Chapter 21 – Planets seen from different Frames of Reference could have more than one Orbit, such as the Gravitational and the Thermal Orbits
GALAXIES For Intelligently Designed Minds (NOT For ‘Standard’ Model DUMMIES)
Needed Adjustments on the View of Orbits
TIM: Let’s discuss the planetary orbits, as this is a very important consideration that we haven’t discussed much yet of how the solar system is organized.
TINA: Yes, please. You said that planetary orbits could be both elliptical and circular, but such a thing doesn’t seem to be logical or possible.
TIM: The present understanding of planetary is based solely on the ‘Standard’ traditional ideas about gravity and the force of gravity. As we have mentioned a number of times, the concept of bubbles doesn’t consider gravity a force and therefore to explain the gravitational balance and system is necessary to re-explain the way orbits work.
TOM: That’s your next step on the systematic demolition of proven and accepted science and the subsequent introduction of mythical legends.
TIM: So, next we need to discuss the present understanding of orbits.
TINA: I get that the gravitational balance in the concept of bubbles is not based on gravity. However, why would we need a redefinition of orbits?
TIM: The traditional ‘Standard’ view of the solar system is based on the apparent rotation of the planets around the sun and on the idea that the sun is the greatest mass in the solar system and therefore the greatest source of gravity. In fact, all measurements and calculations about the solar system are made based on the planets’ orbits around the sun, including Kepler, Newton and even Einstein’s math, which have been proposed and perfected in the last four centuries or so. However, in the view of bubbles, the gravitational center of the solar system’s bubble is different, the orbits are different and a number of other things would be different.
TOM: I told you! There we go again, dismantling science… orbits are just the next stop!
TIM: In the concept of bubbles, the center of the solar system isn’t the barycenter of the mass of the sun and of the planets, but instead is the center of the bubble of energy of the solar system. At present, this center is not known, but perhaps it wouldn't be difficult to calculate it once the concept is put to the test. So, the first step it would be to describe the center of the solar system according to the concept of bubbles and to describe how the orbits of planets work around it and then see whether this is possible and how it compares to the present understanding of orbits.
‘Standard’ Astronomers use Thermal Orbits of the Sun and Planets to explain Gravity and Seasons, instead of using Gravitational Orbits to explain Gravity and Thermal Orbits to explain Seasons
TINA: Can you describe the view of the center of the solar system according to the concept of bubbles.
TIM: Gladly. We have described the bubble of the solar system and some of the ideas about gravitational balance. Now, let’s look at the center of the solar system according to the bubbles’ view. The center would coincide with the line joining the north and south poles of the bubble of the solar system.
TINA: You assume that the center of the solar bubble would be different from the center of the present graviton based solar system. As mentioned, at present we wouldn’t know where the solar system bubble’s North and South poles are located, as we don’t even know where the bubble is yet.
TIM: Right. We are just describing the theory of it. However, I believe that it wouldn't be too difficult for capable and interested people to calculate all this mathematically, if they would want to.
TINA: So, you mean that the real orbits of the planets, the ones involved with their gravitational balance would be different from the accepted orbits around the sun, what you called the thermal orbits.
TIM: Yes. However, the sun-based, thermal orbits had been useful so far and for a few centuries to understand many of the interactions and relationship between the planets and the sun. In addition, those orbits are the way to understand the thermal engine of the solar system, including weather, seasons and a host of other phenomena. They are important to explain and understand those and many other characteristics of each of the planets, but not their gravitational balance.
TINA: That could be why so far gravitation is not understood and gravitons are not found. You propose that so far, astronomers have applied the thermal orbits of the planets to try to explain gravity, but you claim that to understand the gravitational balance is necessary to understand and to apply the gravitational orbits instead. This is related to what you mentioned previously that ‘in the view of bubbles of energy… the orbits of planets are both elliptical and circular at the same time, as crazy or impossible as this might sound’.
TIM: Yes, but it might be a little difficult to understand at first, as we are so used to the traditional ‘Standard’ Model view of the phenomenon. That’s what we are about to discuss.
TINA: As we are more familiar with the orbits relative to the sun, the thermal orbits, could you explain what the gravitational orbits of the planets are and how they would work, please?
The Gravitational Orbits of Planets should be traced around the North-South Centerline of the Bubble of the Solar System
TIM: We have discussed and introduced some of the basics components and ideas of how the gravitational balance of the bubble of the solar system works and of how buoyancy is reached. So, let’s discuss a wider view of the bubble of the solar system and specifically the gravitational orbits within it.
TINA: Yes, please.
TIM: The gravitational orbits of the planets would be simultaneously both, circular and elliptical, around the center of the bubble of energy of the solar system and not around the sun or star.
TINA: The well-known orbits around the sun would instead be the thermal orbits of planets, necessary to understand weather and seasons and so on.
TOM: That’s impossible. How would the planets do that, make one orbit in a circular path and the next in an elliptical one? If it were so, how is it that no one ever saw the difference? How is it that planets are not bumping into each other, while following their changing orbits? Stop imagining things!
TIM: After we discuss the view of the true planetary gravitational orbits, we will see why that wouldn't be the case, and as I said, the circular-elliptical orbits wouldn't be alternative but simultaneously so.
TINA: It does seem a confusing concept or impossible scenario. Is this connected to relativity or to quantum mechanics somehow? I am a little confused and in fact, I don’t blame Tom for complaining about your idea. Please, explain.
TIM: The present understanding of the solar system is based on the relationship between the mass of the sun and the mass of the planets, while ignoring the space they occupy and the engines that space-mass generates. The orbits applied today, which as mentioned are the thermal orbits of the solar system, don’t correspond to the gravitational orbits of the solar system. To begin with, in the view of the bubbles, the solar system would have a different north and south poles and a different equatorial plane than the presently accepted.
TINA: Do you mean that possibly neither the sun, nor most of the planets north and south poles would be aligned with the north and south poles of the bubble of the solar system?
TIM: Most probably, they wouldn't, although perhaps some celestial bodies would, but we don’t know yet.
TIM: The present accepted orbits are based on the choice of the main visible and guiding mass of the solar system and not on the engine of the solar system itself. In this way, the parameters of the solar system are still based on visual earth-based evidence, as it has been for thousands of years, but not on the understanding of the structure and engine of the solar system. For example, the ecliptic is an imaginary extension of the path the sun seems to travel in the sky and ‘around’ the earth and the celestial equator is an extension of the earth’s equator against the assumed celestial sphere. Both of those planes are earth based and not solar system based. However, for thousands of years that had been the best astronomers could use to map the solar system and the planets and they have been useful so far to understand many things.
TINA: Those parameters are not the real parameters of the solar system but are visual earth-based parameters useful when applied to many of the phenomena observed, especially the weather and the seasons, years, months and days.
TIM: Yes. They are related to the thermal engine of the solar system and that’s why they are so useful to understand seasons, and even as signs to map the universe. However, they are not the real parameters of the yet unknown and invisible bubble of the solar system and its gravitational balance.
The North-South Alignment of the Bubble of the Solar System would be different from the Sun or Planets’ North-South Alignments
TINA: That could mean that while we measure and assume what is north or south based on the visible celestial bodies of the solar system, the bubble of the solar system could have a different north and south, invisible and still unknown.
TIM: Yes. No one knows yet the true north and south of the solar system. However, if there were a bubble of the solar system, it would have a north and south poles. At this point, we are not trying to determine the position of those poles, but we are trying to explain the orbits of the planets around the centerline joining those still unknown poles.
TINA: OK! However, we are assuming that the north-south alignment of the bubble of the solar system and the bubble’s equatorial plane are different from the sun or planets’ north-south alignments and equatorial planes.
TIM: Yep. So, for the time being, imagine an abstract bubble disconnected of what we know and what we have learned. Later, we will discuss how this integrates with the known thermal orbits of the planets plus the amazing advantages of having an extra set of gravitational orbits.
TINA: OK. Let me disconnect my ‘visual earth-based coordinates’ of what’s north and south in the solar system and try to tune in to the bubble of energy of the solar system.
TIM: Imagine the bubble of the solar system alone there, suspended in space and forget about anything else. The bubble of the solar system would have a north and south and there would be a centerline joining those two poles. The concept of bubbles assume that line is the gravitational center of the solar system. The bubble or sphere of the solar system would turn and rotate around that centerline and all planets and celestial bodies would have circular orbits around it.
TINA: Those wouldn’t be the thermal orbits but the gravitational orbits. However, would they be circular, or simultaneously circular-elliptical, as you suggested previously?
Differences between the traditional ‘Standard’ Model View of Gravitational Orbits and the View in the Bubbles Concept
TIM: They would be simultaneously circular and elliptical, but as we have not discussed this yet, the idea might sound confusing or impossible.
TINA: In addition, these simultaneously circular and elliptical orbits around the north-south centerline of the bubble of the solar system would be different from the purely elliptical, ‘Standard’ thermal orbits around the sun.
TIM: Yes. Those thermal orbits are different from the gravitational ones. One of the differences with the traditional ‘Standard’ view of orbits, what we called the thermal orbit of planets, is that the latter require the sun to be at one of the foci of their elliptical orbits. However, in the bubbles concept, the north-south centerline of the bubble would be always at the center of the planets’ orbits. In other words, in the gravitational orbits, the planets would never be farther or closer from the north-south centerline of the bubble and would be always traveling through their bands or paths of buoyancy equidistantly from that center. That means that even if the orbits were elliptical the distance to the gravitational centerline of the bubble would be constant, like in a circular path.
TINA: Could we describe those gravitational orbits as being elliptical but having a constant radius to the center of the bubble of energy of the solar system, although that doesn’t seem to make sense?
TIM: We could.
TINA: Let me repeat this last idea. The ‘new’ gravitational orbits would be simultaneously circular and elliptical.
TIM: The gravitational orbital would be different from the thermal ones, as they would be drawn from different frames of reference, one from the frame of reference of the center of the bubble of energy of the solar system and the other from the frame of reference of the sun and the earth. However, the true orbits of the planets would be the gravitational ones.
TINA: If the gravitational true orbits around the north-south centerline of the solar bubble are both circular and elliptical, why couldn’t the elliptical orbits around the sun be the same or coincide with the assumed elliptical orbits around the north-south centerline of the bubble?
TIM: If the known thermal elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun would coincide with the elliptical orbits of the planets in the frame of reference of the bubbles concept, it would be outstanding and a masterpiece of design. To accomplish that it would require an even more advanced design and organization. In other words, if the orbits we have known for about three centuries would double as the elliptical paths followed by planets around the centerline of the bubble of energy of the solar system, it would be a work of master engineering and design. It would be fabulous and very elegant. However, for the present time, I am assuming that they aren’t the same. By the way, your ability to follow this discussion is outstanding.
While a Planet would only have one True Orbital Path, two different Orbits could be traced for it from different Frames of Reference, the Gravitational True Orbit and the Thermal apparent one
TOM: There is a basic fact you keep ignoring, a planet cannot have two orbits at the same time.
TINA: I think that what Tim means is that while a planet would only have one true orbit, two different orbits could be traced for it from different frames of reference. In other words, while the gravitational orbits of a planet would be drawn and understood relative to the centerline of the bubble of energy, the thermal orbits would be traced and understood relative to the apparent paths of the planets around the sun. That’s the view or frame of reference traditional ‘Standard’ Model astronomers have for the last century and previous scientists did had three or four centuries.
TOM: You are talking about three different types of orbits here. You claim that the planets’ orbits around the sun are its thermal orbits, related to weather and seasons. Then you say that there is another set of gravitational orbits, which would be circular but elliptical at the same time. Very confusing and extremely impractical. There could be only one set of true orbits and those are the ones accepted by scientists and science everywhere. Science understands the solar system based on the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun and that’s how gravity is explained. Stop trying to destroy everything we know and that has been proven about astronomy. There are no circular orbits of the planets. In fact, Kepler dreamed of resolving the orbits of planets circularly, but couldn’t. So, if he couldn’t, stop trying and wasting time.
TIM: We are talking about orbits seen from different frames of reference. As mentioned, the elliptical gravitational orbit might coincide or not with the planet’s elliptical thermal orbit traced relative to the sun and in the frame of reference of the traditional ‘Standard’ views, but for now, we are assuming it doesn’t. Finally, those traditional ‘Standard’ thermal orbits wouldn't have anything to do with gravity, although there would still be necessary and useful to understand seasons and climate.
TINA: I understand the benefits of planets having gravitational orbits that are circular, such as you say the gravitational orbits partially are. However, why would it be preferable for a planet to have a simultaneously dual orbit? Why isn’t the orbit of the planet just a pure circular orbit, instead or simultaneously dual. Aren’t circular orbits a preferred design or outcome? If all planetary orbits would be only circular and not dual, wouldn't that be a more intelligent and streamlined design?
TIM: Not necessarily. Elliptical orbits are more efficient than circular ones in a setup in which many orbits share the same center of rotation. We could discuss this in a moment.
TINA: I don’t know why I had the impression that circular orbits would be better.
TIM: For a long time astronomers thought a circle was a symbol of perfection and or of creation. As Tom mentioned, even Kepler apparently tried to resolve the orbits as being circular but couldn’t. So, since then astronomers have been using the visual thermal elliptical orbits of planets around the sun, perhaps without realizing that there could be another sets of orbits related to the gravitational engine of the system. In consequence, they have not been able to understand gravitational balance.
TINA: This is because they are trying to understand gravitational balance based on the elliptical thermal orbits instead of the gravitational ones. In contrast, the concept of bubbles assumes the true orbits of planets are the ones around the north-south centerline of the solar bubble.
TOM: Are you trying to deny the entire math about the solar system? It is all based on the true elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. Astronomy is not based on circular orbits and everything we know about the solar system is based on the elliptical orbits of celestial bodies and planets.
TIM: I disagree. For example, the Lagrangian points on the orbits of planets, including the position of the Trojan belts and a number of points at which telescopes or other spacecraft are situated are based on math made on circular orbits and it works like clockwork. Astronomy uses circular orbits to explain some of the other gravitational phenomena observed, perhaps without realizing the implications of it.
Astronomers wouldn't even think of not including Time as a Factor in measuring Distances within the Solar System, however, they discard the Space Factor
TINA: Can you repeat the concept one more time, please?
TIM: The bubbles of energy concept assume that the true orbits of planets would be dual, that is, circular and elliptical at the same time. I am not talking now about two sets orbits drawn from different frames of reference, but about the gravitational orbits of planets around the north-south centerline of the bubble of the solar system. They would be sort of two-in-one sort of orbits.
TINA: You are talking about one true orbit per planet that it would be simultaneously both, circular and elliptical. This is what’s a little hard to grasp.
TIM: As mentioned, they are circular because they would remain at a constant distance from the north-south centerline of the bubble, but would be elliptical because they would intersect the centerline of the bubble at an oblique angle. Hope you don’t mind that I keep repeating this as I try to explain the concept as simply as possible.
TINA: I don’t mind. The repetition helps, as it is a new concept and view. However, why would bubbles of energy have different equatorial planes than the ones we already know? Isn’t Tom right that assuming such a thing would mean that we wouldn't know as much as we thought we already knew and understood about the solar system and the universe? Wouldn't changing from the sun related orbits we already know to a new set we don’t even know if exists be a hindrance and step backward in understanding the solar system and the universe?
TIM: We don’t know that much about the universe, yet, but we would like to know more. If our previous assumptions were not completely right or sufficiently developed, it would be good to find out about it, so that we can continue to learn.
TINA: Could you explain again why wouldn't the orbits used by traditional ‘Standard’ astronomy be sufficiently developed or not completely right?
TIM: The traditional ‘Standard’ equatorial planes of planets and stars are drawn based only on the mass of the different systems and not in their space-mass. However, the bubble concept it provides a more complete understanding, representation and measurement of it. It is not just a matter of drawing different orbits to replace the present ones, but of seeing the engine of the solar system, or of a galaxy, and understanding how it achieves its gravitational balance, which is crucial to understanding the universe better.
TINA: Could you give a sample of what you are saying, please?
TIM: For example, the equatorial plane of the earth is understood and drawn on the planet’s equator. However, if the earth has its own bubble of energy, which is associated also with the moon's bubble and both are included in the greater bubble of the earth, the equatorial plane of the earth’s greater bubble of energy would be different from the one of the earth, its minor bubble.
TINA: Do you mean that the earth’s greater bubble is the one that travels through the circular-elliptical gravitational path around the centerline of the solar system’s bubble?
TINA: Therefore, you claim that by not including ‘space-mass’ and the bubbles of energy in understanding the solar system and universe, astronomers and cosmologists are not seeing the complete picture.
TIM: Exactly. Not considering the space-mass would be like trying to measure a distance within the solar system and not including time as a factor. Astronomers wouldn't even think of doing such a thing today. In contrast, the role of space in the topography of the universe is vastly more important than the one of time. Yet, it is ignored and pushed aside by the assumptions that space is all the same, a kind of lab vacuum that it is expanding and through which time and light travel always at the same speed, as in the concepts of the space-time and of the expansion of the universe. In contrast, the concept of bubbles is based on the space-mass of each celestial body and system.
Planets could have elliptical Orbits yet maintaining a constant Radius to the Center of the Bubble of the Solar System
TIM: Let me explain how those orbits while being circular relative to the centerline of the bubble of the solar system could still be elliptical also. We have said that on the view of bubbles, the planets would circle the centerline of the bubble of the solar system at a constant distant from it while traveling through circular bands or rings of uniform density.
TOM: You have to choose one. They can't be circular and elliptical at the same time and there should be only one valid orbit, not two, even in your bubbles conceptual fantasy.
TIM: Technically, the orbits of most planets could be both, circular and elliptical at the same time.
TINA: That idea of the duality is what I have a difficulty grasping! How does it work?
TIM: It’s actually quite simple. Now that I have explained the concept, let me offer an analogy.
TIM: If we have a tube or tubular shape and we cut it perpendicularly, the edge of the cut tube would be and look like a circle.
TIM: However, if we cut the tube in an oblique plane, the new edge of the tube would be an ellipse and not a circle.
TINA: The first one would be a circle and the second would be an ellipse, but the same tube.
TIM: Exactly. Depending on how we cut the tube, the border of it could be a circle or an ellipsis. A perpendicular cut would always produce a new circumference the same length as the circumference of the tube, however, a cut in an oblique plane would produce an ellipse, which would be longer than the perimeter of the circumference of the tube.
TINA: The greater the angle differs from 90 degrees, the longer the perimeter or border of the tube would be. I understand the difference between cutting the tube at a right angle or at another angle, however, why do you say that orbits could be circular and elliptical at the same time. How could the tube be cut simultaneously at two different angles?
TIM: Even when we cut the tube at an angle other than a perpendicular one, the walls of the tube would always be at the same distance or radius from the centerline of the same. The distance from the centerline to any point in the tube would be constant no matter the angle at which it is cut.
Each Planet would be traveling continuously through a Band of Space with the same Density
TINA: I think I can grasp that idea. How does that apply to the orbit of the bubble of a planet traveling through the inner space of the bubble of the solar system?
TIM: The tube in our thought-experiment would represent a north-south portion of the bubble of the solar system and the centerline would represent the north-south line at the center of the bubble of energy of the solar system.
TINA: The central line of the tube and of the central north south line of the bubble would share the same position and be the same.
TIM: Yes. The north-south centerline of the bubble would be the axis of rotation and of gravitation of the planets. The orbital paths or rings of the planets around that centerline would be their true orbits. Therefore, the orbits of the planets would always be at the same distance from the center of the solar bubble, even if the orbits were elliptical and cut at a non-perpendicular angle to the centerline. Each planet would be traveling continuously through a band of space with the same density and at the same distance from the center of the bubble, and that particular density would assist the buoyancy of that particular planet’s bubble.
TINA: That would be a band of uniform density in which the planet could float; the planet's orbital band. That way, each planetary bubble would have its own constant orbital band matching its own ratio of volume to weight.
TIM: Yes! In addition, if the planet’s orbit would intersect the central tube of the band of buoyancy at an oblique angle the orbit would be elliptical and still it would always be at the same distance from the centerline, making the elliptical orbit also circular.
TINA: I think I get it. Wow, that was tough to bite.
TIM: Therefore, every planet whose equatorial plane intersects the centerline of the bubble of energy at an angle different from 90-degrees, would have an elliptical orbit, yet being at a constant distance from the centerline of the bubble, which is an important element in the bubbles concept of gravitational balance.
Elliptical Orbits allow for multiple Celestial Objects orbiting the Center of the Solar System
TINA: Could you explain how the totality of the bubbles of energy of the planets would circle around the center of the bubble of the solar system? You have described a singular orbit but how all the orbits in the solar system would work?
TIM: The sum of all orbits of the planet in a solar system could be represented as a set of successive concentric virtual tubes with a single shared north-south centerline as their axis of rotation. Each planet’s orbital plane or celestial body would intersect its own tube at a different angle relative to the equatorial plane of the bubble of energy, rendering probably most orbits as elliptical ones, yet traveling in a circle of the same density and roughly the same distance to the bubble’s centerline.
TINA: We haven’t discussed fully my previous question yet. Wouldn't it be better if the planets orbits were purely circular instead of dual?
TIM: If all those equatorial planes would share the same plane or parallel ones with the equatorial plane of the bubble of the solar system, then all their orbits would be purely circular, but probably they would have instead elliptical orbits, resulting from their planes of interception being at an angle different from 90 degrees.
TINA: But why would they? I mean, even the earth has more than one North Pole, which adds to the confusion. Why would this be a preferred choice and the intelligently designed one? Isn’t this approach more complicated and less organized; and if so, why would the planets have dual orbits and not one purely circular? Why wouldn't the planets have their equatorial planes aligned with the equatorial plane of the bubble of energy? Wouldn’t that make for circular orbits that are easier to understand?
TIM: Maybe they would be easier to understand but possibly, it wouldn't be the best choice, the smartest choice for orbits.
TINA: Why? Why even most of the thermal orbits observed are elliptical, whether for planets or other celestial bodies? Why would dual orbits be a preferred arrangement, in your view?
TIM: I am not Kepler and I am no mathematician. However as it was previously mentioned, it is clear that elliptical orbits are a very elegant solution to handle and accommodate a larger number of orbits around a common center with a minimum interference between those orbits. In fact, in the concept of bubbles, the choice of elliptical orbits is considered extremely elegant as it allows the system to be much more efficient.
TINA: Could you explain why is more efficient?
TIM: If all of the celestial bodies of the solar system would share the same equatorial plane as the bubble of energy, all their orbits would be circular, so, the first question is why they aren’t.
TINA: Yes, why?
TIM: As mentioned, having elliptical orbits seems to be more efficient to handle a larger number of different celestial objects circling the center of the solar system. It allows for traffic controlling a larger number of orbiting objects by creating a variety of planes for their orbits. In contrast, if all the orbits would be in the same plane, planets and celestial bodies would be traveling a lot closer to each other more frequently and their movements might alter and disturb each other due to their frequent proximity and even alignment. They would create waves in the inner space as they navigate the solar system that would constantly interfere with each other. We discussed how the asteroid belts are there to handle such disturbances. If all the planets were in the same equatorial plane, the disturbances would be more frequent and perhaps provoke a compound effect on each other.
TINA: I didn’t get why it is so elegant that the orbits are elliptical and why this helps to avoid planetary traffic jams or too many waves.
Advantages of Elliptical Orbits
TIM: First, it is elegant that every planet has its own unique orbit, which is determined by the space-mass of the same and the outer space in which it moves. In other words, every planet is moving in a portion of space in which only that planet can float; others couldn’t float there because their space-mass would be different and require a different density of inner space. Therefore, planets would stick to their orbital paths naturally.
TINA: Earth wouldn't float into Mars’ orbital band, or vice versa.
TIM: Yep. In addition, as planets and celestial objects orbit in different planes, as they have different elliptical orbits relative to the equatorial plane of the bubble of energy, even those planets or celestial bodies that would travel through a nearby density of space, would only approach each other’s paths at most at two points of each other’s orbits. The rest of the time, they would travel through orbital paths that have a greater distance between them, because of the different angles of their equatorial planes.
TINA: Do you mean that although they would be circling roughly the same center of the system, their paths would approach only at two points of their respective orbits?
TIM: Yes. In addition, it is beautiful how the traffic of those planets is organized. Usually when a celestial object approaches or passes close to other celestial object’s orbital path, the other celestial object is far away from that point, minimizing orbital disturbances.
TINA: So, although there are some flybys in which two objects approach each other, usually they do so in a way that avoids unnecessary traffic congestions and avoids creating unnecessary spatial waves.
TIM: Yes, even in the cases in which two objects almost approach the point of intersection of each other orbits, their timings are so well arranged that are always at a safe distance from each other. An example of this is the orbits of Jupiter and the Hilda Group of asteroids. The paths of their orbits almost overlap each other at a certain point, but Jupiter and the Hilda never meet at hose points, as the timing of them transiting that point in their orbits is so well synchronized.
TINA: So, it is not only that celestial bodies move in planes at different angles the one from the other, but also that at the points their orbits might approach each other, the celestial bodies don’t approach the points at the same time as the other does.
TIM: Yes, it is beautifully coordinated and very elegantly arranged.
Elliptical Orbits are similar to Airports having multiple Runways to handle a number of Aircraft landing and taking off simultaneously, yet safely
TINA: So, having elliptical orbits, which only approach each other from time to time, allows for most of the celestial bodies to be handled individually and to be kept at larger distances from each other, which avoids unnecessary traffic jams in the hub of the system and even unnecessary electromagnetic disturbances or spatial waves.
TIM: Yes. Rarely a number of planets are concentrated in one spot, area, or even side of the disc, although it happens in some occasions. It is an impressive arrangement, and an elegant and highly intelligent design.
TINA: Wouldn’t that be a little similar to how big airports have different runways, so that a number of planes can land and take off simultaneously, yet safely?
TIM: It is a good analogy. Of course, in the case of the solar system the runways are arranged in a sort of holistic and three-dimensional way, having the virtual runways at different angles relative to the plane of the ‘main’ runway or main equatorial plane. Your suggested analogy is a good example of how it is possible to apply intelligent design to optimize a system.
TINA: So, planets would rotate at a constant distance from the center of the system, but also would have elliptical orbits. In addition, they would complete their orbits through swaths or bands of space, which would offer the unique density of space each planet needs to achieve buoyancy according to its individual space-mass.
TIM: Yes. Although most celestial objects in the solar system would travel paths of equal density, facilitating their buoyancy, it is possible that some of them don’t have such a smooth path or ‘runaway’, such as might be the case of comets.
The Orbits of Comets are different from the Orbits of other Celestial Bodies
TINA: Could we discuss also the orbits of comets?
TIM: If we have the time, we could.
TINA: In which are they different from planets and other celestial bodies?
TIM: A number of cosmologists consider comets are extra-solar celestial bodies as they have such different behavior.
TINA: Do you agree with that assessment?
TIM: In the concept of bubbles, it would be an anomaly that an extra-solar celestial body enters the bubble of a solar system, as celestial bodies cannot enter or leave their bubbles of energy easily. They are part of the ‘body’ of that closed system.
TINA: You have said that matter and space can't cross the skin of bubbles of energy easily, although waves and radiation can.
TIM: In the bubbles concept, comets most probably belong to the solar system they roam. As it takes some of them a long time to make one orbit, those perhaps, attest to the immense size of the solar bubble and to special characteristics of comets’ orbits.
TINA: Would comets have a constant speed throughout their orbits?
TIM: Probably not, especially those with orbits taking them close to the skin of the bubble. The inner space of the solar bubble close to the skin would be so light that probably comets there would move much faster.
TINA: You have suggested that planets would travel at constant speeds, while moving through orbital bands of the same density. Therefore, comets and planets would be different in that also.
TIM: Apparently, comets don’t travel circular orbits and it is even possible that they don’t even have the assumed elliptical orbits.
TINA: What shape would those orbits trace then?
Do long period Comets have an almost triangular Orbit, resembling the Shape of a Guitar Pick?
TIM: It is possible that long period comets have an almost triangular orbit, resembling somehow the shape of a guitar pick. It could be that when approaching the area near the skin of the solar bubble instead of returning in the typical assumed elliptical orbit they bounce of the inner electromagnetic field of the skin in a sort of internal tangent to the bubble’s spherical skin. Then, they bounce again later and turn back towards the center of the bubble of energy. In that sense, the ‘guitar pick’ shaped orbit inside the sphere of the bubble would have two vertices bouncing off the inner skin of the bubble and the apex one circling the center of the bubble.
TINA: It’s an interesting possibility!
TOM: It is very unlikely they could have such orbits. No such orbits are observed in other celestial bodies.
TIM: The Hilda group of asteroids has such type of orbits. Their orbits are guitar picked shaped. As mentioned, the speed at which comets travel could be different from celestial objects with circular-elliptical orbits and might need more analyzes. As mentioned, if we have the time, we could analyze further this interesting phenomenon.
TINA: What would be a way that comets could overcome differences of density in their orbital paths or bands and still maintain their buoyancy?
TIM: Not having circular orbits could be the cause of their differences of speed, as I just mentioned. This would be possible in the view of bubbles, as while traveling far from the centerline of the bubble and far from the deep end of the gravitational pool, they would encounter less resistance and could naturally increase their speed. When they approach the inner side of the electromagnetically sturdy skin of the solar bubble, they could bounce and travel in a tangent until they bounce for a second time on the skin and then head towards the center of the bubble again. As the electromagnetic skin of the bubble would be turning, this could aid the angle at which comets bounce, sending them in a tangent line along the inner side of the bubble.
TINA: Some comets have periods of thousands of years.
TIM: Yes. However, they could still travel inside the inner space of the bubble of the solar system, which is huge. As a reference, we have mentioned that the radius of our solar bubble could be above 100,000 Astronomical Units or up to about 15 trillion kilometers, perhaps more. It could take a comet tens of thousands of years to travel such distances, especially those that might have a ‘guitar pick’ shaped orbit. If that would be the case, the quasi-triangular shape of the orbit could make the distance traveled by the comet in one orbit up to about 45 trillion kilometers long.
The Sun is only the Engine of the Thermal System of the Solar System, while the Bubble of Energy is the Engine of its Gravitational System
TINA: The traditional ‘Standard’ Model approach to understanding the solar system is still based on the visible celestial bodies that populate it and how those move and interact. In contrast, your view it is not based on only the mass present in the solar system and their assumed interactions with light and time, but in the interactions of the space of bubbles and the mass of celestial objects present in it.
TIM: The traditional ‘Standard’ Model approach was inherited from thousands of years of observing the planets and the sun. It is an interpretation of the solar system based on what it is seen, on observation, a type of visual understanding of the system. We have mentioned that this is one of the restrictions of astronomy and cosmology, as there are few opportunities for hands-on experimentation.
TINA: However, you are talking about orbits with a different frame of reference.
TIM: The concept of bubbles of energy doesn’t consider the sun the engine of the solar system’s gravity, although it recognizes that it is the main engine for the generation of most of the energy and heat of the solar system. Obviously, having the center of the thermal system near the center of the bubble would facilitate a better distribution of heat, energy and light to the entire bubble of energy at all times.
TINA: Instead, the gravitational center of the system would be at the north-south poles centerline of the bubble. Therefore, in order to trace the orbits of planets in the bubbles concept it would be necessary first to find the equatorial plane, or the north-south centerline of the solar system’s bubble and then to find the angle at which each planet and the sun intersect the equatorial plane of that bubble. Do you think it would be difficult to find any of those?
TIM: No. Soon we could discuss some of the missed past opportunities by scientists to do so.
TINA: All those different factors we have been discussing are still hard to grasp and to associate together into the picture of gravitational balance.
TIM: Don’t worry about it. The main issues here are that in the concept of bubbles of energy, the true orbits of the planets of the solar system should be traced and understood in the frame of reference of the bubble of the solar system, instead of the frame of reference of the sun, and its energy output and its thermal role. In addition, ‘gravity’ isn’t generated by mass alone but by engines of space-mass.