Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6ii93b$t88@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 3 May 1998 17:21:47 GMT

In article <6iepue$i1c$2@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
>>> Actually there is no analytical solution for Kepler's equation 
>>> (M=E-e*sinE) as it is trancendental in E (the eccentric 
>>> anomaly) apart from the trivial solutions E=j*pi when 
>>> M=j*pi where j is an integer, M=E when e=0. The most 
>>> common ways of solving it are using a series solution 
>>> (diverges for e>.6627), Newton-Ralphson iteration, 
>>> modified Newton-Ralphson iteration, or a Fourier sine 
>>> series and Bessel functions or the Lagrange method.
>>> M=mean anomaly
>>> E=eccentric anomaly
>>> e=eccentricity
>>>       Joshua Hewitt  
>
>> So you're saying that you DO NOT HAVE math to allow
>> for the hypothetical orbit we described?  You are boggled?
>>         ZetaTalk[TM]
>
> No, that is not what he is saying.  The solution to Keplers 
> equation has been discussed many times and is done by 
> an iterative technique that quickly converges to the solution.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We're missing something here.  Where is GRAVITY?  You are analyzing the
hypothetical orbit of a planet orbiting both stars in a binary system
and excluding gravity?  Admit it! Your math cannot address this
situation!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])