arxiv: v1 [math.ds] 6 Dec 2015

Transcription

1 THE BINARY RETURNS! CONNOR JACKMAN arxiv: v1 [math.ds] 6 Dec 2015 Abstract. Consider the spatial Newtonian three body problem at fixed negative energy and fixed angular momentum. The moment of inertia I provides a measure of the overall size of a threebody system. We will prove that there is a positive number I 0 depending on the energy and angular momentum levels as well as the masses such that every solution at these levels passes through I I 0 at some instant of time. Motivation for this result comes from trying to prove the impossibility of realizing a certain syzygy sequence in the zero angular momentum problem. 1. Introduction The spatial 3-body problem concerns three point masses in space moving according to Newton s equations of gravitation. The point of this article is to prove that there exist no periodic solutions to this problem which hang out near infinity. The conserved quantities for the problem are the energy H, angular momentum J and linear momentum. As is standard, we may, without loss of generality, assume that the linear momentum is zero and the origin of space coincides with the center of mass of the three bodies. If m i denote the masses and q i R 3 the positions of the bodies, then the standard measure of size is q =» I(q) where q = (q 1, q 2, q 3 ) and I = m i q i 2 is known as the total moment of inertia. Neighborhoods of infinity are regions of the form {q : I(q) I 0 }. As I 0 the neighborhood converges to infinity. Our main theorem is: Theorem 1. For H < 0 there exists I 0 (m j, H, J) > 0 such that any orbit beginning in the region I > I 0 enters the region I I 0 in forwards or backwards time. Motivation. The motivation behind our result came from the problem of which syzygy sequences are realized in the zero angular momentum planar three body problem (see [5], [6], [7]). The term syzygy is from astronomy and refers to when the three bodies are in eclipse, that is collinear. Each syzygy has a type 1, 2, or 3, according Date: November 16,

2 2 CONNOR JACKMAN to the label of the mass in the middle. Then the syzygy sequence of an orbit is this list of syzygy types in temporal order. A first open problem is whether or not the periodic sequence of repeating 1212 s is realized by a periodic solution to the zero angular momentum problem. One imagines such a motion as consisting of 1 and 2 going around each other in a near circular orbit, very far from 3, and the center of mass of the 12 orbit slowly going around 3, like the Earth-Moon-Sun system. The theorem excludes the existence of such solutions near infinity, i.e in the region I I 0 (m j, H, 0). Figure 1. The Hill region in the planar 3-body problem, each leg of the pants surrounds a collision ray. 2. Structure of proof. For H < 0 as we let I 0 increase, eventually the domain {I I 0 } splits into three components each component characterized by the selection of one of the three masses. The two remaining masses stay close to each other while this third selected mass, stays relatively far away from either member of this pair (see figure 1). We fix attention on one of these regions, supposing, after relabeling, that the close masses are 1 and 2. In this region, we use the standard Jacobi coordinates ξ 1, ξ 2. See figure 2. When written in these coordinates, Newton s differential equations becomes a perturbation of two uncoupled Kepler problems, one for each Jacobi vector, with the perturbation term getting arbitrarily small as I 0. We focus attention on the long Jacobi vector, which connects the center of mass of the 1-2 system to the 3rd mass. When we

3 THE BINARY RETURNS! 3 Figure 2. A tight binary configuration, set r := ξ 1, ρ := ξ 2 drop the perturbation term of this perturbed Kepler system, we get an exact solvable Kepler problem whose solutions we call the osculating solutions. The Kepler parameters (energy, angular momentum, Laplace or Runge- Lenz vector) for the osculating system can be bounded using that H, J, the masses, are fixed and the fact that I 0 >> 0. Now here comes the key observation, due to Chenciner. Consider a family of solutions to Kepler s equation having fixed energy and bounded angular momentum. If, along the solutions of this family the initial distance from the origin tends to infinity then these orbits become extremely eccentric, and thus must come close to the origin. Thus the osculating orbits cannot hang out near infinity. Said slightly differently, since large circular orbits for the Kepler problem have large angular momentum and since our total angular momentum is fixed, large near circular motions for osculating system are excluded and this excludes orbits of the type of our Earth-Moon-Sun cartoon described above. Here is the strategy of proof then. Show that for sufficiently large I 0 all of the osculating solutions starting in {I I 0 } are extremely eccentric, enough so to enter the region {I I 0 } (see 4 Claim 2). Next show that the real solutions do not vary too much from these osculating solutions, as long as they stay in the region I I 0, and for bounded times (indeed for times of order O(I 3/2 0 ), 4 Claim 3). It follows that if the osculating orbit enters the region I I 0 within the time O(I 3/2 0 ) (which we expect by Kepler s third law) then the true orbit must also enter into that region. Finally, ( 4 Claim 5) we verify that there is indeed sufficient time: the time scale over which the approximation of the true motion by the osculating motion is valid is long enough that the true motions must follow their osculating leads into the region I I 0.

4 4 CONNOR JACKMAN Figure 3. The habits we pick up as we start to hang out with infinity 3. Set-up and Notation In the spatial 3-body problem, we consider the motion of three point masses m 1, m 2, m 3 under Newton s gravitational attraction. We will denote the configurations by q = (q 1, q 2, q 3 ) (R 3 ) 3 \{(x 1, x 2, x 3 ) : x i = x j some i j}. As is standard, we may take the center of mass zero coordinates ( m i q i = 0) and will now define the Jacobi coordinates in which the splitting into two perturbed Kepler problems will be clear (see Figure 2 as well as [8] 2.7, [2], or [3]): ξ 1 = q 2 q 1, ξ 2 = q 3 (m 1 + m 2 ) 1 (m 1 q 1 + m 2 q 2 ) = m 1 + m 2 + m 3 m 1 + m 2 q 3. We set r = ξ 1 and ρ = ξ 2. For reference we record here in one place the mass constants that will be used throughout: Mass constants: µ = m 1 + m 2 M = m 1 + m 2 + m 3 α 1 = m 1 m 2 µ 1 α 2 = m 3 µm 1 β 1 = µα 1 β 2 = Mα 2

5 Then in these coordinates we find: THE BINARY RETURNS! 5 (1) I := m i q i 2 = α 1 r 2 + α 2 ρ 2 (2) J := m i (q i q i ) = α 1 ξ 1 ξ 1 + α 2 ξ 2 ξ 2 = J 1 + J 2 for the moment of inertia, and angular momentum respectively. Also the energy splits into H = H kep + g where H kep = 1 2 α 1 ξ 1 2 β 1 r α 2 ξ 2 2 β 2 ρ = H 1 + H 2 is an energy for two uncoupled Kepler problems and g = β 2 ρ m 1 m 3 ξ 2 + m 2 µ 1 ξ 1 m 2 m 3 ξ 2 m 1 µ 1 ξ 1 is a perturbation term satsifying g = O(r 2 /ρ 3 ), g ξ1 = O(r/ρ 3 ) and g ξ2 = O(r 2 /ρ 4 ) (see Appendix A). The equations of motion are then the two perturbed Kepler problems (3) α i ξi = β iξ i ξ i 3 + g ξ i Definition 3.1. A solution to the unperturbed Kepler problems satisfying the same initial conditions as a solution to these perturbed Kepler problems (eq. 3) will be called an osculating orbit (see [8], 1.16). 4. Proof of Main Theorem Fix the masses, angular momentum, negative energy H < 0 and a parameter λ (0, 1) and only consider orbits at these energy/momentum levels and in center of mass zero Jacobi coordinates. We will use I for a placeholder constant. It is known (see for instance [2]) that at a fixed negative energy level, taking I >> I for I large enough results in three connected components which we denote by B i each characterized by q i being the far body. Traditionally these connected components are referred to as the lunar regions. In Appendix A we reproduce the relevant results to prove: CLAIM 1 For H < 0, there exists I (m i, H, J) > 0 such that the region I > I consists of three connected components B 1, B 2, B 3. Moreover relabeling if necessary to fix our attention to B 3 (where q 3 is

6 6 CONNOR JACKMAN the far body) with appropriate Jacobi coordinates we have the bounds: (4) g c g (r 2 /ρ 3 ), g ξ2 c g2 (r 2 /ρ 4 ) (5) J 2 c J2 (6) r c r on the perturbation term g angular momentum J 2 and short Jacobi vector r for some constants c g, c g2, c J2, c r depending on masses, energy and angular momentum. CLAIM 2: Take I = max{i, α 1 c 2 r + α 2 c 4 J 2 /M 2 } where I, c r, c J2 are from Claim 1. Then any osculating orbit with initial condition in I > I falls in forwards or backwards time into the region I I. Proof: By (eqs. 1, 6) in the region I > I we have ρ 2 > c 4 J 2 /M 2 = ρ. The ρ component of the osculating orbit of an initial condition in I > I is a solution to the Kepler problem ξ osc = Mξ osc / ξ osc 3 with ρ 2 osc(0) = ξ osc (0) 2 > ρ and the restriction (eq. 5) J 2 (0) = ξ osc ξ osc c J2 on the angular momentum. And from claim 1, we have the r component satisfying r c r as long as we remain in the region I > I. We now verify that for all such orbits, ξ osc, the perihelion (closest approach) distance, ρ ph osc is bounded. case 1: J 2 0. In polar coordinates, the osculating orbit is (for some e 0): ρ osc = J 2 2 /M(1 + e cos θ) where θ = 0 is perihelion (closest) and θ = π is aphelion (furthest). Then as e 0 and by (eq. 5), ρ ph osc = J 2 2 M(1 + e) c2 J 2 M. case 2: J 2 = 0. Collision! So the perihelion distance in this case is zero.

7 THE BINARY RETURNS! 7 Now an osculating orbit starting in I > I either reaches Perihelion or leaves I before it reaches Perihelion. If it reaches perihelion before leaving I > I then we have I ph α 1 c 2 r + α 2 c 4 J 2 /M 2 I so in either case we fall into the region I max{i, α 1 c 2 r + α 2 c 4 J 2 /M 2 } = I in forwards or backwards time. CLAIM 3: Let I > max{i, α 1 c 2 r+α 2 } = R. Set ρ =» α 1 2 (I α 1 c 2 r) and ε = 1/ρ. Then any orbit with initial condition in I > I satisfies: (7) ρ(t) ρ osc (t) < A 1 ε for time (8) t B 1 ε 3/2 throughout the region I R. Here we» may pick the constant B 1 > 0 and then define A 1 = 2a(2 + e 2+3c 2 J B 2 1) where a = (cg2 c 2 rb 1 ) 2 + 2c J2 c g2 c 2 rb 1 + c g2 c 2 r. Proof: First, from (eq. 6) an initial condition with I > I implies ρ(0) > ρ. We consider our perturbed Kepler problem for the ρ motion: ξ 2 = ξ 2 ρ + F (ξ 2, t) 3 Where the time dependence in the perturbation term F = g ξ2 is due to the interaction of the 12 motion. In the region I > I, we have F c g2 c 2 rρ 4 c g2 c 2 rε 4. We will set A = c g2 c 2 r. First an estimate for the variation of c 2 t := J 2 (t) 2 will be needed. Since ċ J 2 = ξ 2 F Aρ 3, we have so that for t > 0 and for t < 0. That is: Hence ċ Aε 3 c 0 Aε 3 t c t Aε 3 t + c 0 c 0 + Aε 3 t c t Aε 3 t + c 0 c t c 0 Aε 3 t. c 2 t c 2 0 Aε 3 t (Aε 3 t + 2c 0 ) Aε 3 t (Aε 3 t + 2c J2 ).

8 8 CONNOR JACKMAN so that for t B 1 ε 3/2 and b = (AB 1 ) 2 + 2c J2 AB 1 and ε < 1 which is guaranteed so long as I > α 1 c 2 r + α 2, we have (9) c 2 t c 2 0 bε 3/2. To prove the claim we ll use the Sandwich Lemma (see [3] or [9]): Sandwich Lemma: Given ẍ = F (x ), ẍ = F (x, t) and ẍ + = F + (x + ) satisfying F (x) F (x, t) F + (x) and F ± x ± 0 over some time interval, then over this same time interval the solutions to F ±, F satisfying the same initial conditions have: x (t) x(t) x + (t). Now: ρ osc ρ osc + ρ 2 osc = d dt ρ osc ρ osc = d dt ξ osc ξ osc = ρ 2 oscρ 3 osc+ ξ osc 2 = ρ 1 osc+ ρ 2 osc+c 2 0ρ 2 osc so And likewise: ρ osc = c 2 0ρ 3 osc ρ 2 osc. ρ = c 2 t ρ 3 ρ 2 + f(t) where f(t) = ρ(t) 1 (ξ 2 (t) F (ξ 2 (t), t)) Aρ(t) 4. Take v 1 = c 2 0ρ 3 ρ 2 and v 2 = c 2 t ρ 3 ρ 2 + f. We view f here as f(t) by plugging the true solutions ξ 1 (t), ξ 2 (t) into f. Now using our c 2 t c 2 0 estimate (eq. 9) we get: v 1 v 2 bε 9/2 + Aε 4 aε 4 for a = b + A, or v 1 aε 4 v 2 v 1 + aε 4 for time t B 1 ε 3/2. Now ρ is a solution to ρ = v 2 and let ρ ± be solutions to: ρ = v 1 ± aε 4 satisfying the same initial conditions as ρ. Then the Sandwich Lemma applied with F ± = v 1 ± aε 4 gives: ρ ρ ρ +

9 THE BINARY RETURNS! 9 for time t B 1 ε 3/2. Likewise since v 1 aε 4 v 1 v 1 + aε 4, we have for t B 1 ε 3/2 : ρ ρ osc ρ +. Set η = ρ + ρ 0. Note that v 1 is Lipschitz in the region ρ > ρ with v 1 (x) v 1 (y) ω x y for x, y > ρ and ω = (2 + 3c 2 0)ε 3 = kε 3. Then η = v 1 (ρ + ) v 1 (ρ ) + 2aε 4 η ω η + 2aε 4 = ωη + 2aε 4 so η ωη + 2aε 4. Now the Sandwich Lemma with F = v 1 (ρ + ) v 1 (ρ )+2aε 4, F ± (η) = ±(ωη + 2aε 4 ) gives: 0 η(t) 2aε4 ω (cosh ωt 1) and since ω = kε 3 and k > 1 we have ρ(t) ρ osc (t) ρ + (t) ρ (t) = η(t) 2aε k (2 + e ω t ) A 1 ε for time t B 1 ε 3/2 and where we set A 1 = 2a(2 + e kb 1 ). Claim 4: (Strips) Set R = max{r, I, 4 3 α 1c 2 r} (R is from claim 3). And for I > R set I + = 4(I α 1 c 2 r) > I. Then for any orbit with an initial condition in the strip I I I + we have that (eq. 7) holds until the osculating orbit enters the region I R. Proof: First consider orbits with initial condition in I > I for some I max{i, R} and with ε = 1/ρ defined as in Claim 3 and recall that I I implies that ρ ρ. For osculating collision orbits with J 2 (0) = 0, some energy H 2 and ρ(0) = ρ osc (0) > ρ the time to collision in forwards time (or time from expulsion in backwards time) t c, satisfies: (10) t c π(8m) 1/2 ρ osc (0) 3/2. We will use Lambert s Theorem (see [1]) to compare time to perihelion for general osculating orbits to these collision times. Lambert says that for Kepler orbits, the time of travel between two points, a 1, a 2 on

10 10 CONNOR JACKMAN the orbit is a function of the energy, chord length d = a 1 a 2 and a 1 + a 2 = r 1 + r 2 (where the origin is at the focus, see figure 4). Namely, for equivalent configurations (those having the same energy, same chord length d, and r 1 + r 2 = s 1 + s 2 ) the time of travel from a 2 to a 1 is the same as the time of travel from b 2 to b 1. Figure 4 is how we will choose our equivalent configurations: Figure 4. Two equivalent configurations For a general osculating orbit ρ osc, take r 1 = ρ ph osc, r 2 = ρ osc (0) = ρ(0) > ρ and then s 1, s 2 are determined by s 2 s 1 = d = a 2 a 1 and s 1 + s 2 = r 1 + r 2. By Lambert s theorem and (eq. 10) we have the time to perihelion, t ph, satisfies (11) t ph π(8m) 1/2 s 3/2 2 And since r 2 > r 1 (as we are in I > I ) we have: Hence (adding onto eq. 11) 2s 2 (r 1 + r 2 ) = s 2 s 1 = d < r 1 + r 2 s 2 r 1 + r 2 2r 2. t ph πm 1/2 r 3/2 2. So to compare t ph with our estimates (eq. 8) we want t ph B 1 ε 3/2 = B 1 ρ 3/2, which holds when: πm 1/2 r 3/2 2 B 1 ρ 3/2 r 3/2 2 π 1 M 1/2 B 1 ρ 3/2. Take B 1 = 2 3/2 π/ M so that we will be working in the strip:

11 THE BINARY RETURNS! 11 ρ 3/2 r 3/ /2 ρ 3/2 i.e. (recall that r 2 = ρ(0) = ρ osc (0)) ρ ρ 2ρ. The condition ρ 2ρ is ensured (eqs. 1, 6) when I I + := 4α 2 ρ 2 = 4(I α 1 c 2 r). Also, we ensure I < I + = 4(I α 1 c 2 r) provided I > 4α 3 1c 2 r. Claim 5: (Main Theorem) Fix some λ (0, 1) and take I λ = max{α 1 c 2 r + α 2 (κ/δ) 2, λ 1 R} where (R is from claim 4): κ = 2α 2 A 1» R/α2 + α 2 A 2 1 δ = (λ 1 1)R. Then any orbit with initial condition in the region I > I λ comes in forwards or backwards time into the region I λ 1 R. Proof: For now take I > R and ε 1 = ρ =» α2 1 (I α 1 c 2 r) and consider an orbit with initial condition in I I. By claim 4 we can let t be the time the osculating orbit hits α 1 c 2 r + α 2 ρ 2 osc(t ) = R. Along the true motion then at t we have (eqs. 6, 7): I(t ) α 1 c 2 r + α 2 ρ(t ) 2 α 1 c 2 r + α 2 (ρ osc (t ) + A 1 ε) 2 R + κε Where we take κ = 2α 2 A 1» R/α2 + α 2 A 2 1. Fix our parameter λ (0, 1) and set δ = λ 1 R R > 0. Then for κε δ we have (12) I(t ) λ 1 R. Now ε δ/κ is guaranteed whenever I > α 1 c 2 r + α 2 (κ/δ) 2. So define I λ := max{λ 1 R, α 2 (κ/δ) 2 + α 1 c 2 r}. Consider some orbit with initial condition I(0) I λ then we set I = I(0) so by claim 4 and (eq. 12) all orbits with I I I + fall into I λ 1 R in particular the orbit under consideration. Finally, we may use Levi-Civita regularization to pass through any collisions that may occur in the 12 system and in Theorem 1 can take I 0 = I λ for any choice of λ (for instance I 0 = min λ (0,1) I λ ).

12 12 CONNOR JACKMAN 5. Acknowledgment. Thanks Richard! Thanks Chenciner for s/main idea. Meyers, Moeckel. Appendix A. Proof of Claim 1 These estimates can more or less be found in [3], [2]. Set r ij = q i q j and c r = i<j m i m j H 1. First, for a configuration in I > Mc 2 r by relabeling if necessary we have r 12 < r 13. This follows as if the distances were all equal, r ij = ˆr, then H U = m i m jˆr 1 i<j ˆr m i m j H 1 I M( m i m j ) 2 H 2 = Mc 2 r. i<j i<j Thus up to relabeling the masses we can always consider configurations where r = r min = min i j {r ij } < ρ provided that I > Mc 2 r. Also by the same inequalities we always have r min c r (yielding eq. 6). Recall ( 3)the perturbation of the energy is g = β 2 ξ 2 m 1m 3 ξ 2 µ 2 ξ 1 m 2m 3 ξ 2 + µ 1 ξ 1 where the constants are defined as β 2 = m 3 µ and µ 1 = m 1 µ 1 and µ 2 = m 2 µ 1. To obtain the estimates on g, one uses the Legendre polynomials. These give that for ξ, ξ R n, and r = ξ > r = ξ and γ = (ξ, ξ): 1 ξ ξ = r l r P l(cos γ). l+1 l=0 Where P l (x) are the Legendre polynomials, given recursively by: P 0 (x) = 1, P 1 (x) = x np n (x) = (2n 1)xP n 1 (x) (n 1)P n 2 (x). Now let γ = (ξ 1, ξ 2 ) = π ( ξ 1, ξ 2 ), and r = ξ 1, ρ = ξ 2. Now provided max{µ i }r < ρ which is guaranteed so long as we demand that I Mc 2 r (as µ i < 1) we substitute the Legendre polynomial expansions in for g giving:

13 THE BINARY RETURNS! 13 g = [ m 1 m 3 µ l 2P l (cos γ) m 2 m 3 µ l r l 1P l ( cos γ)] l=2 ρ l+1 so that g = O(r 2 /ρ 3 ). Now write the l-degree polynomial m 1 m 3 µ l 2P l (x) m 2 m 3 µ l 1P l ( x) = p l (x) as c l,l x l c 1,l x + c 0,l and substitute cos γ = ξ 1 ξ 2 rρ g = for x to obtain: l l=2 k=0 differentiation of which yields c k,l (ξ 1 ξ 2 ) k r l k ρ l+1+k g ξ1 = O(r/ρ 3 ) g ξ2 = O(r 2 /ρ 4 ). In particular when H < 0, in the region I > Mc 2 r there exists constants c g, c g2 depending on the masses such that (eqs. 4) g c g (r 2 /ρ 3 ) g ξ2 c g2 (r 2 /ρ 4 ). Now to finish off the proof of Claim 1, we just need to show the three connected components and the bound on angular momentum. Consider configurations satisfying I > Mc 2 r so that we may without loss of generality choose Jacobi coordinates with r = ξ 1 = r 12 = r min. Then r c r and ρ 2 α2 1 (Mc 2 r α 1 c 2 r) = ρ min. And so β 2 /ρ g ρ 1 (β 2 + c g c 2 rρ 2 ) ρ 1 (β 2 + c g c 2 rρ 1 min) =: β 2 /ρ. Hence 0 < H U β 1 /r + β 2 /ρ g β 1 /r + β 2 /ρ. Set x = α 2 ρ, y = α 1 r and a = β 2 α2 / H, b = β 1 α1 / H then we have the conditions: 1 a/x + b/y and I = x 2 + y 2 So that taking I3 = (a + b/k) 2 + (ak + b) 2 where k =» α 1 /α 2 cuts off the connected component where ρ > r (see Figure 5) Likewise repeating the argument with a different labeling of the masses r = r min = r 13 gives us an I2 and with r = r min = r 23 gives us an I1. So that configurations starting in Ii consist of those with q i the

14 14 CONNOR JACKMAN Figure 5. The region of binary configurations far body and to pass into a configuration where q i is not the far body requires passing into I < I i. Lastly we verify the bound on J 2 in the component B 3 where q 3 is the far body. As H = H 1 + H 2 + g, we have H 1 = H H 2 g = H α 2 ρ 2 /2 + β 2 /ρ g H + β 2 /ρ g H + β 2 /ρ. So Take H 1 H + β 2 /ρ. I = α 1 c 2 r + α 2 4 β 2 2H 2 so that I > I β 2 /ρ < H /2 2 β 2 / H < ρ. Then as long as I > I, H 1 H/2 < 0. Now 1 2α 1 J 1 2 α 1 r 2 ξ 1 2 = rβ 1 r 2 H 1 rβ 1 c r β 1 so that Hence J 2» 2α 1 β 1 c r. J 1 J + J 1 J +» 2α 1 β 1 c r throughout I > I. Let Ĩ i = α 1 c 2 r + α 2 4 β 2H 2 2 denote the constant arrived in this way in the component B i.

15 THE BINARY RETURNS! 15 Claim 1 follows with I := max i=1,2,3 {Mc 2 r, I i, Ĩ i } References [1] A. Albouy, Lectures on the Two-Body Problem, Recife Lectures on Classical and Celestial Mechanics, 2002, Princeton University Press edited by H. Cabral and F. Diacu. [2] J. Féjoz, Quasiperiodic motions in the planar three-body problem, 2002 [3] S. Kaplan, M. Levi, R. Montgomery, Making the Moon Reverse it s Orbit, or, Stuttering in the Planar Three-Body Problem, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems series B vol. 10, [4] R. Moeckel, Some Qualitative Features of the Three-Body Problem, Contemporary Mathematics vol. 81: Hamiltonian Dynamics, [5] R. Moeckel, R. Montgomery, Realizing All Reduced Syzygy Sequences in the Planar Three-Body Problem, Nonlinearity 28, [6] R. Montgomery, Infinitely Many Syzygies, Archives for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, v. 164, , [7] R. Montgomery, The zero angular momentum, three-body problem: All but one solution has syzygies, Erg. Th. and Dyn. Systems, v., (2007), [8] H. Pollard, Celestial Mechanics, 1966, Prentice Hall. [9] Protter, Weinberger, Maximum Principles in Differential Equations,1967, Prentice Hall. (Jackman) Mathematics Department, University of California, 4111 McHenry Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA address: cfjackma@ucsc.edu