Kittamaru;
Took pains especially for you, so that in future you do not make vague statement that a poster is incorrect without substantiating.
1.
Can anyone, Kittamaru especially you, find fault with above??
Indeed I can - it's a red herring and has nothing to do with the original premise of what was being discussed. This was already explained to you.
You initially posted this here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/if-pho...led-into-blackhole.159765/page-7#post-3471892
To which it was, yet again, explained to you:
The "angle does not matter" has been, from the start, explicitly qualified several times as "as long as it doesn't actually hit the central mass".
Note that the sun - from near the edge of our Solar system - is a target about one arc minute wide. That's about one part in 11,000 of an arc wherein it is approaching the sun. So, what you are asserting is that, when W4U said "at a certain angle", he meant, give or take, 10,999 parts out of 11,000.
Go back and read post 47, to see the context of what we are discussing.
Thus, your argument is a red herring and contributes naught to the discussion at hand. You THEN diverged into:
Why??
Any wandering object may come so close to sun that it may get captured, where is the need for third body?
To which it was attempted, several times, to explain to you that the need for a third body to cause capture (as opposed to a strike or a pass through) is a requirement due to conservation of momentum.
2.
Kittamaru, Can you find anything amiss in above??
This appears to have come from here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/if-pho...led-into-blackhole.159765/page-7#post-3471900
Further pointless argument from you, as explained here:
http://sciforums.com/threads/if-pho...led-into-blackhole.159765/page-7#post-3471904
The discussion was already had - you are arguing for orbital capture, and then attempting to "proof" it using examples that would NOT result in orbital capture (such as target strike).
[You may have problem with 1, but read on before you jumpt the gun, a bad habit which you have.]
Yet again, you demonstrate your
inability to post without including attempted insults.
Now this was in response to DaveC continued invoking of third body. He failed to realise that my emphasis on initial position and velocity vectors covers every aspect of capture or flyby or strike. He diverted the discussion to fuel burning of Apollo without realising that in principle it meant creating the suitable initial condition. How does it matter if suitable capture (for orbit) conditions are present by chance or by fuel firing or with the help of other force (3rd body) or by electric field or by explosion. If an inbound object explodes near a central mass, it is quite likely that one of the fragment may have just the condition for getting captured in orbit. So his invoking 3rd body again and again was just myopic.
Kittamaru, find fault with above??
Yes, the fault with what you just said is that you are, apparently, unable to ascertain why the fuel spent by Apollo 11 is important and changes the scenario entirely, or how there is a requirement for a third body to interact.
Then
Again myopic, because he was talking about conventional fuel burning propulsion, so I stated
Or for that matter billions of neutrinos from the Sun (James, do not jump that Neutrino is massless).
And these are further red herrings, and have little to do with the discussion at hand.
This is where James R entered and fucked up the entire thread by his stupid condescending and arrogant post without even reading the whole exchange between me and DaveC. This is what happens when you visit a site after a fortnight and act as if you can grasp and respond at all the places.
And once again, you resort to
insults and
ad hominem because you are incapable of making a scientifically valid point.
But I must credit him with a nice science statement of his
This statement is more or less correct but irrelevant as he was associating the conventional propulsion, moreover photons when emitted do get into momentum conservation with the emitting body, kind of creating almost similar physics, an aspect possibly he missed, so his massless argument also fails, Neutrino.
So Kittamru, any inaccuracy here too??
The greatest failure I see here is that you have been allowed to remain at SciForums when all you seem capable of doing is hurling insults at those you disagree with (see your multiple examples above). I also notice you fail to even acknowledge your attempted deceptions regarding what was said by whom, or when.
You are, to be blunt, a disingenuous troll that gives every appearance of only coming around to disrupt intelligent conversation with obfuscation and red herring. Not only that, but you incessantly derail the discussion at hand with subjects that are, at best tangentially connected, in an apparent effort to justify your positions (as you have done here).
Furthermore, you have, yet again, provided not one iota of evidence to support your claims - I guess you expect us to take you at your word alone? Guess what - that's not going to happen, and that isn't how science works.
If you have a problem with backing your claims with evidence, I suggest you take your posts elsewhere - perhaps Twitter or Facebook?
