WHY THE ORBITS OF PLANETS ARE ELLIPTICAL?

This description ignores the relatively negligible gravitational effects of other planets (because of mass) and stars (because of distance).

An object, a concentration of mass, is hurled away from a star a result of some energetic event. This can have three different results. Objects that receive an initial energy above a certain threshold escape the star’s gravity and experience some alternative fate (unknown to us for the purposes of this discussion).

[1] Objects that receive an initial energy below a certain threshold fall back into the star. But there is a certain middle range of initial energy that results in an orbiting planet. For objects that receive this level of energy the escape momentum eventually falls below the gravitational attraction between the planet and the star. As the planet again approaches the star, the planet’s velocity (momentum) increases. At a certain moment, the acceleration due to gravity and the momentum come to be equal. At that moment the planet will be in a circular orbit around the star. The distance from the star at which this happens is a function of the initial energy and the mass of the object. This is also the closest the planet gets to the star. Beyond this point as the planet continues to “fall”, it continues to be accelerated by gravity. The resulting increased momentum now causes the planet to again move away from the star. All things being equal (and they are not, see first sentence), this phase will result in the complete restoration of the original energy and the system will recur.

Here is another way to explain the energy exchange.
At some point the initial energy is all used up and the planet begins to fall back toward the star. As it falls to the star it accelerates acquiring momentum (which is another way of saying that it is reacquiring the energy it gave up in overcoming gravity). In the course of returning to the star it acquires enough energy to allow it to avoid falling into the star.






[1] The mass of the object must also be a part of the equation. Couldn’t there still be objects way beyond what we presently consider the boundaries of our solar system that will in fact someday come back as additional planets?[1] The mass of the object must also be a part of the equation. Couldn’t there still be objects way beyond what we presently consider the boundaries of our solar system that will in fact someday come back as additional planets?

the first question

The premise is that heat and light are both transmitted by electromagnetic waves.
Or is it that light is transmitted by photons and heat is transmitted by electromagnetic waves?
In that case what is the meaning of the electromagnetic wave spectrum?
Or, how does a photon carry color information? Assuming it does?

But back to the premise.
Red is a color of light generated in our brains by waves of a certain range of frequencies on the electromagnetic wave spectrum, yes?
Infrared waves are of a slightly lower range of frequencies on the same spectrum that we perceive as what might be called a "heat wave".
The interaction of heat waves with physical objects increases the temperature of those objects. We understand that there is a trade of sorts. In some sense the infrared wave deposits it's energy in physical objects and disappears?
On the other hand, "red electromagnetic waves" have no apparent effect on physical objects. Why is that?

If you radiate heat into a box, you know that soon after the interior of the box will still be warm. You know that the exterior of the box will feel warm and will eventually cool to the temperature of the surroundings.

If you radiate light into the same box, you know that soon after there will be no visible residue.
Where did the light go?

How do color waves (or photons) lose energy? Do they ever dissipate.

When you turn on a light in a room, (and I realize that I am ignoring the speed of light), but the room immediately fills with light. When I turn the light off, the room is immediately empty of light. Why don't we see the gradual dissipation of the reflecting light waves?

Doesn't it make more sense to say that the light bulb disturbs the space it can see and that disturbance ceases as soon as the light is turned off? But if that's the case, what is it that is being disturbed, what is the light medium? I don't think its air. But it might be the purported electromagnetic field.

And finally, then, at that point, why can't we call the electromagnetic field the long sought, but presently disrespected (I think?) aether?