Re: ZetaBabble [tm]

In Article <4QjT9.94036$B31.23144862@twister.socal.rr.com> Dave Tholen wrote:
> Conservation of angular momentum
> requires that orbits in an inverse square gravitational field
> be conic sections.  Is a "sling orbit" a conic section?

I will quote from existing ZetaTalk, from the very early days,  on your
silly insistence that your EPHEMERIS descriptions on the behavior of
dirty snowballs repelled by the solar wind do NOT apply to Planet X, A
point I'm sure you will Tholenize to death rather than address.

    Ephemeris are mankind's best efforts at predicting the
    behavior of comets. They take into consideration the
    direction and speed of a comet, when first sighted, and
    apply math that has proved true of previous comets.
    Most of the time this works. When it does not
    astronomers tell themselves a variable came into play,
    such as the gravitational pull of a nearby planet or
    that something internal within the comet caused it to
    behave in an abnormal manner. The ephemeris are
    assumed to be correct. They are not. Humans have
    backed into their formulas for explaining the motion
    of the planets, and gravity on the surface of their
    planet. They tried one theory on after another, until
    one seemed to work most of the time. Then they
    congratulate themselves on arriving at the ultimate
    answer, which will stay on the pedestal until it fails to
    answer some physical phenomena, new to their arena.

    The human understanding of Orbital Physics is
    based on what they have observed. They backed into
    their understanding, their mathematical theories,
    based on what they had seen. Thus, when they plot
    the orbit of an object tracking in a familiar manner,
    they plot it reasonably well. This does not mean that
    the math is accurate or correct. It only means that
    their descriptions, up until now, have worked in the
    main. We are not saying that human equations fail
    to predict comet orbits. We say the base
    understanding of the full comet orbit is incomplete.
    We say the theories about where comets come from
    is incorrect. We say the explanation of why comets
    don't all go into the Sun is wrong. If the mailman
    comes by each morning about 10:00 o'clock, the child
    may make up any number of complicated theories
    about why and how the mailman's route is as it is.
    Then, when the mailman arrives the next day, on time,
    the child congratulates himself.

    Ephemeris assume, first, that comets are attracted to
    the Sun, are aiming for it, but miss. What nonsense!
    Why do they miss? Did the Sun move out of the way?
    Where a planet the size of the 12th Planet is likewise
    aiming for the Sun but misses because of the
    repulsion force, smaller comets do not have the
    required mass to invoke a repulsion force in the Sun.
    Small comets miss because they by nature contain
    elements that are sensitive to the solar wind, and
    can no more come close to the Sun than can mankind
    walk forward into the full force of a hurricane. Is this
    not a form of repulsion force? It differs as the
    repulsion force is invoked in both parties involved
    in a potential collision, and the comet's sensitivity is
    a drama played out only in the comet. Essentially,
    elements within the solar wind push the comet
    away, keeping it at the distance it maintains from the
    Sun. Why does the solar wind not so push the Earth
    and other planets, or the debris in the Asteroid Belt?
    It does so push, but the planets by their size resist
    and the debris in the Asteroid Belt does not have
    the sensitivity that comets do. This is one reason, in
    fact, that they remain as debris and do not become
    comets.
        ZetaTalk™: Ephemeris
            (http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s39.htm)