link to Home Page

Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain


Article: <5d0eoo$1oi@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 1 Feb 1997 22:06:16 GMT

In article <5coku7$11q@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill wirtes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Auroral displays are ONLY visible when the viewer is not
>> receiving a view composed of light particles NOT susceptible
>> to gravity bending.
>
> As a statement that's very nice, but you'll have to back it up
> with some demonstration that there are two distinct types of
> photon: ones that follow different paths under the influence
> of a gravitational field. This on top of showing that gravity
> can effect light at all to extent required to produce an auroral
> effect.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Are you prepared to back up your statement that light is a single particle and not numerous particles? What's good for the goose, presumably, is good for the gander. You HAVE no proof, though you might call your myriad of data proof. Your data contradicts your theory as much as it supports it. For instance, you cannot EXPLAIN auroras adequately. You've INVENTED a light ray source to support your theory, which is an invention!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5coku7$11q@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill wirtes:
>> Thus a human in the far north or far south, gazing toward
>> the pole, will see auroral displays THEN, but as they turn to
>> look toward the equator will see the normal light
>> complement. This is due NOT to the magnetic pole nature
>> of the geographic poles, but to the way the Earth is tipped!
>> The poles are DARKER for half the year, receiving less
>> of the full complement of sunlight.
>
> Clearly crap. Auroras can and do occur at any time of year.
> One of the most spectacular displays I've ever seen occurred
> in summer time. By the way, I'm in the Northern Hemisphere,
> and thus tipped toward the Sun at that time. Also, it gets just
> as dark at night at the equator. In fact, one could argue that
> it's even darker at the equator because of the much larger
> width of the Earth standing between a person on the equator
> at midnight and the sun, and a comparable person at one of
> the poles.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

In article <5cqd1o$84g$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell asserts:
> While volunteering one night at the observatory we noticed
> a very strong auroral storm. This was first seen during civil
> twilight in the month of June. Since it was June we were
> tipped towards the Sun (It was summer). We were amazed
> that we could see it at all due to the sky brightness. I'm sure
> this would have been an awesome sight should it have occured
> after atronomical twilight ended. During June we are in
> perpetual twilight so it actually would have been darker down
> where Nancy lives.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Did we say that auroras can only be viewed at certain seasons? We did NOT. We stated that auroras are visible at the poles due to way the Earth is tipped. The North Pole in winter is clearly less of the full complement of sunlight than places south as the globe is tipped to place the North Pole away from the Sun, so the bendable light rays are more prevalent in the visible mix. The South Pole at this time also gets a greater prevalence of bendable light WHEN ON THAT SIDE OF THE POLE THAT TURNED AWAY FROM THE SUN. This is due to the angle, such that this pole is getting what is termed 6 months of daylight, but for the pole side turned away from the sun this day is in truth only like a long dusk or dawn. Same effect then, as the bendable light has a greater prevalence in the mix.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5coku7$11q@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill wirtes:
>> Whatever you, your human eye, "sees" is what the brain
>> chooses to register. You "see" what is in the majority, the
>> pattern that overwhelms, and during normal sunlight displays,
>> THIS is what overwhelms!
>
> Again I would contest this with the simple fact that cameras,
> photocells, CCDs, and a plethora of other light detectors have
> no 'brain' to perform your alleged 'filtering', yet they confirm
> the effects witnessed by eye.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Are you under the illusion that your cameras see EVERYTHING that exists? You have designed these devices to register what YOU can see. Of course they feed back to you what you expect, this is the way you've designed the equipment! The many components of light fall upon your eye and you "see" a tree. The many components of light fall upon a negative and it records something the human eye can recognize - a tree. If the negative did not record the tree as you expect, you would NOT be continuing to use it.

Black and white photography did NOT record all the light particles, so humans moved along to using a negative base that DID. Nevertheless, in spite of your experience with black and white photography, which would support our statements that color is composed of different particles, you insist only one type of light particles exists.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])