Re: ZetaTalk and Spaceguard UK
Bill Nelson wrote:
> In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Each time a planet is perturbed by Jupiter, it gets pulled
>> further out?
> Yep, until it gets ahead of Jupiter in orbit. Then it is slowed
> down by Jupiter, so returns to the original orbit.
> The planets are always influencing each other. Fortunately
> for life on the planets, the net influences cancel out - at least
> in regards to distance from the Sun.
> Saturn comes by Jupiter, Jupiter pulls Saturn farther out,
> Saturn pulls Jupiter in, AND they speed up. They move
> past eachother on new orbits: Jupiter continues to move in,
> Saturn continues to move farther out, AND they slow
> down again. This behaviour will continue: both planets
> will move to each other every time they come closest, until
> they crash.
Right you are, Josh, THINKING again :-). The problem with the cancel
each other out theory is that it excludes distance from the Sun,
dealing only (in the divide and conquer method) with the passing planets
closing or speeding up in their orbits. A planet speeds up upon
approaching another during a passage, then is slowed when leaving
another after the passage, and always in the orbit like they were tracks
in the sky. If they drift futher AWAY from the Sun during the
perturbation, then the Suns gravity pull is lessened and they should,
ever after, have an orbit FURTHER OUT! Heres what the Zetas have had
to say about planet perturbations, and the failure of human theories.
If an orbit swings wide to move toward a giant it is passing,
should not the orbit stay wide then? If a planet slows slightly
due to a giant's gravity attraction behind it, should it not stay
slower? Human astrophysics has two discomfiting notions
they use as guides in this situation. They can't put these
notions together, so like two passengers in the back seat of a
car who can't talk to each other, they stare out opposite
windows and pretend the other doesn't exist.
1. The first notion is that the orbit of planets is due to a
state of equilibrium between the gravity pull of the sun
and an original straight-line forward motion of the planet.
This notion assumes the planet got caught in the gravity
of the sun to the extent that it is in a perpetual tug of war
between this gravity pull and its momentum on the
original path. The fact that, almost invariably, all the
planets orbit in the same direction is presumed to be due
to the original path of the planets being conveniently all
in the same direction. Conveniently, that is, for the notion.
2. The second notion describes another phenomenon that is
also visible and measurable to humans - perturbations.
Perturbations are known to man as they can observe and
record the actions of two planets passing each other in their
orbits. The smaller one will speed up upon approach to the
larger, due to the gravity tug between the two, and after
passing will slow down in a comparable manner, lingering
as it were. The larger planet has also been perturbed, and
however slightly has slowed to meet the approaching
smaller planet and likewise will try to tag along with the
exiting smaller planet. If neither planet were in motion, it
could be argued that the speed of the orbits should net out
so they are returned to the same point. Both planet orbits
have also altered in their shapes, but as this challenges the
first human notion it is never addressed.
There are several problems for humans here, none of which
are addressed due to the discomfort factor. While the larger
planet is slowing to pull toward the smaller planet, on its
approach, the smaller planet finds the larger coming to meet
it and increases its speed toward the larger somewhat due to
this. The point of passage is not equidistant in the
perturbation swath, it is placed toward the early part of the
drama, due to this, with the rush to meet being quicker and
taking place in a shorter period of time than the lingering
exiting phase. Since the two planets are traveling in the same
direction, they spend more time together during the exiting
phase than the approach.
If either the larger or smaller planet were standing still, the
human argument that the speed of orbit is compensated upon
approach and exit might be valid, but as they are both
moving, the perturbation is not equal on both sides. Net - the
smaller planet should be slowed overall in its orbital speed,
as it has the larger planet in close proximity behind it for a
longer period of time. This is due to the larger planet
tagging along behind the smaller planet. Net - the larger
planet should be sped up overall in its orbital speed, as it is
being encouraged to chase the smaller planet now ahead of
it for a longer period of time. ...
More than the speed of the orbit is affected when orbiting
planets perturb each other, the shape of the orbits is also
affected. Given a smaller planet passing on an inside track
and orbiting at a faster speed, the smaller planet will pull
outward toward the larger during passage. Thus, its orbit
has been changed, as for a period of time it is tracking
along in a wider curve, at a greater distance from its sun.
According to the human explanation for orbits - that they
represent an equilibrium between the planets forward
motion and the gravity tug from the sun such that the
forward motion has been bent into a curve, and that the
equilibrium is maintained by centrifugal force caused by
the continuing tug of the forward motion - this new orbit
shape should be maintainable with no need for the planet
to return to its pre-perturbation state.
We have asserted that the equilibrium of orbits is
maintained by a combination of not only the gravity tug
from the sun but also by the repulsion force that has been
generated between the planet and its sun, and the planets
being swept ahead of rotating energy fields thrown out
from the sun like long sweeping arms. That the perturbed
planets return to their pre-perturbation state is in line
with our explanation, not the human explanation for orbits.