Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6i4h2p$c48@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:12:09 GMT

In article <6htpmg$md6@news.Hawaii.Edu> Dave Tholen writes:
>> Each time an orbiting object corrects its straight line path due
>> to gravity tug, its straight line path would be diminished in 
>> its intensity.
>
> But if the direction of motion and the direction of the 
> gravitational force are more or less in opposite directions, then 
> when you add the vectors, the total length of the resulting vector
> is less, which is why objects slow down as they recede from the
> Sun.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Yes, well, in this we are agreed!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <6htpmg$md6@news.Hawaii.Edu> Dave Tholen writes:
>> the angle between these two lines is the degree of backward
>> tug that the planet is experiencing. Thus, there is erosion in 
>> the forward motion,
>
> Only if the angle is less than 90 degrees, but 0 through 180 are
> possible. ... If the angle is more than 90 degrees, the forward 
> motion is enhanced.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
From the point where the orbiting object leaves off from a circular
orbit, the angle is LESS than 90 degrees.  All that long haul out to
where it is most often out of sight, in the case of comets, it has an
angle that draws it back, in sum, toward the gravitational giant. 
Think of that triangle, with a line drawn forward indicating the
straightline path of the object in motion, with a line drawn from the
object to its gravitational giant, and in this triangle, the angle
becomes INCREASINGLY NARROW as the object leaves the close circle
around the sun, its gravitational object.

Now, given that the angle is at this time narrowing, why would the
object do anything but fall back toward the sun, from the side of the
ellipse it is currently on?  What causes it to fall sideways?  The draw
is to the back, as you noted, when the angle is less than 90 degrees.  
(End ZetaTalk[TM])