Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 03:34:14 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Eric George
>> Your elliptical formulas are DESCRIBING an orbit you have
>> observed, but not understood.  Anything other than a circular 
>> orbit is dealing with a third body.
>
> Again, no third body is required for an elliptical orbit.  In fact, 
> adding a third body will generally perturb an orbit away from 
> a perfect ellipse.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
In your silly math descriptions of orbits, which you CANNOT place 
together with your math description of gravity!  How can you defend your
elliptical math when you can't place it alongside your other precepts!  For
 the hundredth time, we challenge ANYONE on this Usenet to place
them together and address one of the contradictions we noted over two 
years  ago on sci.astro.  Despite thousands of postings puffing and
sputtering, giving endless applications of the Magical Ellipse and 
Newtonian theories of motion, NO ONE has placed these theories together
with your gravity formulas and looked full square at the discrepancy!  Are 
you all selectively blind in this manner?  We will ask our emissary,
Nancy, to yet again post the one we address here.  Put up or shut up!  Don't
defend the indefensible!  If your precepts contradict each other,
then it should be your first rule to address THAT, before preaching!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

As requested, one of the long-standing contradictions.  And please don't
say the long ellipse is honored because there is a track in the sky, or that 
the body is dutifully following Newton precepts.  My understanding of 
the contradiction is that your gravity equations do not match up.  A body
at the far end of a long ellipse, AT THAT DISTANCE, is not affected 
in the same manner as one close to the sun, per your inverse square rule.
So why would it TRUCK SIDEWAYS to get back to the other side of 
the ellipse for the inbound trip? What GRAVITY PULL causes it to
truck sideways? Gravity is suddently negated?

(Begin portion of ZetaTalk[TM] on Contradictions)
The long elliptical orbit stands in contradiction to human gravitational 
theories, which has the gravitational tug rapidly diminishing with
distance.  Where the temporary orbit around the Sun has an explanation 
in the steady gravity tug from the Sun, this same explanation is given
for the curve they claim is instituted by the repeating comet at a great 
distance.  Essentially, humans refuse to even address this contradiction,
falling again into the Magical Ellipse explanation.  Their response, like the
 cat which falls to licking itself when it is discombobulated, is to proffer
greater and greater detail on the math they use to draw or describe an ellipse. 
(End ZetaTalk[TM] quote) 

In article <[email protected]> Eric George
>> The second focus.  Of course an imaginary focus does NOT 
>> exist, except in your equations.
>
> The geometric shape resulting from the model is indeed elliptical, 
> and the massive body is located at one of the foci.  The second 
> foci is just there, it does not enter the math at all, there is no 
> imaginary, hypothetical, ignored, assumed or any other type 
> of mass there at any time in the derivation.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Fine, for whatever reason you have it where it is, place it 18.724 times the 
distance from Pluto to the Sun, from the first focus which you should
consider the Sun.  Allow for a planet 23 times the mass of the Earth, and
4 times the size.  Allow for a speed past the Sun such that the planet
travels through the Solar System from one side of Pluto's orbit to the other
in 3 months time.  Allow for an overshoot of the Solar System and a
tight turnaround, appropriate for BOTH your gravity and elliptical math 
formulas.  Just DO IT!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])