link to Home Page

Re: Orbital Elements for the 12th Planet


Article: <5dni50$5fi@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Orbital Elements for the 12th Planet
Date: 10 Feb 1997 16:25:04 GMT

In article <5ddd51$o14@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Lamont writes:
> saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy ) writes:
>> 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 you take gravity to be a 1/r potential it is trivial to work out
> that the orbits of bodies are conic sections, including ellipses
> and circles. It is a bit harder of a problem to apply perturbation
> theory (and GR in the case of mercury) to account for the
> deviations from the elliptical orbits, but this has been worked
> out in detail and there are no other significant gravitational
> influences.
> lamontg@nospam.washington.edu

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You admit you have DIFFICULTIES getting the planets and their perturbations to fall in line with your prescribed mathematical theories, yet your theories are CORRECT! Hahahahahaha!
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5ddd51$o14@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Lamont writes:
>> Planets assume an elliptical orbit for the same reason that
>> comets leave the Solar System. They are listening to more
>> than one voice.
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM] excerpt on Orbits)
>
> Gravity has been unbelievably well-tested. In particular it
> can explain the orbits of all of the planets, irregardless of
> distance and composition, in addition to the paths of all the
> probes that we've launched throughout the solar system.
> Get the Zeta's to explain that.
> lamontg@nospam.washington.edu

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You designed your gravitational math to match what you observe, so it DESCRIBES what you see, and then when you play it back it fits! Of course it fits, you designed it to fit! What doesn't fit gets thrown out. You mumble about not being able to "account" for this or that, but you never say your theories are incorrect. You make assumptions about the mass of planets, to fit in nicely with your theories, but you have scant evidence of what this composition is. Do you KNOW what the core of Jupiter is composed of? At best you make assumptions based on the spectral analysis of light coming from the surface of these planets or send back measurements from probes dropping to their death within the swirling clouds. You don't even know for sure what the core of your Earth is composed of!

Would a doctor only allowed to practice medicine when his patients were standing at a distance be considered accurate in his diagnosis? The patient stands on the horizon, and the doctor sends his pet dog out to sniff the patient and report back. How likely would it be that the doctor would be correct? The patient hasn't washed in days, the patient reeks of booze, so is dying of cancer. Accurate? This is what your assumptions equate to - guesswork.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])