Speed increases as the satellite orbits closer to its parent, and slows as the orbit is extended. As the x-axis is a linear representation of time, the changes in speed during orbit serve to "compress" the wave troughs and expand the wave peaks. Thus the wave resembles more of a bouncing ball than a simple sine.
> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:25:02 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nature Editorial: If you want reproducible science, the > software needs to be open source > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > From Harry: > > > >>> From OrionWorks: > >>> What I can say is that the new system involves an alternative way of > >>> graphing out a periodic orbit - where you plot an "elliptical" orbit on a > >>> TIME-LINE chart. The orbital distance is the "Y" vertical value and the > >>> horizontal "X" value is the time value. > >> > >> That graph should look something like a sine curve....or not? > > > > You're on the right track. However the time-line looks more like a > > bouncing ball. > > I think I understand now. You are mapping a two dimensional distance > vector to the distance axis of your distance-time graph, so that a > perfectly circular orbit corresponds to a straight line. > This differs from a distance time graph in an introductory course in > physics where the distance axis represents the length of a one > dimensional vector so that a straight line in this graph corresponds > with a stationary body (and by implication zero velocity and zero > acceleration.) > > > > > > The "bouncing" part is where the satellite has reached the perihelion > > (closest distance) in the orbital period. > > I am puzzled by this. Why isn't there a "bouncing part" at the aphelion? > > > Ironically, at this moment > > in time I would conjecture that it would not be incorrect to stipulate > > that the orbiting satellite is behaving as if it's being influenced by > > a NEGATIVE gravitational field. That's where the 1/r^3 (cubed) part of > > the algorithm comes into play. It influences the direction the > > satellite is taking by pushing it away. Traditionally speaking, we are > > used to interpreting that aspect of the orbit as the influence of > > centripetal action. It's all a matter of interpretation! The cubed > > (negative forces) influence only comes into play in close proximity to > > the planet for which the satellite is orbiting around. At farther > > distances, the normal 1/r^2 (attractive forces) take over. > > > > It's really kind of a nifty perspective, if not a little wacky! ;-) > > > > Regards > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > www.OrionWorks.com > > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > >
