| |
|
Article: <5ar39l$3mr@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 6 Jan 1997 14:47:17 GMT
In article <5akqns$icc$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
writes:
> ZetaTalk wrote:
>> For hard evidence, simply look to the motion of the
planets.
>> You're fond of saying that they stay in place due to
centrifugal
>> force, yet their speed is sedate! What keeps them from
drifting
>> into the Sun? What keeps the Moon from drifting into the
>> Earth? There IS a basis for comparison, in the shuttles
you
>> send aloft. The force of gravity is predictable, and you
have
>> exacting formulas for working with what you understand
this
>> force to be. You apply it to your airplanes, your space
shuttle,
>> your satellites, etc.
>
> The hard evidence gaves us an attractive only force of
gravity.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
In article <32CDFCED.24FC@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
writes:
> State, specifically, what your evidence for a repulsive
> gravitational force is. Present examples where your theory
> proves superior to current space/time theory. Answer the
> 'why' and 'how' questions that you've been ignoring.
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
In article <32CDFF31.5F1E@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
writes:
> Nancy wrote:
>> In magnetism, the simple flow of particles creates more
>> than a force for alignment, it creates an attraction.
The
>> gap is filled. Like water in a stream, where flotsam
>> eventually lines up in the center, evenly spaced, just
so
>> magnetized objects do NOT keep their distance when free
>> to move. They approach each other, and attach like a
string
>> of pearls. Likewise the phenomena of gravity, where the
>> desire to fill the gap causes object to approach one
another.
>> It is only where this gap is overfilled, by the presence
of
>> two large object coming near, that the repulsion force
is
>> expressed. There is NO ROOM for the flow of gravity
>> particles, so the objects stay apart!
>
> What you have to do now, Nancy, is provide evidence to
> support your story. That's what science is. Observe a
> phenomenon, make up a story to explain the phenomenon,
> gather evidence or data, re-examine the story to see if it
> holds up under the weight of the evidence.
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What seems to be the problem here, that our evidence stands
before you big and bold and undeniable? The motion of your
planets is NOT SUFFICIENT to keep them from turning into the Sun
they are obviously attracted to. You DO NOT use the same formulas
to describe their orbits that you do to describe a tiny comet's
orbit. Why NOT? Are they not both controlled by the same gravity
factors, distance, mass, speed components? Why do you treat these
large planets differently? Because you DO NOT HAVE AN
EXPLANATION, and are looking away from your lack, embarrassed.
If you state, as an evasive excuse, that comets are not in an
orbit and planets are, ergo the difference, I will remind you
that for most comets YOU CANNOT DETERMINE what kind of path they
are upon, whether repeating as in an orbit or non-repeating. Even
IF they are determined to be repeating, i.e. in an ORBIT, you do
NOT use the same formulas to determine their orbits. THIS is the
evidence we give to you, Eric, gathered religiously by your own
human hands, but we doubt you will deliberate it. You'll digress,
and find some silly reason to argue, as for us to be right makes
you uncomfortable. It that because Nancy is a woman, or because
we are not human?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])