one of the most perplexing, unsolved issues in celestial mechanics."

> > Very true. The solar system is a complex multibody system without > closed-form mathematical solution. It evolves dynamically under > gravity's "rules of engagement". A natural question to ask about > any complex dynamical system is how it will evolve in the long term, > and whether or not it is stable. Without a closed-form mathematical > solution, the answer does not simply pop out of the equations, as it > does for example with the two-body problem or certain classes of > three-body problem. > > Note that this does not imply that gravity doesn't behave in the > way we think it does. In particular, it does not mean that we > can't accurately calculate the short term behavior of bodies moving > under its influence, where "short term" here means upwards of > millions of years. It also does not imply that we will see bodies > suddenly jump around or behave erratically, or defy energy > conservation or angular momentum conservation. It just means that we > cannot predict with certainty the ultimate configuration (precise > locations) of the solar system bodies, or if some subtle interplay > might grow into a larger effect that ultimately could lead to the > ejection of one or more bodies. All this without requiring any > new physics or modification to the governing rules. >

It seems to me that if the solar system as it appears today has been around for billions of years, and there is little indication that the orbits of the planets are any different now than they were billions of years ago.... AND... we conclude that that the orbits of orbital bodies do (according to traditional newtonian laws) become chaotic after only a few hundred million years, than we must conclude that the laws of mathematics that govern the rules of orbiting bodies as they are today are not sufficient. Having established this conclusion, it's hard to see how planets would maintain their orbital trajectories without some other force coming in to play that pushed planets back on their original path. One can only speculate about that, but I enjoy knocking the idea around and think it throws a whole lot of our assumptions about how the solor system functions in to an ashheap.... > > The dynamic evolution of a complex system is not a fundamental > component of the model. It is a consequence. The long term > stability of the solar system is an interesting question, but > does not bear on the validity of the underlying physics. > Whether or not this particular question can be answered with > certainty does not mean that rules are broken, or that objects > can avoid playing by the rules, just as not knowing the future > outcome of a coin toss does not permit the coin to suddenly > vanish in mid air or fall upwards instead of down. > The problem, sir, is that the more threatened science feels that it's underlying laws of physics that it has held on to so desperately for the past 300 years are coming more and more under the spot light. Two VERY good indications that there is something very, very wrong with the very thing you are so afraid to admit to: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/21/gravity.mystery/ ALSO on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1332000/1332368.stm Even larger problems may be on the horizon: >> >> Admittedly one of the most difficult (for me) to accept notions is >> the Zetan idea of orbital mechanics which gives Nibiru an exponential >> increase in orbital velocity as it approaces the solor system. I >> don't rule out the possibilty that the very 'small' problems >> astronmers have in explaining orbial stability (which I don't think >> is an insignificant problem--but a HUGE problem) - could lead to HUGE >> differences in accepted orbtial observances of planets with >> unfamiliar orbits. It's at >> least a possibilty. > > As I outlined above, this is a non sequitur. Solar system stability > is not a "HUGE" problem, merely an interesting question, and one that > does not bear on the validity of the underlying physics. > I believe it IS logical to conclude that the underlying validity of some of the most basic presumtions that astro-physics cling to is thrown in to question by evidence that undermines the rules that those assumptions are based on. In those general terms - it IS a valid and logical conclusion, albeit certinly less emperical. > >> >> I certainly hope Nancy is a hoaxer because if not, we're all in for a >> rough ride next year, for sure. If she's not, how many of you are >> going to email her and thank her for her efforts? > > I would guess none, since the internet would wiped out along with > everything else. Or hadn't you thought of that? >

I was referring to the several week period before this event in which it will be clear to most that nancy was right (i.e. Nibiru is visable in the skys... circa April, 2003... if that happens.

Regards, Garrett