Requiem for elliptical orbits.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:20:55 -0400, "Greg Neill"
wrote:

"Igor" wrote in message
.. .
On 4 Aug 2003 08:52:36 -0700, (John Curtis) wrote:

When behind the Earth, the space telescope moves backwards,
which is contrary to orbital expectations of continuous
forward motion. http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/xmm/moments3.html
Perhaps the telescope oscillates in front and behind the Earth
according to Donald Hamilton's proposal:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t&rnum=1&thl=0
,1359526415,1359518508,1359518065,1359501200,1359 494268,1359488370,135948597
0,1359437148,1358759969,1358551772,1358482582&see km=6f995fdf.0107070716.68c7
a2ae%40posting.google.com
John Curtis

I dare you to find a situation in orbital motion wherein both angular
and linear momentum are simultaneously conserved. Linear momentum is
not always conserved, and definitely not in the orbital plane. Or am
I misunderstanding what you are actually saying here?

To be fair, linear momentum of the system taken as a whole
is conserved.


You are correct. The center of mass of an orbital system is either
fixed or moving at some constant velocity, so it's linear momentum is
definitely conserved.

Igor wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:20:55 -0400, "Greg Neill"
wrote:

"Igor" wrote in message
.. .
On 4 Aug 2003 08:52:36 -0700, (John Curtis) wrote:

When behind the Earth, the space telescope moves backwards,
which is contrary to orbital expectations of continuous
forward motion. http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/xmm/moments3.html
Perhaps the telescope oscillates in front and behind the Earth
according to Donald Hamilton's proposal:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t&rnum=1&thl=0
,1359526415,1359518508,1359518065,1359501200,1359 494268,1359488370,135948597
0,1359437148,1358759969,1358551772,1358482582&see km=6f995fdf.0107070716.68c7
a2ae%40posting.google.com
John Curtis

I dare you to find a situation in orbital motion wherein both angular
and linear momentum are simultaneously conserved. Linear momentum is
not always conserved, and definitely not in the orbital plane. Or am
I misunderstanding what you are actually saying here?

To be fair, linear momentum of the system taken as a whole
is conserved.


You are correct. The center of mass of an orbital system is either
fixed or moving at some constant velocity, so it's linear momentum is
definitely conserved.

Igor,

You are wrong. This assumtion is made in order to preserve linear
momentum. It is a hypothesis. It is amusing how a hypothesis has been
turned into a conclusion by modern science using observations implied
by the model predictions.

This is serious stuff Igor. Lots of musunderstanding going on. This is
because in modern orbital mechanics there is no differentiation made
between hypothesis and conclusions to avoid some notable
contradictions. Keeps classrooms calm that way and circular thought on
top of the agenda.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message .. .
"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
Igor wrote in message
. ..


You are correct. The center of mass of an orbital system is either
fixed or moving at some constant velocity, so it's linear momentum is
definitely conserved.

Igor,

You are wrong. This assumtion is made in order to preserve linear
momentum. It is a hypothesis. It is amusing how a hypothesis has been
turned into a conclusion by modern science using observations implied
by the model predictions.

This is serious stuff Igor. Lots of musunderstanding going on. This is
because in modern orbital mechanics there is no differentiation made
between hypothesis and conclusions to avoid some notable
contradictions. Keeps classrooms calm that way and circular thought on
top of the agenda.

You are free to provide an empirical counter-example to the
conservation of linear momentum for an isolated system.
Otherwise, your maunder is just vacuous assertion.

Obviously, you have no clue of what I'm talking about. I'm not
disputing the law of conservation. I am disputing the hypothesis made
the justification is based on. Now if you do not understand this, I'm
not suprised at all. You are not alone. That provides a comfort.

"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
.. .


You are free to provide an empirical counter-example to the
conservation of linear momentum for an isolated system.
Otherwise, your maunder is just vacuous assertion.

Obviously, you have no clue of what I'm talking about. I'm not
disputing the law of conservation. I am disputing the hypothesis made
the justification is based on.

I cannot parse the above sentence into a meaningful statement.

Now if you do not understand this, I'm
not suprised at all.

You mean you purposely make incoherent statements?

You are not alone. That provides a comfort.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message ...
"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
.. .


You are free to provide an empirical counter-example to the
conservation of linear momentum for an isolated system.
Otherwise, your maunder is just vacuous assertion.

Obviously, you have no clue of what I'm talking about. I'm not
disputing the law of conservation. I am disputing the hypothesis made
the justification is based on.

I cannot parse the above sentence into a meaningful statement.

You need a better parser. You're still living at the times of LISP.
Even a kid can trick you. Get sophisticated. The world is full of
traps and so is the science you think you learned while attending some
kind of educational institution.

You mean you purposely make incoherent statements?

Lawyers never made good physicists but some physicists are also good
lawyers. It helps them in devising arguments involving ad hominen
attackes when cornered. Get lost. You are doomed anyway.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message ...
"Undeniable" wrote in message
m...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Undeniable" wrote in message
...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
.. .


You are free to provide an empirical counter-example to the
conservation of linear momentum for an isolated system.
Otherwise, your maunder is just vacuous assertion.

Obviously, you have no clue of what I'm talking about. I'm not
disputing the law of conservation. I am disputing the hypothesis made
the justification is based on.

I cannot parse the above sentence into a meaningful statement.

You need a better parser. You're still living at the times of LISP.
Even a kid can trick you. Get sophisticated. The world is full of
traps and so is the science you think you learned while attending some
kind of educational institution.

You mean you purposely make incoherent statements?

Lawyers never made good physicists but some physicists are also good
lawyers. It helps them in devising arguments involving ad hominen
attackes when cornered. Get lost. You are doomed anyway.

Oh my, how devastatingly droll. One notes, however, despite the
lively repartee, you are unable to carry the technical argument
forward. One last chance for Undeniable to provide a coherent
version of his statement before this reader decides that Undeniable
is just a maundering waste of bandwidth.

Hey, you don't deserve enlightment. It's not that I'm unable. It's
because you do not deserve it. I pay for my bandwidth. Don't reply. I
won't be monitoring your non-sense. You lost an opportunity to learn
because you let once more your ego take over. Parse it now.

"Undeniable" wrote in message
...


Hey, you don't deserve enlightment. It's not that I'm unable. It's
because you do not deserve it. I pay for my bandwidth. Don't reply. I
won't be monitoring your non-sense. You lost an opportunity to learn
because you let once more your ego take over. Parse it now.

Technical impotence noted. Worthless egocentrism noted.
Delusions of competence noted.

The killfile nods approvingly, opens, swallows, and
not so much as a burp remains.