Xref: utzoo sci.astro:3339 sci.space:9238
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dalex
From: dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Dave Alexander)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
Message-ID: <11910@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 22 Jan 89 01:00:47 GMT
References: <1989Jan18.044744.18328@sq.uucp> <11854@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <1989Jan20.180839.7800@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Dave Alexander)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 29

In article <1989Jan20.180839.7800@utzoo.uucp>
                                henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <11854@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
                    dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Dave Alexander) writes:
>> In article <1989Jan18.044744.18328@sq.uucp>
                                        msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>>> The L in each of these positions stands for libration, as a body
>>> near those positions may librate or oscillate around them, and not
>>> for Lagrange.

>> So if L1, L2, and L3 are loci of unstable equilibrium, how can we
>> expect an object to librate or oscillate about any of them?

> You can't, and it won't, without help.  An object *precisely* at one
> of those points, with *no* perturbations, would stay there, but in the
> real world, that doesn't work.

I understand that.  The question that I was *really* asking was "How can
you say that the `L' in L1-5 stands for `libration,' when 60% of such
points do not exhibit that behavior?"  In light of that, I question Mr.
Brader's assertion that the `L' stands for `libration' and not
`Lagrange.'


                         -- Dave Alexander

--
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything."
                                     -- Russell Baker