Re: Disinformation Provider etc

>>>> In <slrn9qqtcg.6co.reverse-username_501cp@whitlam.localdomain>, Synic wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I think that's the most unfortunate thing about Nancy Leider... 
>>>>> She's a MENSA-level mentally ill woman. She has theories that are 
>>>>> fairly internally consistent, but, which just don't stack up to 
>>>>> external reality. 

>>> They all laughed, when joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) said:
>>>> I'm listening....

>>  In article <umbsqtcgu048n99s0338dbu5ob79965sll@4ax.com>, Martyn Harrison wrote:
>>> The details of the orbit of planet X, as enumerated by the
>>> zetans/nancy back a ways some. The point was that it was supposed to
>>> be orbiting around the sun. Nancy gave figures that defined a period
>>> and distance of orbit.
>>>
>>> Then, as I recall, we all discussed the way there was an obvious
>>> relationship between the period and distance* of orbits of everything
>>> that goes around our sun. This does not depend on the body in
>>> question, either, it is a property of our sun (what mass it is) and
>>> not the object.
>>>
>>> The figures for planet X came up short in that regard, you'd have to
>>> have a seriously longer period, or a seriously shorter semimajor axis.
>>> And, (objection one) the eccentricity of the orbit didn't matter, this
>>> *was* semimajor axis that took it into account, we have things that
>>> have highly eccentric orbits too.
>>>
>>> Objection two was that humans didn't understand gravity, as I recall,
>>> although it is hard to see how that stacked up with any sense given
>>> that we understood it well enough to show how all the known bodies,
>>> planets, comets, asteroids and arbitrary things like spaceships
>>> followed these gravitational rules to the best of anyone's measuring
>>> ability. 

> They all laughed, when joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) said:
>> As i read you, I am thinking you mean for the given (by Nancy) average
>> distance of Planet-X, it should have a longer orbital-period.

They all cried, when Martyn Harrison <martyn.harrison@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Worth checking back for the actual figures, it was somewhat more
> extreme an error than maybe you think. IIRC the period was
> ridiculously long, millions of years or sommat.

> They all laughed, when joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) said:
>> Are you asuming it was a normal orbit here?  

They all cried, when Martyn Harrison <martyn.harrison@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> This is sort of compulsory. The sun has a mass. There is a force of
> gravity that depends on mass. There is a distance from the sun that
> links the mass to the gravity at that point.
>
> Surrounding the sun in a conceptual way are orbits, many orbits that
> blend into an equation where at a given distance, the period of the
> orbit will be a specific period. When you vary the eccentricity, you
> create elliptical orbits that approach the sun, speeding up, and then
> accelerate away, travelling further away at aphelion, their furthest
> point from the sun.
>
> These are orbits. Say the earth is 150,000,000,000 or 1.5e11 meters
> from the sun, and travels round once per year. It follows that this
> circle is pi * d, or about 1,000,000,000,000 or e12 meters long. The
> earth has to trundle round in 365 days times 24 hours, times 60
> minutes and times 60 seconds, which is about 30,000,000 seconds.
> Dividing the one by the other, you establish that the earth is going
> round at a speed of 100,000 / 3 or 33 kilometers each second.
>
> At this point, you can say "blimey, that's fast and no mistake guv".
> But it isn't fast, it is just the speed that something travels at when
> it is going fast enough to avoid falling down into the sun. As the
> Earth moves along at a tangent to the sun, it also falls down about
> below this line. Draw a dot, a circle around this dot, and a line
> touching the circle. follow the line along a bit from the point where
> it touches the circle, and that's where the earth would be if there
> wasn't a sun. Have the pencil tip / earth fall back towards the sun,
> and it will reach that circle again. Turn the paper round a bit, draw
> another line touching that circle where the pencil is now. Along the
> line a bit further, have it drop down to the circle again, turn the
> paper. After a while, you will realise that you get back to the start
> of the circle, and that you can keep falling down indefinitely without
> actually getting any nearer. That's an orbit.
>
> Now we have things that are travelling faster or slower, yeah? Well,
> these merely go further out and slow down again (if faster) or fall
> inwards and speed up (if slower), returning to the point they were
> after one complete orbit and with the same speed at that point. With
> the right speed, their orbit is circular, if the wrong speed, the
> orbit is elliptical (in either direction), if wildly different the
> orbit is wildly eccentric.
>
> This is because things fall down, in gravity. Nothing more difficult
> than that. Crunching the numbers is pretty simple. If you looked up
> the original stuff, you already can see this. If not, I can find the
> file I did for Nancy.
>
> To extend this, let us explore what happens when something falls down?
> On earth, we might have mass from earth instead, we can look at that
> and see what the mass falling does. Let us imagine a cannonball being
> tossed, obviously if the cannonball is a kilogram and spherical, it
> does not matter a lot which one of four you use, they all follow the
> same path and land in the same place. Now imagine two are connected by
> a bit of string. Does it matter that this object now weighs twice as
> much? Nope, the joined cannonballs land the same as the unjoined
> balls. And that continues to be true of planets, it doesn't matter
> what *they* weigh, the orbit is defined by the mass of the sun.
>
> Therefore, Nancy's orbit wasn't an orbit. Talking about "normal" or
> "standard" orbits is just nonsense, like saying you have a housebrick
> that doesn't fall to the ground like other housebricks because it
> doesn't have a normal gravity, despite being just as heavy / same
> shape as other bricks.
>

> They all laughed, when joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) said:
>>Because it is orbiting
>> 2 objects, which is highly uncommon in the solar system (if existing
>> at all ofcourse), so not necessarily all behaviours of such an orbit 
>> are known trivially on beforehand.

They all cried, when Martyn Harrison <martyn.harrison@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Either it is to do with gravity, or it is *not* to do with gravity.
> Feel free to type in your maths and convince *me* about your uncommon,
> extra body, orbit.
>
> Nancy had a silly one, where the planet orbited two stars each of
> which was in a focus of the ellipse of the orbit, although actually
> such a thing does not exist in nature. The point of a body orbiting
> the focus of an ellipse is because it is eccentric, this is a form of
> circle that varies in space and time, not merely in space (depending
> on how you can perceive this. Basically, the planet orbits the empty
> focus at a fairly constant angular rate, with a variable speed
> depending on proximity to the primary.)
>

> They all laughed, when joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) said:
>> If Planet-X is "orbiting" two foci, it is not out in deep-space like
>> an excentric orbiting comit is, where it moves very slowly, but at the

They all cried, when Martyn Harrison <martyn.harrison@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Comet." Bodies move slowly and quickly because of kinetic energy,
> this converts to and from potential energy, how deep in a gravity well
> it is. Comets *do* exist, they come from "out there", and they come in
> around absolute zero.
>
> Planet X would *have to be* either near the sun (where  it would be
> kinda obvious) or near some other *radiating light source* which we
> can't, er, see (unless it is popping off to Proxima of an afternoon,
> except that that is four light years away and...).
>

> They all laughed, when joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) said:
>> point where the comet is slowest, Planet-X is sped up by that other
>> object, pulling it in rapidly towards the endzone of it's orbit, and
>> after passing that object, it would be pulled in not only by the closest-by
>> object but also by the far-away object (which would be the only pull on
>> Planet-X from afar, when it was in an excentric orbit around only the Sun
>> and having this long average distance).
>>
>> Did I misunderstand? If so please enlighten me...

They all cried, when Martyn Harrison <martyn.harrison@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> You may have misunderstood something at some point. Erm, including
> "Endzone", "excentric". The simple thing about planets, comets and
> pretty well everything is that if it is orbiting our sun it is going
> in an ellipse with a relationship between semimajor axis of the
> ellipse (any eccentricity out to non-closed hyperbolic orbits if you
> like) and period of orbit (for the hyperbolic orbit this is greater
> than infinite, obviously enough).
>
> Ignore the bits in brackets, and I am saying that the orbit is defined
> by the mass inside the orbital line. Orbits are more complex than
> that, but in no possible sense can they be so different that Nancy's
> figures made sense. Quite apart from anything else, adding mass inside
> the orbit (another sun at the other focus but one that is invisible)
> shortens the period of orbit, not lengthens it.
>
> Sheesh, we can even use the same simple equations to determine how
> fast something will, and does, take to move around the centre of mass
> of the galaxy, etc. Really, it works. Might not be accurate, but then
> it is what is measured to whatever accuracy you can, can't be more
> than a day or two out per earth orbit eh? If it was, the Romans would
> have had more to worry about than the Julian calendar...

You see?

Nancy is doing a fine job here.

Regards,
Josh