| |
|
Article: <5blhec$s5n@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 16 Jan 1997 15:28:12 GMT
In article <5bcr9b$lp4$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
wrote:
> If we accept your theory of a repulsive force of gravity and
an
> attractive force of gravity what then do we make of a real
life
> perturbation? The attractive force of gravity and the
repulsive
> force of gravity are not at equal strengths with the
attractive
> force the stronger one. Therefore a massive outer planet
would
> pull a less massive inner planet into a wider orbit. Since
the
> gravitational attractive force is at all times greater than
the
> repulsive force, you have no mechanism for for the less
massive
> orbit to get back into it's original orbit.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What kind of nonsense it this. Deliberate, we're sure. Has the
force of gravity as you know it disappeared because we
interjected the concepts of a repulsion force and sweeping arms
from the Sun's rotating core to replace the concept of
centrifugal force? Why would gravity disappear? You have no logic
to support this assumption, made above, and are simply trying to
made it appear that OUR argument is illogical.
Please explain why you, Paul, think that the Sun's gravity
would disappear and perturbed planets must head straight for a
larger outlying planet? We await your explanation with baited
breath.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5bcr9b$lp4$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
wrote:
> Is that why you've invented the SAE (sweeping arms of
energy)?
> Yet from what I read the SAE would add energy to the system
> making the less massive planet go faster and therefore have
> an even wider orbit.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You've made a leap from ridiculing our explanation of continuing
planet revolutions due to sweeping energy arms from the Sun to
full acceptance, it seems. Yes, due to their smaller size, less
massive planets DO tend to react to this arm with greater speed
than more massive planets, a fact you find in your solar system.
Good for you, Paul, you're thinking a bit here. Oops, lost it
again on your next statement. Just why would a planet assume a
wider orbit if its orbit speed increased? Your logic please.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5bcr9b$lp4$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
wrote:
> That must mean that if we are to acheive stability then the
> SAE and the backwards tug must be in equilibrium. If then
> they are in equilibrium, how can the backwards tug operate
> to send the perturbed planet back onto it's original course?
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
It would seem that Paul is caught in circular logic, but he knows
better and is just pretending. The point is to fill the page and
pretend he's made an argument. 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 their 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.
Then Paul says that having ALREADY INCLUDED the backward tug
that this should be RE-INCLUDED to disturb the equilibrium. Why
would it get into the equation twice, Paul? Please explain.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])