posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 12:04 PM
reply to [url=http:/The English astronomical writer Peter Lancaster Brown wrote in Comets, Meteorites and Men, "One of the difficulties peculiar
to comets--which has always beset the orbit computers--is an account of the actual shape of the apparent path taken by an elliptical comet whose
eccentricity is so great that it is very difficult to differentiate it from the shape of a parabola. …The problem still taxes the geniuses of today
armed with powerful electronic computers which are able to solve complicated problems in celestial mechanics with millisecs."
Brown's book is a bit dated now, but yet an excellent, data-packed volume of conventional viewpoint. His discussion of various types of orbits is
informative and meaningful for the cometship theorist. Despite, as has been demonstrated here, the standard preoccupation with defining the shape of
the motion according to geometry.
Professor J. M. Witkowski formerly of the University Observatory, Paznan, Poland, read a paper before the assembled members of the International
Astronomical Union's Symposium No. 45 held in 1970. Professor Witkowski was speaking before astronomy people from all over the world as they were
assembled to take part in and take heed to the symposium's topic, "The Motion, Evolution of Orbits, and Origins of Comets."
Witkowski was presenting his own different but somewhat conventional ideas about the origins of comets, he first shot a caustic arrow toward some
members of his profession.
He said, "Not all others have stated the problem of the character of the orbits in a sufficiently lucid way. The only possible orbits are ellipses
and hyperbolas, since the statistical probability of circles and parabolas (as well as straight lines) is geometrically and dynamically
infinitesimally small and need not be taken into consideration."
Brown, in his book also wrote in that vein. "Within a body in orbit, the curved path induced by the two forces ) centripetal--influencing a body
inwards, i.e., gravity, and centrifugal--influencing the body outwards) will produce a circle if the two forces are exactly equal. However, in
practice, when the probabilities of the kind of curve described by a body in space are calculated, the chances of either a circle or parabola
occurring is extremely small. In both these kinds of orbits the balance of the two opposing forces is exactly equal, or stated another way, it
implies that a particular velocity is absolutely necessary."
Astronomers must admit to Witkowski being right about the low statistical probability of such orbits being in actual existence. And they also must
admit to Brown's description of how natural parabolic orbits must have a precise balance of forces. Yet they still must offer an explanation of why
comets universally defy statistical probabilities and continually dwell in the theoretical extremes of orbital theory.
Each scientist must have sat there agreeing in principle with Witkowski, but yet knowing that the hard data did not lie. As of 1975, of 625 different
comets listed, 282 (45%) had parabolic (unity) orbits. And even this figure fails to tell the full truth. Of the total number of long-period comets
listed, 85 are listed as hyperbolic. These can be added to the list of parabolic comets because they are just barely hyperbolic. On the other side
of the unity mark are a large number of near-parabolic elliptical comets. Overall, virtually all long-range comets reside at the unity mark or
slightly on either side. And the most damning element, why they never fall into the sun but safely round it and return whence they came , is never
mentioned.
By and large, the balance of astronomers continually discuss parabolas and near-parabolas and duly note them without seriously considering how that
condition consistently happens. The reason for such unquestioned belief is obvious: Comets have always behaved that way. Just look at any number of
them! Astronomers cannot argue with what they see. While observations may be a little disturbing at times, and statistical information as equally
troublesome, they unerringly find ways to bend all of the information around to create some manner of comfortable explanation with which to satisfy
themselves that all is well and in order in their world.
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 saga 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 (astronomical units) 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 members.
The orbit's width was about 44AU. Working that figure with the supposed length 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 can theoretically be drawn and
still be applied to the real world as a real motion entirely allowed by natural physics.
However, after hundreds of plots of Kohoutek's orbit had been collected and studied, it was announced that the comet did not have an elongated
ellipse as was originally believed. Instead, the comet was said to display a slightly hyperbolic orbit with an eccentricity of 1.0000078. (It is
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 points!)
If you find the astronomers' idea of a natural comet having an 81-to-1-ratio orbit hard to accept and suspect it of not being viable in natural
physics, you would be correct. Yet, the dictates of the new information about the comet being hyperbolic demands that the far end of the toothpick
orbit be extended out indefinitely. It gives cause to wonder—if we didn’t know better—how something so elementary as simply plotting a
comet’s course by hundreds of observers across the heavens could go so wrong.
If nothing else, remember from this section that the term "orbit" is useful for describing the movements of most other heavenly bodies and is
applicable to a few comets that stay near the sun, honestly orbiting in roundish motions as they maintain their presence in this system. But that
term cannot apply to the vast majority of their number. Long-period comets do not belong to the sun’s family of bodies. Instead, they come from
afar, gigantic, controlled bodies engaged in star-to-star travels. They swing around their sun on one end and swing around the visited star on the
other end. They are too huge to ever land on any surface. They can exist only in the free-fall of space. They obviously are totally self-sufficient
habitats, worlds within themselves. There is nothing "natural" about their long-distance motions anymore than a nuclear bomb is a natural weapon.
Both cases are not nature at work, both are extreme manipulations of nature by intelligent control. (However, maybe not so intelligent with the
bombs).
One basic rule of Science is that observation trumps theory. However, writings in the field of cometary astronomy frequently refer to how direct
observations of inappropriate motions with a comet coming near to and departing from the sun are consciously discarded, over-looked and explained away
to maintain adherence to conventional theory. The term "corrections to the orbit" is the proper astronomical band-aid to cover comet misadventures
outside the norm. In most cases the corrections were necessary not because the early observations were wrong and replaced with more precise data, but
because the comet changed its pathway and prior observations became “incorrect.” If you were to notice or check the current literature on the
in-coming Comet Ison, you will find recent evidence for that old tactic.
There was a day when astronomers were unaware of intelligent actions being possible out there in the dark of space. Those days are long gone. While
they still deny UFOs and claim to be looking for positive signs, they already have put enough equipment and probes out from our safe harbor that they
know these days that we are not alone and are, in fact, a Third World world amongst a vast crowd of superiors. And that scares them. How about
you?
For more about the cometship theory see threads Rethinking Comets and Trouble with Comet Halley found below on ATS .
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread970554/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread972761/pglastpost
/