Certainly I would have expected the orbit to go higher the faster the planets moved? Is that not the usual effect of increasing speed?

I wonder if it’s using some derived equation for the motion of the planets (re: their orbit) that assumes positive mass, so that part of the simulation understands negative mass but part does not?

> Certainly I would have expected the orbit to go higher the faster the planets moved? Is that not the usual effect of increasing speed?

That rather depends on what you mean. The usual effect of increasing speed in a circular orbit at any given moment is to change it to an elliptical orbit, where the apoapsis is further away from the center of gravity and the object in question moves slower. And if you increase speed again at the apoapsis, you can make the orbit circular again, but the object will be moving much slower than it was to start. Thus two accelerations, both prograde, have the net effect of substantially reducing the prograde speed.

For any given circular orbit, though, lower means faster.

or they've simply fallen into the common trap of thinking planets orbit in fixed tracks.

Induction cooktops are.

Now this is a disingenuous redefinition of scam.

What would you call bundling subprime mortgage backed securities and reselling them, while knowing full well that they're toxic?

Just because everyone is in on the scam, doesn't make it not a scam. It just makes it a systemic scam.

I agree that, if you are working with checked exceptions, that’s certainly better than adding garbage to your interface.

But for many types of checked exception you just end up wrapping the underlying exception in a foo exception anyway.

I think you are right: if you are using exceptions for error handling, of errors you expect people to actually deal with, this is currently a reasonable (if painful) option to ensure exhaustive analysis of returns — which most people agree is a good thing these days I think, what with mainstream popularization of options etc.