Article: <5b8s7q$8ri@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 11 Jan 1997 20:12:42 GMT
In article <5b3dn7$3dv@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill
asks:
> Actually, you are refering to the "cosmological
constant" of
> General Relativeity. This is not, strictly speaking, a term
> related to the force of gravity, but rather the shape
(curvature)
> of space-time. In a flat space-time, as Einstein imagined
> space to be before Hubble noted the expansion, the constant
> would vanish (be equal to zero).
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
Oh, it the HUBBLE that decided that space/time curves? The Zetas want to speak to that.
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Regarding the amusing human notion that space/time curves. This
theory arose recently as humans have been able to track
cosmological events more closely with the Hubble, and noted that
the perimeter of an explosion curved slightly as the event
progressed. Do you imagine that light rays are immune to
gravitational influences? They are formed of particles, just as
what you call matter is, and as such as subject to the same
influences. We have stated that the Auroras, which are VISIBLE
light shows and not at all related to magnetic fields, are caused
by the bending of light subjected to the Earth's gravity. This
would be visible elsewhere around the globe, but except in the
dim light near the poles does not stand out. Why would particles
move in a CURVE?
Humans should keep in mind that what they SEE of the Universe reflects
What humans on Earth do NOT see is
Your human scientists are aware of this, identifying places in
space where no light seems to escape as black holes.
Nevertheless, as curving space/time seemed like such an
interesting possibility among those hoping to always prolong
their stay at the trough the taxpayers are obliged to fill, NASA
talked it up. They know better but don't want the paychecks to
stop.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])