Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6i4ggc$2vf@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:02:20 GMT

In article <3545081F.1E3B@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C.
Harrison wrote:
>> You're assuming a single focus here, and it has a dual focus.
>> Apply this assuming, as was the given, that the planet is 
>> orbiting TWO foci, both binaries.  It does more than drift 
>> away from one, it drifts TOWARD the other ..
>
> I'm afraid this doesn't work, except in very particular instances.
> The two "foci" will also be subjecting each other to a 
> gravitational attraction, and will therefore be falling towards 
> each other. For this to be stable, i.e. in other cases the solar 
> system was dead millions of years ago, the two "foci" would 
> need to be orbitting each other. For our sun to remain roughly
> motionless, and since we observe no red shift wobble due to 
> the solar system moving to any extent rather than the sun 
> remaining reasonably fixed, we can assume this is not the case.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You assume lack of motion means NO pull or push whatsoever?  If I
suspend you from the ceiling, drawn into a taut pose by pulling on
limbs in all directions, you are motionless because gravity, and any
other force, does not affect you?  There is NO object in the Universe
that you are aware of that is not without influence from other objects.
 NONE.  What you see is a balance, a balanced dance in many cases.  If
you can do a twirling walze on an empty floor, but can scarsely lift
you hand to your face in a crowded elevator, does this mean you have no
urge to dance?  There most certainly ARE binaries who do not move, just
as there are suns that do not move.  They were in motion until they
arrived at this state.  You conclude that all binaries must be in
motion as SOME are, and ascribe the motion to an imperceptibly  slow
orbit.  Why?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])