I once knew a guy from online who'd renounced plate tectonics in favor of a "Growing Earth" theory. Part of his theory was that the gigantic reptiles/birds of the dinosaur age were the result of the lesser gravitational pull upon objects at Earth's surface due to the then-smaller diameter of Earth. When I tried to explain to him that a smaller diameter of Earth would have produced a greater, rather than a lesser, gravitational pull upon objects at Earth's surface, he derided me for being so "hung up on that inverse square of the distance thing"!
He did, however, offer no counterargument to that "Newtonian Gravity Equation thing".
He cut off the dialogue with me when I tried to explain that, as there have been supercontinents prior to Pangea, the "Growing Earth" theory is actually the "Oscillating Earth Volume" theory, with no explanation as to the oscillating energy source which would be required to produce this effect.
***
Anyways, a comet or other object that would pass by the sun once and never again is not a satellite of the sun, but a transient object passing through the Solar System, as the velocity required to produce this effect would have to be sufficient to allow the object to pass by the sun without deceleration due to the sun's gravitational tug at perihelion reducing the object's velocity below Solar System Escape Velocity, which means the object would escape out into interstellar space. That is, assuming no source of motive energy to the "orbiting" body, as increased orbital amplitude requires an increase in the velocity (read: kinetic energy) of the orbiting body. (And, PLEASE don't argue the thrust effect of sublimating cometary ices, as these are too small to generate perturbations in orbital velocity/amplitude sufficient to change the object's course to the degree necessary to achieve the results of which the original post spoke.)
