Talk:Orbit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511114407/http://gcmd.nasa.gov/add/ancillaryguide/platforms/orbit.html to http://gcmd.nasa.gov/add/ancillaryguide/platforms/orbit.html
*Added  tag to http://www.astrobiology.ucla.edu/OTHER/SSO/Misc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So, we either have Newtonian orbits or General Relativistic orbits? Rubbish! Last I heard, Newtonian gravity works instantaneously and simply fails to adequately describe solar system dynamics. Special Relativity (or modified Newtonian Physics with a finite speed of interaction, c) is just as much Relativity as GR is. And then we have the FALSE assertion that orbits are in planes. THEY.ARE.NOT. (except for simple 2-body systems). The Relativity section needs a rewrite and the Orbital Planes section should be removed - its content is false, misleading and trivial.71.31.150.130 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful sections on Relativity and Orbital Planes 

message: I'd like to link from another article to an explanation of why many earth-observing satellites have "polar holes", areas near the poles where they cannot gather data (obviously not the ones in polar orbits). Can anyone point me to a good explanation of this, preferably in a Wikpedia article? HLHJ (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to polar hole explanation 

message: Orbital shell (spaceflight) → Orbit – The article Orbital shell (spaceflight) fails WP:GNG to have its own standalone article. I think that the content in that article can easily be explained in the context of Orbit, and the "Orbit" article is of a reasonable size that the merging of "Orbital shell (spaceflight)" will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 12:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Orbit article wouldn't be the right destination. If you're going to merge it,  it should be to Satellite constellation, or possibly just transwikified to Wiktionary, with the article reduced to a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing this proposal, given the uncontested objection. To discussed the new proposed target, see Talk:Satellite constellation#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 7 April 2020 

message: I've tagged "The paths of all the star's satellites are elliptical orbits about that barycenter" becaues I think that's a bad approximation of what really happens with respect to the Earth's orbit. Since our orbit is much closer to the Sun that Jupiter is, it would be more accurate to just say the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the barycenter of the solar system. See the first answer to , which seems like the correct explanation.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a bad approximation (I don’t think so), but either way it’s still correct to say that earth orbits the barycenter. Healpa12 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Kepler,s laws 2409:4042:D84:DEEC:0:0:618B:5213 (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: Axis 175.176.66.109 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science