Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 18 Apr 1998 03:10:12 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Eric George writes:
> Keplarian (ie. non-perturbed) orbits describe perfect ellipses with 
> only two real bodies, no third body, imaginary or otherwise, is 
> required or even possible.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Tut tut!  Your elliptical formulas are DESCRIBING an orbit you have
observed, but not understood.  Anything other than a circular orbit is
dealing with a third body.  Just because you have not SEEN it, does not
mean that the very real actions of the bodies perturbed by that third
body are not due to the unseen.  Do you think you know all about the
Universe about you?  Your theories were trashed only yesterday but
today you are all knowing and wise?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Eric George writes:
> Is this from some obscure derivation I'm unfamiliar with?  I've 
> gone through the derivations several times from various
> perspectives, but never heard of using an "imaginary" mass.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
It's what you place in your long ellipse formulas to make them work,
no?  The second focus.  Of course an imaginary focus does NOT exist,
except in your equations.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Eric George writes:
> From what I know, orbits involving two equally massive bodies 
> and a third less massive body fall in the latter catagory.  Chaos is 
> not an excuse for inadequate theories, it is a basic principal of
nature.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're quite honest in describing the adequacy of your current math
formulas.  The orbit of a planet around two binaries is NOT chaotic. 
Only in the small minds of man, who is thrown into chaos trying to
resolve his primitive math.  THAT appears to be chaos.  After all, Jim
Scotti stated that such an orbit is possible.  Are you refuting him?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

.......
220 230896 <[email protected]> article
Path: ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Nancy)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit
Date: 6 Apr 1998 14:11:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: smx-ca16-01.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Apr 06  9:11:41 AM CDT 1998
Xref: ix.netcom.com sci.astro:230896

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
>> It's a fact that most suns are binaries, and some so close at 
>> to give : the appearance of barely keeping each other at arms 
>> length.  Why should : it be astonishing that a planet would 
>> institute an orbit around BOTH? Are you saying it is impossible
>> for a planet to orbit two suns? Impossible?
>
> A planet can orbit both suns in a binary star system.  

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You went through an elaborate statement to say you base your theories
on orbits upon what you have OBSERVED - inverse square on Gravity and
momentum conservation of energy rules.  Bearing in mind that you have
not OBSERVED a planet orbiting two suns, both suns in a binary system,
what would that orbit look like?  For the sake of moving this argument
forward, we will assume for the moment that your orbital mechanics are
correct, and not under challenge.  Just paint for us what that orbit
would look like.  Not the several pages of math, but just something
simple, in the manner you are so very skilled at employing.  A simple
verbal description of what such an orbit would look like.  

You have a head start in that your astronomy computer programs already
ASSUME a second foci in elliptical orbits.  Just put that foci out
there, WAY out there, some 18.724 times as far as Pluto is from your
Sun.  Assume the same factors published prior to the search for Planet
X, Van Flandern's statement that the perterbations observed in the
outer planets would require a planet or brown dwarf 2 to 5 times as
large as Earth.  We are requesting for this discussion that you assume
a planet 4 times as large as Earth, as this is our statement.  Grant us
this assumption in return for our granting you that YOUR assumption on
orbital mechanics is correct, tit for tat, one concession for another,
and since both assumptions as based on human assumption, you should
have no objections.  This hypothetical discussion would be no different
from any other occuring on sci.astro in that regard, applying known
physics, as you say, to a hypothetical situation.

What would such an orbit, where a planet orbited both suns in a binary
system, look like?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])