Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] Moons Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:00:28 -0400 To: From: Bob Armstrong On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:32:22 -0400, G Triest wrote: >=A0This is not a dynamic orbit born of first order forces and= inertia; rather it is meandering drift of an "orbit" born of= equilibrium pockets in the gravitational wells. Sounds like a pantograph of Kepler's original conundrum of the retrograde apparent motion of Mars . Got to say , understanding the energetics of orbits is now= stuck in my mind . Kepler's law is the Radius cubed ( R ^ 3 ) is proportional to the Time squared ( T ^ 2 ) . So T ~ K * R ^ 3 % 2 , for some K which we might as well make 1= . So , in the simplest cases for R : 1 2 3 4 , we get T : 1 2.83 5.2 8.0 . So , as Blay points out , since the circumference is also proportional to R , the speed for these orbits would be in the following ratios . - - R % T R T speed 1 1 1 2 2.83 1.41 3 5.20 1.73 4 8.00 2.00 Still seems weird . Got to figure it out in terms of energy . And reread Alan Guth's ( http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/guth.html ) lucid proof in his Inflationary Universe book that gravity is a negative energy . --=A0 =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 Return our Right to Relax : =A0http://ny.lp.org/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?Against_the_Smoking_Ban Computing Environment : =A0http://CoSy/CoSy/ A WTC vision : http://CoSy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/ Liberty : http://CoSy.com/Liberty.htm =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/09/26 1:07:12 AM