| |
|
Article: <5aebt1$26m@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: CENTRIFUGAL FORCE - the Zetas Explain
Date: 1 Jan 1997 18:54:25 GMT
In article <5a917j$kmr@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill
writes
>> (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
>
> The perturbation is not temporary. Perturbations result in
> permanent changes in the orbit.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
If the perturbations are PERMANENT, then the published orbits of
the planets would CHANGE. Have they changed? They have NOT.
DURING a perturbation, they are announced to be changed. When the
perturbation is over, the planet is announced to be back on
track, same old orbit applies. Now, what explanation do you have
in your bag of tricks to explain why the planet RETURNED. You
have none, and simply look the other way so as not to notice.
This is how you deal with discrepancies in your theories! What
discrepancies. And in the next breath, you prate your god's laws
in worshipful tones. Your churches preach that an all loving God
protects you from harm, and then you leave church and get run
over by a truck on the way home. Yet next Sunday, back in church
again, dropping coins into the basket passed so that the preacher
can live a good lazy life. Same blind and unthinking children, in
both places. Your science is no better than a religion.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5a917j$kmr@pollux.cmc.doe.ca> Greg Neill
writes
>> (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])
>
> Please explain why you did not consider the effects of
> atmospheric drag on near-Earth obiting bodies when you made
> the above statement.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We didn't SAY that atmospheric drag did not exist. You're arguing
for the sake of being able to say that you are arguing. Get
dressed before you leave the house, please.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])