Kepler orbit

A planet like Earth would spiral out, risking global freezing as it moves further from the shrinking star.

Furthermore, because the primary star is under constant, brutal acceleration from the engine, you introduce complex, non-Keplerian perturbations to every planetary orbit.

Non-Keplerian, meaning they aren't those nice, predictable ovals anymore.

They become chaotic, utterly unpredictable.

And this is strictly periodic if the planet is orbiting always at the same period.

But then if you add more than one planet in the system, then this orbit is not perfectly what we call Keplerian, and so there are some deviations from a perfect periodic signal.

And from the linear ephemeris, what we call like the perfect period, then you can infer the presence of additional planets.

So my thesis started trying to create a model to combine both photometry and radial velocity all together to extract all the possible information.

It is with him a pious belief, just as it was with Pythagoras and his school and with Aristarchus.

But, as Dreyer says in his most interesting book, Tycho Brahe, "Proofs of the physical truth of his system Copernicus had given none and could give none, any more than Pythagoras or Aristarchus." There was nothing so startlingly simple in his system as to lead the cautious astronomer to accept it, as there was in the later Keplerian system, and the absence of parallax in the stars seemed to condemn his system, which had no physical basis to recommend it and no simplification at all over the Egypto-Tychonic system to which Copernicus himself drew attention.

It has been necessary to devote perhaps undue space to the interesting work of Copernicus because, by a curious chance, his name has become so widely known.

He has been spoken of very generally as the founder of the solar system that is now accepted.

This seems unfair, and on reading over what has been written about him at different times, it will be noticed that the astronomers, those who have evidently read his great book, are very cautious in the words with which they eulogize him and refrain from attributing to him the foundation of our solar system, which is entirely due to Kepler.

It is only the more popular writers who give the idea that a revolution had been effected when Pythagoras' system was revived and when Copernicus supported his view that the Earth moves and is not fixed.

It may be easy to explain the association of the name of Copernicus with the Keplerian system, but the time has long passed when the historian can support in any way this popular error, which was started not by astronomers acquainted with Kepler's work, but by those who desired to put the Church in the wrong by extolling Copernicus.

Copernicus dreaded much the abuse he expected to receive from philosophers for opposing the authority of Aristotle, who had declared that the Earth was fixed.

Cross-sensor confirmation, a single visual anomaly could be misinterpreted.

And when you think about orbital dynamics, any object in Earth orbit will follow Keplerian motion unless acted upon by another force.

To observe an abrupt change of velocity, say a hover or rapid acceleration, implies some external interaction we don't have evidence for from known physics or engineering.

But remember that space is not entirely vacuum.

It calculates, if I fire the starboard thruster for two seconds, how does my latent vector change? It simulates the physics of these actions entirely within its own learned mathematical model.

Bypassing the need to render video or use hard-coded Keplerian math.

Yes.

It then evaluates these parallel dreams and executes the thruster command that leads to the safest predicted outcome.

But because these are dynamical objects, the formal cause here does not just mean a shape, right? It means something more.

And what telescopes allow us to do, especially if we combine, uh, images from different telescopes of a different filters, is to start seeing just how dynamical of objects these are, how these disks form, uh, together with jets, sort of shooting out some of the material, um, how they are orbiting at the Keplerian velocities, if they are stable, except that they have tiny offsets, which we can, uh, try to understand what they're coming from.

Maybe material are flowing out or coming in.

But these are the kind of questions is like, what is, what is the formal cause? What is the structure? What's the dynamics? What does formal cause mean for, for this object? The second kind of questions that people are asking when trying to understand it is what is it made out of? So what's the material cost? And we can, uh, use spectroscopy.

yeah we have famous Galileo Galilee that these planets exist or whatever and you know actually it didn't they thought it was going to be a religious effect actually that's what they were really afraid of is that this new information would change people's theology but it didn't really they just accepted it and it the theology kind of stayed the same they just said okay we know something more something's weird

yeah so anyway um Fred Whipple revives the Keplerian idea of this being a dirty snowball.

And at the time, they called it the ice ball comet model.

If you look at literally when I was at Cornell, like 79 to 81, they called it the ice ball comet model.

But I do if I want to fly over them in the atmosphere.

And so countries who, you know, previously didn't have access can now fly over wherever they want according to you know, Keplerian laws of orbital dynamics, so You know Iran now has satellites.

They're not very good We're not sure what state they're in but they're now able at least in theory to to overpass Israel, the United States and others.

And perhaps in the future, if they're allowed to get that far, form their own ISR capability, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.