posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 10:07 AM
Science--with a capital "S" would have you and themselves believe that comets are all the same: Natural objects that exist by the billions out at
the end of the solar system some of which are "dislodged" and fall inward to where we see them.
The impossibility of that theory is easy to see if you view the motions of a comet in perspective. What we are typically shown, is the end view, the
near circular motion of the comet as it approaches, rounds and retreats from the Sun. We are familiar with orbits from what we already know about
the motions of planets, satellites and more vividly of how we rocketed men and equipment around our Moon and had them return.
With the Moon shots extreme precision was required at several junctures during the process. Briefly, these were at liftoff, orbital insertion, escape
from earth parking orbit toward the Moon, course corrections during that phase, and at the Moon. Of course, the process is reversed to make the
return to Earth. Never could a rocket with no control mechanism be sent to the Moon, orbit it with such great precision and precisely return to earth
entirely upon its own. There are too many in elements of astrophysics involved to even dream of such an event happening.
The motion of a long-period comet coming into the inner solar system from the supposed outer reaches is not a true orbit because it defies natural
astrophysics in reality, but on paper, in theory, it can be made to exist if multiple manipulations are allowed along the way.
The first step in straightening out this mess about the movements of comets is to not become overly preoccupied with the various names and
classifications which come from outside the real events displayed.
The sage of Comet Kohoutek (1973VII) is an excellent case in point. Kohoutek was originally thought to move in an "elongated ellipse" that carried
it out 3,600AU from the Sun. This is not a long orbit as long-period comets go. In fact, it is quite unusually short and virtually non-existent
among the balance of its long-period members.
The orbit's width was only about 44AU.(The distance between its incoming path and its retreating path.) Working that figure with the supposed length
of 3,600AU yields an 81-to-1 ratio of length to width. If drawn out, the orbit's shape would resemble a toothpick's profile, and thus it
illustrates the absurdity to which a conic ellipse “orbit” can theoretically be drawn and still be applied to the real world.
However, after the plots of Kohoutek's orbit had been collected and studied, it was announced that the comet did not have an elongated ellipse motion
as was originally believed. Instead, the comet was said to display a slightly hyperbolic orbit with an eccentricity of 1.0000078. (It is a bit
amusing to be asked to accept that the movements of the comet finally have been so thoroughly wrung out that it now has revealed an orbit known down
to seven decimal point places!)
The dictates of the new information about the comet being hyperbolic demands that the far end of the toothpick orbit be extended out indefinitely!
The 81-to-1 ratio is totally useless for a truer view of the comet’s coming and going path. We can discard the already impossible toothpick analogy
for a more correct view that the body is moving along parallel lines, a virtual railroad track set of motions extending out to infinity or better
yet, to their home star.
We must recognize that the official views about cometary orbits slip from the absurd to the pathetic. --But their math works. They slip it to us on
fine white papers and we need not concern ourselves very seriously about what comets really represent.
By the way, most of those sun-grazer comets that defy physics so vividly come from the area of the star Sirius.
(Part of the preceding has come from an original work of mine completed decades ago. At that time, the public, Science, government nor publishers
were ready to hear about cometships coming from distant stars.)