| |
|
Article: <5egnjf$jhr@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW (1-6)
Date: 20 Feb 1997 05:31:27 GMT
In article <5ef32s$hah@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neill
writes:
>> Your next point, that you "integrated
trajectories" of objects
>> similar to Hale-Bopp. Pardon? What objects are you aware
>> of that have 4,200 year cycles? What objects have
similar
>> orbits that take them out of the Solar System for
thousands
>> of years?
>
> You missed it again, Nancy. Starting with a single, measured
> orbit (in this case that of Hale-Bopp), one can generate a
family
> of similar (simulated) orbits by slightly varying the
orbital
> parameters and watching what happens as they evolve
forwards,
> or backwards, in time. ... Jim never said that he studied a
family
> of actual objects. He said that he studied a family of
orbits
> similar to Hale-Bopp's.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
In other words they announced a 3,200 to 4,200 orbit based on hypotheticals? Layered speculation? Speculation based on speculation based on speculation? They have NO ACTUAL orbiting object with a similar orbit that has returned to the solar system, for sure, that they can use as a model, and they have NO ACTUAL orbiting object that has a 3,200 to 4,200 year cycle, so their confident announcement that this WAS the orbit of the mythical Hale-Bopp was just speculation? Like the age of the Universe and Faster Than Light travel? Wild ass guessing!
They sure didn't present it to the public that way. But then, what they were presenting wasn't intended to be educational, or honest. It was intended to mislead!