link to Home Page

Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain


Article: <5dni8l$naf@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 10 Feb 1997 16:27:01 GMT

In article <5de4n3$6s2$1@nntp.igs.net> Kent Nickerson writes:
>> (Begin REPEAT of ZetaTalk[TM] on Perturbations)
>> The gravity tug is not strictly a sideways tug, as in all cases
>> the planet's path is pointed AWAY from the sun, however
>> slightly. For any given instant moment:
>>
>> 1. draw a line representing the planet's straight line path,
>> 2. draw a second line representing the path the planet is
>> being set upon by the gravity tug,essentially a second
>> tangent to the sun,
>> 3. the angle between these two lines is the degree of
>> BACKWARD TUG that the planet is experiencing.
>
> Yes. And for the circular orbit, the planet's path and gravity
> tug are perpendicular at all points. The tangents mentioned
> are one and the same because the inertial path and gravitation
> are SIMULTANEOUS. No tugging the planet forward or
> backward. This is what was said first time in the posting you
> refer to. This doesn't address the angle between the lines
> because there is none. As said before, there is nothing to add.
> knickerson@kw.igs.net (Kent Nickerson)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
All science deals with the before and after of an occurrence. Do the planets stand still and not move? Your mathematical descriptions MUST take into account the motion of the planets to be an accurate descriptions! One analyzes the musculature of the human body without taking into account how these muscles are used? One inspects the worn motor of a car without taking into account the miles it has been driven or the road conditions? One examines a wilting plant without taking into account whether it has been watered or not?

Astronomy, especially the astronomy of moving objects, MUST take motion into account in order to be accurate! If you cannot do this, they you are avoiding the facts in order to be smug. Take two separate moments, no matter how small, as the planet proceeds along its orbit. You choose to look at the planet at the moment before, and the moment after, and NOT examine what occurred during the interim! Why!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5de4n3$6s2$1@nntp.igs.net> Kent Nickerson writes:
> By the way, if arms of energy keep the planets in their orbits,
> and the fact that planets all revolve the same direction as a
> result, why do the planets not counter-rotate, as their near
> faces are subject to more force than the far ones (given that
> the arms weaken with distance)?
> knickerson@kw.igs.net (Kent Nickerson)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Revolution is a factor of how the core of a planet is moving, NOT the influences affecting the surface. Elements in the core, being affected by the Sun's sweeping arms, are affected just as the planet overall is affected. The core takes the path of least resistance. The drama takes place at two points 1. East, where the Sun's sweeping arm touches the side of the planet, and 2. West, on the opposite side of the planet.

At point 1. East, the nearish side of the core can either move TOWARD the Sun, toward what it wishes to escape from, or move toward the back side of the planet, where the sweeping is less strong as it increases in intensity closer to the Sun. Point 1. would be resolved in a counterclockwise rotation.

At point 2. West, on the far side of the planet, the point opposite where the sweeping arm is touching, finds the nearish side of the core wanting to more away from the Sun. Point 2. would be resolved in a clockwise rotation.

The fact that most planets revolve in a counterclockwise motion reflect the fact that Point 1 East has the stronger urge, encountering the sweeping arm as it does, so wins the battle in determining the direction of rotation.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])