### Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

```Article: <6l912i\$715@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 5 Jun 1998 14:58:26 GMT

In article <356F1C21.25F1@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C.Harrison
writes:
> I'll express the inverse square thing as simply as possible.
> Given an orbiting object, with distance (d), period (p) and
> mass of primary (m), we expect p^2/d^3 to be constant for
> a given primary. And we also expect mass of primary to
> define acceleration force, so we expect m * p^2/d^3 to be
> constant for all orbits.

And then goes on to compare the orbit of the Moon around the Earth
versus various other orbiting objects in our Solar System with closely
estimated distances, periods, and mass to show that m * p^2/d^3 all
equals about 80, implying that the formulas are correct.  The formula
used meters, days, and I would assume some standard metric for mass
such as metric tons.  LOOKS pretty impressive.  But the Zetas want to
speak to this.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Basically, the closer an orbiting object moves to its gravitational
giant, the faster it must move to stay aloft.  This formula does indeed
describe a phenomena in nature.  However, this formula PRESUMES that
all factors are known and taken into consideration.  Only a few
centuries ago your astronomers were describing the Sun and heavens
orbiting the Earth!  They too thought they had the right formulas,
which they worked up to describe what they observed, but were missing a
big piece.  The Earth was NOT flat, the Sun did NOT orbit the Earth,
regardless of how nicely their math described what they observed.  The
child might deduct the Postman rule, stating that each day for each
household a Postman arrives, except on Sundays.  In his small world,
this is correct, but would you say he had a Universal formula there?

We have demonstrated, though your and Eric's contributions, that your
inverse square law put together with Newton's rule balancing gravity
pull and centrifugal force would have the equivalent of a million,
trillion metric ton Moon up where your satellites and Concord position
themselves, moving at only twice the speed of the Concord or 1/4 the
speed of your stationary satellites.  Intuitively, the common man
understands that something is wrong!  What is wrong is what is MISSING.
The Moon fails to fall to Earth, in spite of having this great pull
toward Earth with scarcely any orbiting speed, because it is being
pushed UP by exiting gravity particle flow, what we have termed the
Repulsion Force.

If you state that this is NOT so, then you must explain how the Moon
could have an equivalent weight of a million, trillion metric tons
Earth surface weight, while only moving at 1023 m/s, twice the speed of
the Concord and 1/4 the speed of your stationary satellites. Would you
stay smug about your formulas when they have been shown to be absurd?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

Last week, in article <6kl07u\$ga5@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> The Zetas
stated:
> The theatre of the absurd is about to open.

And it has!```