| |
|
Article: <5dni8l$naf@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 10 Feb 1997 16:27:01 GMT
In article <5de4n3$6s2$1@nntp.igs.net> Kent Nickerson
writes:
>> (Begin REPEAT of ZetaTalk[TM] on Perturbations)
>> The gravity tug is not strictly a sideways tug, as in
all cases
>> the planet's path is pointed AWAY from the sun, however
>> slightly. For any given instant moment:
>>
>> 1. draw a line representing the planet's straight line
path,
>> 2. draw a second line representing the path the planet
is
>> being set upon by the gravity tug,essentially a second
>> tangent to the sun,
>> 3. the angle between these two lines is the degree of
>> BACKWARD TUG that the planet is experiencing.
>
> Yes. And for the circular orbit, the planet's path and
gravity
> tug are perpendicular at all points. The tangents mentioned
> are one and the same because the inertial path and
gravitation
> are SIMULTANEOUS. No tugging the planet forward or
> backward. This is what was said first time in the posting
you
> refer to. This doesn't address the angle between the lines
> because there is none. As said before, there is nothing to
add.
> knickerson@kw.igs.net (Kent Nickerson)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
All science deals with the before and after of an occurrence. Do
the planets stand still and not move? Your mathematical
descriptions MUST take into account the motion of the planets to
be an accurate descriptions! One analyzes the musculature of the
human body without taking into account how these muscles are
used? One inspects the worn motor of a car without taking into
account the miles it has been driven or the road conditions? One
examines a wilting plant without taking into account whether it
has been watered or not?
Astronomy, especially the astronomy of moving objects, MUST
take motion into account in order to be accurate! If you cannot
do this, they you are avoiding the facts in order to be smug.
Take two separate moments, no matter how small, as the planet
proceeds along its orbit. You choose to look at the planet at the
moment before, and the moment after, and NOT examine what
occurred during the interim! Why!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5de4n3$6s2$1@nntp.igs.net> Kent Nickerson
writes:
> By the way, if arms of energy keep the planets in their
orbits,
> and the fact that planets all revolve the same direction as
a
> result, why do the planets not counter-rotate, as their near
> faces are subject to more force than the far ones (given
that
> the arms weaken with distance)?
> knickerson@kw.igs.net (Kent Nickerson)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Revolution is a factor of how the core of a planet is moving, NOT
the influences affecting the surface. Elements in the core, being
affected by the Sun's sweeping arms, are affected just as the
planet overall is affected. The core takes the path of least
resistance. The drama takes place at two points 1. East, where
the Sun's sweeping arm touches the side of the planet, and 2.
West, on the opposite side of the planet.
At point 1. East, the nearish side of the core can either move TOWARD the Sun, toward what it wishes to escape from, or move toward the back side of the planet, where the sweeping is less strong as it increases in intensity closer to the Sun. Point 1. would be resolved in a counterclockwise rotation.
At point 2. West, on the far side of the planet, the point opposite where the sweeping arm is touching, finds the nearish side of the core wanting to more away from the Sun. Point 2. would be resolved in a clockwise rotation.
The fact that most planets revolve in a counterclockwise
motion reflect the fact that Point 1 East has the stronger urge,
encountering the sweeping arm as it does, so wins the battle in
determining the direction of rotation.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])