link to Home Page

Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain


Article: <5c0pu7$9gl@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:00:39 GMT

In article <5btlgf$5ve@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill writes:
> The bending of light is one of the predictions of Relativity
> which has been confirmed by direct observation. During a
> total solar eclipse, the bending of light by the mass of the
> Sun was observed as a displacement of background stars.
> The effect is very slight, even with the great mass of the sun
> used as the gravitational lense. To imagine that auroras could
> be the result of gravitational bending of light is clearly bogus;
> if the effect were that pronounced, we could see around
> mountains!
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
The degree of light bending that occurs is NOT NOTICED except during scenarios such as an eclipse because diffusion and diffraction is in general NOT NOTICED. Your eye does not register minor diffraction when the overwhelming mass of light is not diffracted. Diffraction occurs all the time, to some degree, but is filtered out mentally due to the great weight of non-diffracted light. The mind picks and chooses from what it received, forming patterns and then relating these patterns to other patterns in memory, and thus sorts out sensory perceptions. The only reason bent light during an eclipse was noticed AT ALL was due to the LACK of straight line light.

Why do you not see light bending around mountains? You DO see this, but you ALSO see the mass of light reflected off the side of the mountain or coming straight from objects in the background to either side of the mountain. Diffracted light is filtered out, mentally, as so much noise, just as when you listen to a telephone conversation you process what you perceive to be the voice, putting it into word patterns, and make no attempt to put static into these word patterns. You discard the static. Same mental process. Diffracted light from objects under water IS mentally processed as such because almost ALL the light is diffracted, and almost none is straight line light. In this case, you mentally go with the great weight of sensory perception, seeing the object where it is NOT, based on the mass of sensory input.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5btlgf$5ve@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill writes:
> The aurora is caused by charged particles interacting with the
> Earth's magnetic field; they tend to spiral down towards the
> poles. On the way they ionize gas molecules, leading to the
> observed light show. Note that these effects can be reproduced
> in the lab (actually you see a related effect every time you
> look at a neon sign!).
>
> Charged particles moving through a magnetic field move
> in curves. This can be observed at any accelerator lab. Heck,
> everytime you watch TV you're seeing electrons deflected by
> magnetic fields.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You are describing a THEORY of what causes auroras, not facts. The fact that electrons can be deflected by a magnetic field does not relate, nor does any laboratory experiment where charged particles in the process of emitting light can be made to move in accordance with magnetic fields relate. The big flaw in relating these non-related phenomena to auroras is the fact of LIGHT EMISSION. What is the SOURCE of light in an aurora? What equivalent source do you have in nature? There IS no equivalent source. Your atmosphere, in and of itself, does not glow, nor does it glow when surrounding power lines or large electro magnets, nor does it glow in response to solar flares or sun spots, nor does it glow during extreme turbulence such as tornadoes, nor does it glow under volcanic eruptions or earth tearing during earthquakes, nor does it glow under ANY influence whatsoever.

What you produce in neon tubes is NOT a condition that occurs in nature, so drop the comparison. If this was a natural occurrence you wouldn't need to enclose the process in sealed tubes.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])