Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 24 Apr 1998 04:09:59 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Paul Campbell
>> For the sake of moving this argument forward, we will assume
>> for the moment that your orbital mechanics are correct, and not
>> under challenge.  Just paint for us what that orbit would look like.
>> Not the several pages of math, but just something simple, in the
>> manner you are so very skilled at employing.  A simple verbal
>> description of what such an orbit would look like.  
>
> Ok, the planet has a large perihelion, small eccentricity and 
> orbiting the baryonic center of the binary system. The baryonic 
> center would be the center of gravity for the system. Short answer,
> the planet is going around both of the stars way out there.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
And this fits according to the gravity of the object in question?  Your
relatively tiny planet, 23 times the mass of the Earth, can orbit WAY
out there in a circle, and still be under the control of its
gravitational center?  You have such examples, in the Universe you have
observed, do you?  Is it that you don't want to hand Nancy a victory,
or ourselves, that you are making a fool of yourself here?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Paul Campbell
>> You have a head start in that your astronomy computer programs 
>> already ASSUME a second foci in elliptical orbits.  
>
> The second focus naturally occurs with no mass located at it. 
> To see why just try to draw an ellipse with an eccentricity greater
> than zero that has only one focus. This, I would think would be a
> major challenge for the Zetas. 

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You are presenting the inadequacies of your math formulas as a REALITY
that others must deal with.  Please, try to stretch your mind.  What
man has created, in his limited thoughts, is NOT the limits that the
Universe imposes!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])