| |
|
Article: <5c0q52$7kn@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:04:18 GMT
In article <5blm9d$s6t@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill
writes:
>> The planet's orbits represent A STABLE EQUILIBRIUM.
>> They float where they can come no closer to the Sun due
to
>> the repulsion force having reached an equal point with
the
>> force of gravity. While floating they move ahead of the
>> sweeping arms, their speed in proportion to the size and
>> closeness to the Sun, i.e. intensity of the arm. Their
speed
>> is held in check by the tug back toward the Sun with
every
>> adjustment in the planet's straight line forward
movement.
>> Equilibrium.
>
> Of course Nance, your physics won't work, because if the
> planets are floating at equilibrium due to a balance of
forces,
> and then you add another force to move them around the sun,
> then your balance is destroyed. As I have already said:
Newton
> showed that if the orbits are ellipses, then the force must
be
> inverse-square. Feyneman showed that if the force is
> inverse-square, then the orbits must be ellipses. It's
proven
> both ways, so there's no room for other forces to be
involved.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
The obvious flaw in your logic is that you think we have added a
force into the equilibrium. As we clearly state in our
explaination of why planets continue to revolve, the forces
COMPOSE the equilibrium. We are not adding yet another force into
the equilibrium, the forces we are describing are ALREADY THERE!
This equilibrium is described by this or that human in
mathematical terms rather than prose, but is simply a description
nonetheless. Your description is not accurate, nor complete, but
you cling to it because it was given to you by humans who were
raised to the status of gods, as we have been pointing out. Thus
you dare not challenge the holes in their descriptions, nor
question the accuracy when it fails to address the obvious.
You're in mindless worship here!
Let us give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. In this example, YOU are the cave man, who does not want to assume the stance of being the dummy and in any case clings to a notion that give him a sense of security about the world around him, so resists being discomfited by being asked to actually think. In this example WE are the seers, giving an explanation that better fits the facts. We are using this example as it is one that closely fits a similar example in your recent past, in human history barely a moment ago, so your human tendency to cling to nonsense and demand that this nonsense be used as a solid base is well documented and would not, we hope, come under dispute during these discussions.
The cave men see the sun come up on one side of his world each morning and set on the other. Since the sun moves from one side of their world to another, across the sky, but they never see it returning, they conclude that there is a giant tunnel underground that the Sun is using to travel during the night. This conclusion is bolstered by elaborate descriptions of the tunnel, its size and shape and the like. Having noticed that the stars in the sky form patterns and these patterns repeat periodically, a seer among them proposes that perhaps the sun is not moving at all, but the platform upon which the cave men are standing is moving. A radical thought, and one which meets with howls from the cave men who roar that the process has ALREADY BEEN DESCRIBED, AND PERFECTLY ADEQUATELY AT THAT, so the seer must deflate the tunnel theory and description before anyone consider his arguments. A number of cave men insist that the tunnel theory be taken as a basic fact of science, and any other theory must take off from that point.
As we have repeatedly stated, a description is not an
explanation. Centrifugal force DOES NOT explain why the planets
continue to revolve rather than stop and drift directly into the
sun. You cannot put Newton's arguments next to recent scientific
measurements of centrifugal force. Newton's descriptions FAIL in
this context.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])