| |
|
Article: <5d0ebb$96c@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 1 Feb 1997 21:59:07 GMT
In article <32EEF800.81B@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
states:
> Nancy wrote:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Ah, well in that case, you should be able to easily
recreate
>> all this in your laboratories, right? What do you need
for
>> this experiment. Charged particles from the Sun that
could
>> get moved about by a magnetic field.
>
> Are you reading this on a computer screen? Do you know
> how that screen works? I know the basics. Electrons are shot
> out of an emmitter and deflected by varying magnetic fields
> to paint a picture on the screen. Electrons are charged
> particles.
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Are you saying the computer screen is an aurora? Hahahah! Please,
Eric, the light emits from the screen in a manner not much
different from sending light through a tinted lens. Where and how
the light will go is determined by a GUN, which FOCUSES depending
upon the magnetization of the screen. Can't you simply admit that
we're RIGHT when we say that humans have not recreated auroras in
the lab?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <32EEF800.81B@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
states:
> Nancy wrote:
>> Magnetic fields are a snap in the laboratory, as every
>> handyman's motor supply attests. Anyone can generate a
>> magnetic field, scientist or no.
>>
>> So this means, if your theory is correct, that folks
standing
>> around a large electric motor should be viewing auroras.
>> Do they? NO! In fact, auroras have not been recreated in
>> the laboratory, but that doesn't stop humans from
believing
>> whatever silly explanation has been handed out.
>
> Your argument is fatuous because you don't understand the
> difference between a photon and a charged particle
(electron,
> proton, etc.)
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Your non-argument is evasive.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <32EEF800.81B@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
states:
> And yet you have provided absolutely NO evidence to support
> your claims. Circumstantial evidence vs. no evidence. Which
> do you think provides a stronger argument?
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Our argument points to the same evidence as yours, just what the
human eye perceives. That you think your unproven argument is
valid and our explanation absurd is only evidence of yet another
human phenomenon. Pig headedness, the desire to follow gods
blindly, the inability to admit you are wrong, and the inability
to think independently! Fortunately for mankind, not every human
exhibits this phenomenon.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])