link to Home Page

Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain


Article: <5aj8n9$51k@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 3 Jan 1997 15:30:49 GMT

In article <5agtpj$bpr@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neil writes:
>>Nancy (saquo@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>> In article <32C752C5.C27@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline writes
>>> For some applications (viewing a planet from the back yard)
>>> the precise position of the planet need not be known.
>>>
>>> The point you missed, or decided to ignore, is that the orbits
>>> do change by small, but measureable amounts.
>>> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
>>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You've just contradicted yourself, again.
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> On the other hand, if you want to know where to point your
> telescope to find a given planet, say, five hundred years from
> now, or where the planet might have been in the sky several
> hundred years ago at a certain time of day, then you'll want to
> wheel out the heavy pertubation methods and do the math
> accurately.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're making our point! The only reason you CAN make all those exacting mathematical calculations is because the orbit of the planet is used as a BASE. You assume it to be a constant! WHY is it a constant when it has been perturbed, this is the issue! Address the issue! If a planet has been perturbed OUT of its orbit, then why does it return if NOT for the reasons we stated. Give alternate reasons, don't just say we're wrong and point in all sorts of irrelevant directions in an attempt to take an intelligent posture. You're fooling no one here!

You DON'T have an explanation. Admit it! We will ask our emissary, Nancy, to repost our PERTURBATION topic so that the readership can see our point, which you have been UNABLE to counter in any intelligent or meaningful manner.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])