

[ubertroll]

This may be what Ish was trying to convey.

"Eccentricity
An orbital parameter describing the eccentricity of the orbit ellipse. Eccentricity e is the ratio of half the distance between the foci c to the semi-major axis a: e=c/a. For example, an orbit with e=0 is circular, e=1 is parabolic, and e between 0 and 1 is elliptic." got that off a jpl.nasa.org site.

No, that's what I conveyed. Ish was trying to convey that eccentricity is the way the foci of an orbit move. This is, simply put, not even in the same zip code as the truth.

 

[hydrex]

Nope, I won't split hairs. Not worth it to me.


"The conversation wasn't about Earth--it was about a hypothetical planet. Ish claimde that axial tilt couldn't create symmetrical seasons in both hemispheres [in fact, it not only CAN, but DOES], and that the only option would be a massively, dynamically shifting eccentricity. Such a bird does not exist among stable orbits."

Uh, isn't that exactly what the earths axial tilt does right now, gives us symmetrical seasons?

 

[hydrex]

No, that's what I conveyed. Ish was trying to convey that eccentricity is the way the foci of an orbit move. This is, simply put, not even in the same zip code as the truth.

Ok, I have it now. I can't wait to ask him about magnetic field reversal.

 

[mercy's_grace]

Let's not get started on his use of statistics.

 

[Byron In Exile]

He doesn't understand science, mathematics, or meteorology in the least.

If I made a thread about every error of yours, I'd be spending all my time with that shit.

Seriously, it's clear what he means. I razzed him about calling me "Bryon," and he's called me "Byron" ever since.

Get over it, and he'll treat you like you got over it.

 

[Ishmael]

If I made a thread about every error of yours, I'd be spending all my time with that shit.

Seriously, it's clear what he means. I razzed him about calling me "Bryon," and he's called me "Byron" ever since.

Get over it, and he'll treat you like you got over it.

Nah, I probably won't. Mainly because he probably won't.

In astrodynamics, under standard assumptions any orbit must be of conic section shape. The eccentricity of this conic section, the orbit's eccentricity, is an important parameter of the orbit that defines its absolute shape. Eccentricity may be interpreted as a measure of how much this shape deviates from a circle.

Under standard assumptions eccentricity (e\,\!) is strictly defined for all circular, elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic orbits and may take following values:

* for circular orbits: e=0\,\!,
* for elliptic orbits: 0<e<1\,\!,
* for parabolic trajectories: e=1\,\!,
* for hyperbolic trajectories: e>1\,\!.

Calculation

Eccentricity of an orbit can be calculated from orbital state vectors as a magnitude of eccentricity vector:

e= \left | \mathbf{e} \right |

where:

* \mathbf{e}\,\! is eccentricity vector.

For elliptic orbits it can also be calculated from distance at periapsis and apoapsis:

e={{d_a-d_p}\over{d_a+d_p}}=1-\frac{2}{\frac{d_a}{d_p}+1}=\frac{2}{\frac{d_p}{d_a}+1}-1

where:

* d_p\,\! is distance at periapsis,
* d_a\,\! is distance at apoapsis.


Examples

For example, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit today is 0.0167. Through time, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit slowly changes from nearly 0 to almost 0.05 as a result of gravitational attractions between the planets (see graph [1] (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/eccentricity_graph.html)).

Other values: Pluto 0.2488 (largest value among the planets of the Solar System), Mercury 0.2056, Moon 0.0554. For the values for all planets in one table, see delanet (Tabelle).

Perhaps he's blowing off his mouth about the foci statement. Then again, he's probably unfamiliar with Kepler's First Law.

Keplers First Law

He's starting to behave more and more like LT Byron.

Ishmael

 

[clit_licker30]

Mathematical illiteracy is one of my pet peeves.

The only thing worse than ignorance is the false perception of knowledge.

The intersection of these two things makes for something that demands a public airing of disgust.

I want to eat you or your AV.

 

[Ishmael]

Indeed. It's not what Milankovitch is talking about. He's talking about minor, periodic, predictable shifts in eccentricty of a stable orbit of an object around a much more massive object in a solar system.

And, as I said, the Earth isn't really orbiting on anything close to an elliptical path, if you want to split hairs

The conversation wasn't about Earth--it was about a hypothetical planet. Ish claimde that axial tilt couldn't create symmetrical seasons in both hemispheres [in fact, it not only CAN, but DOES], and that the only option would be a massively, dynamically shifting eccentricity. Such a bird does not exist among stable orbits.



Milankovitch's theory IS the accepted norm. But his use of the word 'high' is comparative, rather than absolute--0.07 eccentricty is EXCEEDINGLY low.

Look at the sentence I was quoting--

"Orbital eccentricity is the dynamic changing of the foci of the ellipse."

That's just heinous. Eccentricity is a relation between the semimajor and semiminor.

I would actually wager that all of Ish's commentary in that threat was from Googling that exact article lol.

That clinches it. You're an idiot. Fortunately you were indiscrete enough to start this thread and demonstrate that fact to the entire board.

Ishmael

 

[clit_licker30]

This math is way above my pay grade. I figure God keeps these things running. If He gets tried of us posting on porn boards, He will intersect a few orbits to get our attention and/or cleanse the earth.

 

[Ishmael]

This math is way above my pay grade. I figure God keeps these things running. If He gets tried of us posting on porn boards, He will intersect a few orbits to get our attention and/or cleanse the earth.

Goggle Kepler's First Law. The top two hits have pictures.

Ishmael