| |
|
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])