| |
|
Article: <5grkf5$g46@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: The MANY FACES of Hale-Bopp - ORBIT PERIOD
Date: 20 Mar 1997 15:17:57 GMT
In article <5gij87$rsi@news.Hawaii.Edu> David Tholen writes:
>> My, my, how things change. Are we looking at the same
>> comet? How has the ORBIT PERIOD of the many faces of
>> Hale-Bopp changed, from 1995 to the present?
>> saquo@ix.netcom.com
>
> Simple: the perturbation by Jupiter changed the orbit, Nancy.
> We've been saying that all along. Where have you been?
> tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
David, it LEAPT AWAY from Jupiter, into what would be a broader ellipse, not the tighter eccentricity the JPL gave it after the leap away! I'v been posting this contradition in the Orbital Elements that JPL posted on June 27, 1996 for weeks now. Still no explaination, either.
In article <5git4a$ht4@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Lamont Granquist writes:
>> How has the ORBIT PERIOD of the many faces of Hale-
>> Bopp changed, from 1995 to the present?
>> saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
>
> And as we've mentioned, orbital periods for comets are tough
> to predict and "near 3000 years" and "close to 4,200" are the
> same for all practical purposes. An accurately stated estimate
> is probably something like 3000 +/- 1000 years for the period.
> lamontg@nospam.washington.edu
Would that the newspapers that the public reads would report it that way. In fact, you don't KNOW that they repeat at all, much less in that time period. Nevertheless, the newspapers have consistently reported the party line, with NEVER any of the shoe shuffling you're exhibiting.
The fact is, it was 4,200 years during 1996 as that's what the ORBIT REQUIRED. I'm talking about the orbit that drew a line between the nova and what we're seeing now. Now the orbit has to fall in line with a REAL COMET, not a line drawn in the sky, and things are very, very different.
That's why it changed.