In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
Anderson (2002) does not include a solar wind velocity gradient with
latitude in the orbit propagation. There was no "adjustment" for
solar oblateness, which in any case is negligibly small under
Newtonian gravity at 5 AU where Ulysses is located.

5AU! Then it's pretty well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses. If it is that far away it isn't a fit instrument
upon which to base a measurement in the first place. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack.


Illogical argument. The planets lie both both within and beyond 5 AU.
A putative gravitational anisotropy which affects the planets will
also affect Ulysses. No such effect is seen in Ulysses tracking data.

You're being illogical. Ulysses only momentarily (compared to the time
it spends outside of the ecliptic) cuts the ecliptic, therefore it is
not likely that you'd be able to detect the effect.


There are other bodies whose orbits lie outside of the ecliptic plane,
such as Asteroid 9969 Braille (29 deg; 1.33 AU perihelion);
19P/Borrelly (30 deg; 1.36 AU); 5381 Sekhmet (49 deg; 1 AU semi-major
axis); 10563 Izhdubar (63 deg; 1.0 AU); and of course Pallas.
Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees of the ecliptic, and Venus's is at 3.4
deg. This is further substantiation that solar system bodies are not
constrained to the ecliptic.

There you go again erecting straw men. I never once said that the
solar system bodies are constrained to the ecliptic. I said that most
planets are within a few degrees of the ecliptic. When a planet
exlodes as did the planet which now lies as the scattered ruins which
compose the asteroid belt some of the components will certainly depart
from the elciptic. Not enough time has passed to bring them back. The
more closely the angle of their orbit to a normal to the ecliptic the
longer it will take.

The fact that the planets lie primarily in a plane is not an argument
for or against a non-spherical mass distribution within the sun.

Sure it is. Below you make it an argument for a common origin. Bodies
all obtain to the lowest energy state possible; this is an axiom upon
which thermodynamics is based. The idea that all of the planetary
bodies are occupying a low energy state orbit argues strongly for
gravitational anisotropy.

Irrelevant, since all planar orbits in a central body system with the
same major/minor axes have the same energy, regardless of orientation.
Bodies "obtaining" to a different orbital inclination would need to
violate the conservation of angular momentum.

An example of an irrelevant factoid being used incorrectly.


As I have pointed out before, a significant non-spherical distribution
of mass within the sun would indeed affect the orbits of the planets,
because there is an additional 1/r^3 term. Radar ranging to Mars
alone constrains any non-spherical component to be negligible compared
to the total mass of the sun.

The point is that it is not negligible unless you are stark raving
blind to the idea that the components of the universe do obtain to the
lowest energy state possible. This is so obvious I can only wonder
what things you did to yourself which so utterly blocks your intuition.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Using Newtonian mechanics I showed
that observations of earth and Mars constrain the distribution of mass
within the sun, and any anisotropies must be small. However, it is
important to note that the Sun's equatorial bulge should slightly
affect the orbits of the asteroids and Mercury, which is consistent
with both current theories of gravity and observations.

CM

A beautiful null content catchphrase 'is consistent with' is used in
any number of nonsensical papers. Comets emerging from the outer solar
system is consistent with the theory that a huge invisible ogre tosses
them at the sun for pitching practice, too.

You're too far in denial to have a meaningful discussion about these
matters. As long as you're happy with the status quo then you'll try
to defend it no matter how stupid it really is.

Sorry I bothered you, Craig. I thought you were sharper than it now
appear that you actually are.

Charles Cagle