| |
|
Article: <5grl4d$30e@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: 12th Planet - any photos ?
Date: 20 Mar 1997 15:29:17 GMT
In article <5giq9d$guq@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Lamont Granquist writes:
>> The hyperbolic orbit is asserted to have a curve at all times!
>> No matter how long a long period ellipse is asserted to be,
>> the same obligation to complete the sideways curve is
>> asserted. Why then are hyperbolic curves exempted?
>> saquo@ix.netcom.com
>
> They aren't exempted, they're just asymptotically flat (or until
> it wanders into the next solar system...) And there is no
> "obligation to complete the sideways curve", there's just a
> tendency towards the orbit being deflected -- for planets this
> tendency is maximal, for elliptical comets it is sufficient to
> bring them back to the sun, but for hyperbolic orbits the
> deflection isn't sufficient.
> lamontg@nospam.washington.edu
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Ah, there is it! The point we've been trying to press lo these many weeks! The "tendency
towards the orbit being deflected". Lets discuss that! Where does this tendency set in? At
what point, in the curvature does this occur or not occur? What influences this tendency?
Why does this tendency have an effect, per you, on what you assume to be long period
ellipses, but NOT on hyperbolic orbits?
Inquiring minds what to know! Please explain this "tendency" in your laws of gravity and
motion, we dare you! Stating the comet is drawing geometry does not count. They've been
skipping school forever and getting away with it. Put your laws together and MAKE
THEM WORK! That is, if you can.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])