| |
|
Article: <5b32h4$1f3@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 9 Jan 1997 15:23:16 GMT
In article <32D20D41.68C4@calweb.com> Wavicle writes:
> Nancy wrote:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You were doing fine until you started to think for
yourself. Return
>> to contemplating our explainations. Just let it sink in.
You're
>> still upset that reality is challenging your gods and
this is
>> clouding Your thinking process.
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> Here is what Nancy not only failed to include, but also
failed to
> reply to:
> Wavicle <wavicle@calweb.com>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We are not obliged to respond to every silly statement, thereby
raising its worth. However, since you and Paul insist that his
statements receive a response, we will do so, briefly.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5atmqg$8co$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Cambell
insists:
> Since only my character was attacked and NOT my ideas I can
> only assume the ideas are correct. I will repost my original
> contemplation of what things would be like in a solar system
> with a repulsive force of gravity in the hopes that Nancy
can
> actually dispute some of my ideas.
>
> Nancy's arguement is basically as follows.
>
> 1. The solar system is stable. Hence any perturbations that
> occur would destabilize the solar system given enough time.
> Since this is obviously not the case the perturbations must
have
> some mechanism so that the orbits
> would return to normal. Since this is in direct violation of
> Newtonian physics it means that Newtonian physics is
> fundamentaly flawed.
>
> 2. The mechanism that allows for the planets to regain their
> proper orbits after a perturbation is a repulsive form of
gravity.
> This repulsion is not equal and opposite to the attractive
form
> of gravity but does manifest itself greatly as planetary
objects
> approach one another, presumably it's something like an
> inverse cube law or whatever, we will never know as Nancy
> can't do mathematics.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
In article <32D20D41.68C4@calweb.com> Wavicle writes,
speaking for Paul Cambell:
> If all perturbations have their orbits return to normal so
that the solar
> system is stable then the net effect of gravity on the
system is zero.
> This implies that repulsion force is of equal and opposite
value to
> the attractive force of gravity. If this is the case then
statement
> #2 is incorrect and planets would have no gravitational hold
on each
> other whatsoever. Obviously this cannot be the case.
> Wavicle <wavicle@calweb.com>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What kind of logic is this? If the steady westerly or easterly
return after a hurricane of typhoon to their normal wind speed,
does this somehow mean there IS NO WIND? Regarding the repulsion
force being equal to the force of gravity, this is true only when
the bodies come close, close enough that the push-away is as
strong as the flow of gravity particles TOWARD the larger body.
This is what we stated in our topic on repulsion force, so you're
just quoting us here, in part.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <32D20D41.68C4@calweb.com> Wavicle writes,
speaking for Paul Cambell:
> If on the other hand the repulsion force is not equal so
that it
> satisfies statement #2 then the attractive force must be
greater
> than the repulsive force at least in some of the
perturbations.
> This then means that an object once preturbed must stay
preturbed.
> This would seem to be in disagreement with statement #1
since
> according to Nancy the solar system must now be disrupted.
> Wavicle <wavicle@calweb.com>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
An object once perturbed would stay perturbed ONLY if all the
other issues we presented were not in place! The sweeping arms
coming out from the Sun, etc. We will ask our emissary, Nancy, to
repost our statements on this influence, made in the Retrograde
Orbit topic, so you can try to put all the parts together at
once.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <32D20D41.68C4@calweb.com> Wavicle writes,
speaking for Paul Cambell:
> If we accept the idea that perturbations do not mean the
> destruction of the solar system then there is no need to
invoke
> an unknown law about the repulsive force of gravity. Indeed
if
> we accept a repulsive force of gravity it would tend to
disturb our
> solar system greatly since the net force of gravity would be
> lessened.
> Wavicle <wavicle@calweb.com>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
If we accept the fact that humans live forever and never die
there would be no need for morticians. Is this how you step
through your life? Putting as few particulars as possible into
the mix? Contemplating about more than one thing at a time give
you a headache, little Paul?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])