| |
|
Article: <5ar3fi$fa4@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: SPIN - the Zetas Explain
Date: 6 Jan 1997 14:50:26 GMT
In article <5akr38$icc$2@news.sas.ab.ca>Paul Campbell
writes:
>> 1) draw a line representing the planet's straight line
path,
>> 2) draw a second line representing the path the planet
is
>> being set upon by the gravity tug, essentially a second
>> tangent to the sun,
>> 3) the angle between these two lines is the degree of
>> BACKWARD TUG that the planet is experiencing.
>
> I have line #1 90 degrees from the sun. I also have line #2
90
> degrees from the sun. You've stated in step 3 that the
> difference between the two angles represents the backwards
> tug the planet is experiencing. Now I know you don't like
math,
> but 90 degrees minus 90 degrees is 0 degrees.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We ask the readership to note that Paul is pretending at this
point that he doesn't understand the situation under discussion.
We did say, a SECOND LINE, yet he has here placed this line on
top of the first, NOT a second line. A nanosecond later he
understands the situation, but posted this silly statement
anyway, apparently to fill the page.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5akr38$icc$2@news.sas.ab.ca>Paul Campbell
writes:
>(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Fine, if you insist on trying to pretend you're crippled
in
>> this way and can't proceed unless we say, "for
instance, a month".
>
> A month is fine.
>
> If we assume a month to be exactly 1/12th of a year and the
> earth to move 360 degrees in a year, then the Earth would
have
> moved 30 degrees in it's orbit about the sun. My gosh Nancy
is
> this what you've been going on about, the fact that things
can
> CURVE. Hey I agree with you except that I only see the angle
> difference as simply the new direction the Earth is headed
and
> not a reflection of any backwards tug.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Here Paul has stepped forward to acknowledging that the two lines
are not the same and an angle DOES exists, but exhibits the time
honored human trait of pretending he can't see where this is
leading, can't put one part and another part together and
contemplate the whole. Lets give him credit here folks, he DID
move from not being able to understand that line #1 and line #2
are the SAME, so progress has been made. Perhaps if given enough
time, he can contemplate the rest of our argument, which was that
by moving FROM line #1 to Line #2, the planet was pulled BACK
towards the Sun, degrading what humans call the centrifugal
force. Thus, if this is steadily being LOST during this process,
why do orbits not reflect this degradation? We will hear that
they do, perhaps, but this is not measurable, proving once again
that grown men can cling to fanciful notions even when the
evidence states otherwise.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])