| |
|
Article: <5a8m1i$3gv@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: CENTRIFUGAL FORCE - the Zetas Explain
Date: 30 Dec 1996 15:10:42 GMT
In article <32C3A722.5C7A@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
writes
> The orbital energy of a planet remains relatively constant
but
> can change minute amounts due to perturbations from other
> large bodies. These perturbations are small! There is
nothing
> removing energy from a planet so it's orbit stays constant.
> When you apply brakes in a car a LOT of energy is removed
> from the car's kinetic energy and transfered into heat.
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
In the mathematical formulas you use to describe orbit, there is
NO such imprecision! If one factor in these formulas changes, in
an infinitesimal amount, the RESULTING ORBIT is radically
changed! Yet, with a wave of the hand, you dismiss perturbations,
which are MEASURABLE temporary changes in planetary orbits! This
split thinking allows mankind to live with the screaming
discrepancies in their theories about how things work. Their
theories are absolutely correct, and we are utterly wrong, and
the fact that they can't put two of their theories together is
not a problem. We think not.
Apply your formulas that you use to describe orbit patterns to
the orbit WHILE PERTURBED. Why would this orbit NOT continue?
What factor is placed into your formula that would CAUSE the
orbit to return to its pre-perturbation state? And if this factor
is not in the formula at other times, why NOT? We expect this
request for specificity, which you claim you operate under, to be
ignored. When faced with glaring contradictions, humans turn out
the light and mutter and wave the hand. They do NOT admit that
their pet theories are failing. Reading more of your theories
won't help here, Eric, they are the PROBLEM, not the answer.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <32C3A722.5C7A@acs.tamu.edu> Eric Kline
writes
> Satellites are subject to atmospheric drag. This drag
removes
> some energy from the satellite and transfers it to the
atmosphere
> (heating and ionizing gas molecules and atoms). As energy is
> removed due to drag, the orbit decays and the satellite
spirals in.
>
> Gravity does not cause the satellite to lose energy.
>
>(The atmosphere condenses and expands seasonally due to
Earth's
> position and the Sun's cycles. Satellites in low Earth orbit
are
> at altitudes around 400 km and their orbits can decay in as
little
> as 90 days if not reboosted)
> eric kline <emk9267@acs.tamu.edu>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We note that you categorically state that gravity is NOT the
cause of the satellite's plunge to Earth. Yet those satellites
closer to the Earth plunge faster. Another pig headed statement,
designed to counter our argument with SOMETHING, anything, no
matter how silly.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])