| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: IN SYMPATHY to the Hale-Bopp Cooperative
Date: 3 Mar 1997 00:30:58 GMT
In article: <[email protected]> David Tholen
writes:
>> Fine, now since you claim that the Orbital Elements are
>> changed as a result of OBSERVATIONS, please tell us what
>> observation caused the eccentricity of the mythical
>> Hale-Bopp to change from
>> 0.995038361 on May 28, '96 to
>> 0.995072729 on June 27, '96,
>> as announced by JPL.
>> ZetaTalk[TM]
>
> All the observations have been published in the Minor Planet
> Circulars, Nancy. ... There are over 1,900 astrometric
> observations by now, including some made between May 28
> and June 27.
> [email protected]
In other words, you CAN'T DEFEND IT. In particular this would be true as at the time,
| 1. | Hale-Bopp was supposed to be coming up through the plane of the ecliptic, and |
| 2. | the LEAP AWAY FROM JUPITER that Yeoman posted, some 3 arc minutes AWAY from Jupiter at Dec -22 and toward the ecliptic plane for the very same day of May 28, 1996, from Dec -15 to Dec -12, all based on observations per Yeoman, |
| 3. | would have given the mythical Hale-Bopp a WIDER ORBIT, |
| 4. | which goes hand in hand with a wider, not tighter, eccentricity. |
Here again, we have an inconsistency, which is indefensible, in the story line about Hale-Bopp that the public has been fed.
In article <[email protected]> Martin Tom
Brown writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Fine, now since you claim that the Orbital Elements are
>> changed as a result of OBSERVATIONS, please tell us
>> what observation caused the eccentricity of the mythical
>> Hale-Bopp to change from
>> 0.995038361 on May 28, '96 to
>> 0.995072729 on June 27, '96,
>
> You seem to be complaining because the eccenticity has
> changed by 4 parts in 100000. Try measuring your desktop
> to 5 sig fig and you will quickly reallise what is meant by
> experimental error.
> [email protected] (Martin Tom Brown)
Not so, per your fellow above.
In article <[email protected]> David Tholen
writes:
> No, just the orbital periods are speculative. For example an
> object with a perihelion distance of 0.23 AU and an
> eccentricity of 0.99975 would have an orbital period of
> 28,000 years, but if the eccentrcity is 0.99965, the orbital
> period is only 17,000 years. As anyone can see, the orbital
> period for a nearly parabolic orbit is quite sensitive to
the
> eccentricity determination; a tiny change of only 0.0001
> in the eccentricity can affect the orbital period by 40%.
> [email protected]