🚀 go-pugleaf

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