| |
|
Article: <5g951d$hlt@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: IN SYMPATHY to the Hale-Bopp Cooperative
Date: 13 Mar 1997 15:04:13 GMT
In article: <5g1l37$11ka@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
>> JPL laid out new Orbital Elements on May 28, 1996,
>> based on OBSERVATIONS up through May 23, 1996.
>> Does this not mean that they OBSERVED Hale-Bopp at
>> Dec -15? They were telling folks they could find a comet
>> they were calling Hale-Bopp there, no problem! Did they
>> say "thereabouts"? Nope.
>> ZetaTalk[TM]
>
> Nope, Nancy, it does not necessarily mean anyone observed
> the comet on Dec -15 (what is that, November 15 or so?).
> It just so happens that HB was in conjunction with the sun
> in December and January with only a few very challenging
> observations reported in early December, then picking up
> again in February.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
It's a good thing this discussion is under the heading IN SYMPATHY as this is a really evasive answer. Dec -15 obviously means 15 arc minutes below the 0 declination line. This is May-June '96, Jim, NOT Dec-Jan-Feb! JPL put their ACCUMULATED OBSERVATIONS into the May 28 Orbital Elements, and then ..., and then ... some other OBSERVATIONS occurred to result in the June 27, 1996 Orbital Elements. We await to hear what would cause the mythical Hale-Bopp to leap 3 arc minutes AWAY from Jupiter during passage of that giant during that month, at the same time shortening or tightening the eccentricity, a contradiction to the move AWAY from Jupiter.
In article: <5g1l37$11ka@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
>> JPL came back on June 27, 1996, a mere month later, saying
>> they had OBSERVED Hale-Bopp some more, up through
>> June 25, 1996, and per the corrected Orbital Elements placed
>> it at Dec -12, not only for June 27 but also for May 28. So
>> they had it jumping away from Jupiter, while under
>> observation!
>> ZetaTalk[TM]
>
> Looking at the actual observations reported in the MPCs in May
> and June of 1996, there is nothing unusual about them -
> smoothly changing according to its observed elliptical motion
> around the sun. No zig-zags or jumps away from Jupiter.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Thank you for your honesty. If there are no jumps AWAY FROM JUPITER, then how the
hell did it move 3 ARC MINUTES AWAY in the new Orbital Elements posted on June
27? And how could ANY such observations tighten the eccentricity, when a leap away
from Jupiter would make the ellipse BROADER? This is an inherent contradiction in the
same posting of Orbital Elements! They didn't just happen one change one time, another
change another time, they happened in the same posting, and as a result of CUMULATIVE
OBSERVATIONS only a month apart!
Admit it! JPL just doctored the orbit they way they wanted, as in those days the damn orbit
was just tracking through black space, NOT a real object at all!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article: <5g1l37$11ka@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
> I will not post the observations here, since I'd have to type
> in more than a full page of numbers - you can feel free to
> go down to your local astronomy library and look up MPCs
> 27148-27149, 27348, 27349, and 27479. Go ahead and fit
> your own orbit through the observations reported, but don't
> forget to take into account the Jovian perturbations in your
> calculations.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
Don't you personally know Don Yeomans of JPL? Call him up and ask him to paraphrase
it, for the good readers of sci.astro. Inquiring minds want to know!