Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6i4gko$nul@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:04:40 GMT

In article <3545081F.1E3B@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C.
Harrison wrote:
> If the two foci were large enough, and were in orbit around 
> each other, the concept of a planet having a stable orbit round
> one and then the other with two foci is unwise, because when
> it goes back out towards the other foci, as that has moved 
> round in it's orbit some distance, it will no longer be where 
> it was the last time the planet orbitted it. Hence, it's going to
> miss it's orbit on the second trip. This can be gotten around
> by proposing that the orbital path is non-symmetric such that
> the new path is towards the new foci position, but since orbits
> decay gradually with time, this won't be stable as the objects
> draw nearer to each other. 

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
If one assumes your orbital mechanics are correct, and motion and the
direction of motion DRIVES orbits, then we can see how you might
conclude this.  You're wrong, as we have stated, and will ask our
emissary, Nancy, to post our existing statements on what truly drives
orbits.  Two foci can be in motion without their planets getting lost. 
Do you and your wife lose each other in a crowd?  You aim FOR each
other!  
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

As requested, existing ZetaTalk on Orbits.
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM] on Orbits)
The orbit of planets is guided by several factors, only one of which is
the gravitational influence of the Sun, though that is, of course, the
strongest.  Humans ascribe an inordinate amount of weight, in orbits,
to what they perceive as the existing, or static, motion.  They assume
the orbit is constant, having been in place since the inception of the
Solar System.  They assume the distance from the Sun is maintained by
centrifugal force, pulling away from the Sun.  They assume the rotation
of planets is a constant, and having no explanation for rotation
ascribe it also to motion having been in place since the inception of
the Solar System.  Humans view the result of many factors they do not
understand, and ascribe this result to inappropriate causes.  They are
wrong on all counts, but as the Solar System does not change in its
motion before their eyes, this is not often up for debate.  Rigid minds
have no reason to change.  Comfortable theories have no uncomfortable
challenges.  

The orbiting planets are indeed caught in the Sun's gravitational
field, but there is more than gravity and motion at play in maintaining
the distance they do from the Sun.  The orbits are scarcely fast enough
to create a centrifugal force strong enough to keep them at a distance
from the Sun.  Planets do not drift into the Sun, in the main, due to a
repulsion force generated in both bodies.  Where the force of gravity
is constant, and steadily pulls a smaller object toward a larger, a
repulsion force is generated between objects, and only becomes strong
enough when the mass of the two objects is sufficient.  Do binary Sun's
maintain their dance around each other, always at the same distance, by
accident?  Tiny objects, such as comets or meteors which regularly
crash into the Sun or the orbiting planets, do not generate a repulsion
force sufficient to counteract gravity, due to their tiny mass in
proportion to the Sun or planet.  When their paths bring them close,
they are caught in the gravity pull.

Orbiting planets are in motion because they are attracted to more than
the Sun's gravitational field, more than the Sun's dark twin which acts
as the 12th Planet's second focus, and certainly more than each other,
although that is a small factor.  Do the stars maintain their distance
from each other by accident?  For those who doubt that there are
gravitational influences outside of the Solar System, pulling on the
orbiting planets, we would point to the elliptical path that planets
assume.  Why an ellipse?  If the planets were concerned only with the
Sun, or with each other, they would not assume the path they do. 
Planets assume an elliptical orbit for the same reason that comets
leave the Solar System.  They are listening to more than one voice.  As
to why this voice but not another calls to this planet but not another,
the answer lies in the force of gravity, which is not at all as simple
as humans assume.  Gravity has many nuances, depending on composition
and distance, and what influences one body toward another may have
little effect on other bodies.

Why do repeating comets, which clearly set into an orbit around the Sun
during a good portion of their time within the Solar System, escape? 
If one assumes that planets are not escaping because the circular or
elliptical orbit is stable, then why not apply the same logic to
comets?  Humans do not apply this logic to comets because it doesn't
compute, so deal with the contradiction by falling into magical
explanations for the behavior of comets.  The answer to this riddle is
that neither orbit is stable, but that the comet, being tiny, can
escape from the Sun's gravitational pull more easily than the larger
planets, just as it can be caught in a collision course to the Sun or a
planet, due to its tiny size.  Even repeating comets, which are assumed
to have only one focus, the Sun, are listening to more than one voice. 
They leave the Sun, having settled momentarily into an orbit around the
Sun, and head toward the one or more other gravitational influence that
dominates their life.  Some comets orbit, briefly, these other foci,
and some simply get drawn back toward the Sun.  In this case they
appear to humans to have a long ellipse orbit.  

Elliptical orbits have no explanation if one is to consider that the
Sun or other planets are the only gravitational influences.  In
particular, the elliptical orbit of a repeating comet cannot be
explained, as when it leaves the Sun it is heading straight away, and
has no curve or angular momentum that would bring it round to where it
is seen reentering the Solar System.  When out in space, slowing due to
the gravitational pull of the Sun to its back, it drifts toward the
other gravitational focus it is sensitive to.  There are three voices
the repeating comet is listening to at this point.  

- the Sun behind its back, which is an increasing voice as the comet
loses speed due to this same gravitational pull  

- the second gravitational influence, which it begins curving toward  

- its momentum away from the Sun  

By the time its momentum stops, as stop it does, the comet is
positioned such that it will return to the Solar System in what appears
to humans to be an elliptical manner, and not return whence it came. 
The position of the apparent ellipse of a repeating comet's orbit is in
fact caused by the position of the second or more gravitational foci of
this comet.
(End ZetaTalk[TM] on Orbits)