Article: <6h7l49$cs0@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti Date: 17 Apr 1998 13:23:21 GMT In article <MPG.f992d89d9926a7b9896e5@news.connect.ab.ca>Paul Campbell writes: >> Question: What would an orbit look like if equal masses were >> placed at both foci? > > This is an example of the three body problem, and there are all > sorts of weird-looking stable and unstable orbits introduced by it. > Two clear extremes are an orbit with a large radius w.r.t. the > distance between the large masses, where the two masses "look > like" a point source to the orbiting particle, and a very small > radius where the second large mass has a negligible perturbation > and the test particle just orbits the first mass. (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) These are the options? What happened to the USUAL option you use for elliptical orbits, the one where you place an imaginary mass at the second focus to make the math draw a highly elliptical orbit? Why can't you use THAT? We're trying to describe Paul's behavior when he walks his dog by only considering 1. he thinks the dog is God, having gotten the letters scrambled, and is following it in awe, 2. he is delivering an imaginary piece of mail to the neighbor, 3. he secretly works for the city maintenance department and is taking down license numbers when cars agravate known pot holes by driving through, rather than around them. Can't we just work the Paul walking dog problem with the usual parameters, the dog has to go? (End ZetaTalk[TM]) In article <MPG.f992d89d9926a7b9896e5@news.connect.ab.ca>Paul Campbell writes: > However, there are all sorts of complex stable and unstable orbits > in between. The problem isn't possible to solve analytically. > Lagrange's points are particular solutions -- you might look up > the three body problem and Lagrange's solutions in either > Roy's "Orbital Motion" or Szebehely's "Theory of Orbits". (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) What do you mean, not "possible to solve analytically"? What in the human theories prevents that? We have all kinds of puffing defenses here on sci.astro where it is asserted that your math is so perfect, allowing and supporting all manner of space exploration, predicts this and that with a high degree of accuracy, and now you're saying you can't present those formulas with a highly elliptical orbit where the imaginary second mass can be assumed to be a REAL second mass? Why don't you just not TELL the math program that, so it thinks it's still working with an imaginary second mass. That way it won't get scared and freeze up. (End ZetaTalk[TM])