| |
|
Article: <5f71vd$d2d@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: IN SYMPATHY to the Hale-Bopp Cooperative
Date: 28 Feb 1997 16:43:25 GMT
In article <5f1u7b$19p0@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim
Scotti writes:
>> 7. If a .0001% change in the eccentricity affects the
orbit
>> periodicy, per Tholen, then how could a .0003% change
>> in the published Hale-Bopp orbit not affect the 4,000
year
>> orbit that was so brazenly announced?
>> Nancy (saquo@ix.netcom.com)
>
> Once again, you do not understand the use of simple
> mathematics.
> semi-major axis ("a")
> perihelion distance, "q"
> e is the eccentricity
> orbital period, P
>
> q = a*(1-e)
> a = q/(1-e)
> P = (q/(1-e))^1.5
>
> For HB, before entering the solar system and being perturbed
> slightly by all the planets, its orbital period was 4,200
years
> which means with q=0.91413 AU, and a=260.315 AU,
> e=0.99659 so that a 0.0003% change in e makes the orbital
> period change by about 200 years.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTal[TM])
There are several problems with your smug math conclusions above.
1. You are focusing in the above discussion strictly on eccentricity, as though this were the ONLY ELEMENT CHANGING, when in fact all your elements changed during the many manipulations the orbit of Hale-Bopp underwent. One need only look at the official Orbital Elements posted at various dates to see the changes. Our emissary, Nancy, has those documents on the web, available as links off:
2. You have two utterly speculative elements in that
calculation, those being a, the semi-major axis, and P, the
orbital period. Did we not determine, from our prior sci.astro
discussions on this matter, that you were basing this return
period on speculation that was also based on speculation? NO
solid, observed facts at all upon which to make these statements?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])