| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy)
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp's DISTANCE?
Date: 9 Apr 1997 14:43:34 GMT
In article: <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
>> You cannot use MATH to prove or disprove the distance of
>> an object in space moving slowly! Small object close in or
>> large object far away, without further clues one CANNOT
>> determine distance of an astronomical object.
>> ZetaTalk[TM]
>
> For objects very close to Earth, the observers topocentric
> motion around the center of the Earth helps even more to
> compute its orbit around the sun. We use this very technique
> to discriminate unusual asteroids, like the Earth Approaching
> asteroids, from those out in the main-belt between Mars and
> Jupiter. You obviously don't understand parallax and
> triangulation.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Don't be absurd! For parallax or triangulation to be applied there must be a modicum of STABILITY in the
orbit, and the fraud Hale-Bopp is now at Solution Set 57! How can you claim stability, even as measured
with your own ephemerides, when the orbit period moved from the 4,200 years you published to one of
2,380 years! The published orbital elements had the comet zig-zagging across the sky, leaping AWAY from
Jupiter upon passage, and ephemeride contradictions such as a tightened eccentricity when the orbit had
been broadened by the leap away from Jupiter! Parallax or triangulation are possible for stable objects, not
a hypothetical snaky line drawn across the sky.
And how does the public, who as often as not could not FIND a comet where you said it would be during
all but June or July of 1996, proceed with the calculations? If Brian Marsden of the IAU found he had to
toss out 90% of his data in order to make McNaught's 1993 image claimed to be of a comet called
Hale-Bopp, then how is the general public to proceed!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])