| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: Orbital Elements for the 12th Planet
Date: 10 Feb 1997 16:25:04 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Lamont
writes:
> [email protected](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.
> [email protected]
(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 <[email protected]> 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.
> [email protected]
(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])