link to Home Page

Re: CENTRIFUGAL FORCE - the Zetas Explain


Article: <5a8m1i$3gv@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: CENTRIFUGAL FORCE - the Zetas Explain
Date: 30 Dec 1996 15:10:42 GMT

In article <32C3A722.5C7A@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline writes
> The orbital energy of a planet remains relatively constant but
> can change minute amounts due to perturbations from other
> large bodies. These perturbations are small! There is nothing
> removing energy from a planet so it's orbit stays constant.
> When you apply brakes in a car a LOT of energy is removed
> from the car's kinetic energy and transfered into heat.
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
In the mathematical formulas you use to describe orbit, there is NO such imprecision! If one factor in these formulas changes, in an infinitesimal amount, the RESULTING ORBIT is radically changed! Yet, with a wave of the hand, you dismiss perturbations, which are MEASURABLE temporary changes in planetary orbits! This split thinking allows mankind to live with the screaming discrepancies in their theories about how things work. Their theories are absolutely correct, and we are utterly wrong, and the fact that they can't put two of their theories together is not a problem. We think not.

Apply your formulas that you use to describe orbit patterns to the orbit WHILE PERTURBED. Why would this orbit NOT continue? What factor is placed into your formula that would CAUSE the orbit to return to its pre-perturbation state? And if this factor is not in the formula at other times, why NOT? We expect this request for specificity, which you claim you operate under, to be ignored. When faced with glaring contradictions, humans turn out the light and mutter and wave the hand. They do NOT admit that their pet theories are failing. Reading more of your theories won't help here, Eric, they are the PROBLEM, not the answer.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <32C3A722.5C7A@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline writes
> Satellites are subject to atmospheric drag. This drag removes
> some energy from the satellite and transfers it to the atmosphere
> (heating and ionizing gas molecules and atoms). As energy is
> removed due to drag, the orbit decays and the satellite spirals in.
>
> Gravity does not cause the satellite to lose energy.
>
>(The atmosphere condenses and expands seasonally due to Earth's
> position and the Sun's cycles. Satellites in low Earth orbit are
> at altitudes around 400 km and their orbits can decay in as little
> as 90 days if not reboosted)
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We note that you categorically state that gravity is NOT the cause of the satellite's plunge to Earth. Yet those satellites closer to the Earth plunge faster. Another pig headed statement, designed to counter our argument with SOMETHING, anything, no matter how silly.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])