3 ms·
After a cursory read of the article, I'm not sure the title is doing the article any favors here. From my read, it sounds like a. This is about comet orbitals
by distortedsignal 6y ago
After a cursory read of the article, I'm not sure the title is doing the article any favors here. From my read, it sounds like
a. This is about comet orbitals of the solar system
b. There appear to be _at least two_ planes of comet orbitals that are not co-planar with the planetary plane (both at roughly 60 degrees from the planetary plane)
c. One of these orbitals was initially empty (the article calls this the "empty orbital")
d. Over time, solar- (and galactic-?) tides filled the empty orbital
I think there is a lot here, but, again, cursory read.
- FreeFull 6y agoWith regards to b., I think the article is saying that one comet plane is in alignment with the planetary plane, but the planetary plane itself is off by 60° from the galactic plane.
- hinkley 6y agoDoesn't conservation of momentum mean that a 'new' orbital is created by the interactions of two or more other orbitals? Even with tides, how do you explain >=2 planes if you didn't start with 2 to begin with? To get new tracks you're either amplifying small differences or averaging larger ones, aren't you?