### Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain

Article: <5blhec\$s5n@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 16 Jan 1997 15:28:12 GMT

In article <5bcr9b\$lp4\$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell wrote:
> If we accept your theory of a repulsive force of gravity and an
> attractive force of gravity what then do we make of a real life
> perturbation? The attractive force of gravity and the repulsive
> force of gravity are not at equal strengths with the attractive
> force the stronger one. Therefore a massive outer planet would
> pull a less massive inner planet into a wider orbit. Since the
> gravitational attractive force is at all times greater than the
> repulsive force, you have no mechanism for for the less massive
> orbit to get back into it's original orbit.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What kind of nonsense it this. Deliberate, we're sure. Has the force of gravity as you know it disappeared because we interjected the concepts of a repulsion force and sweeping arms from the Sun's rotating core to replace the concept of centrifugal force? Why would gravity disappear? You have no logic to support this assumption, made above, and are simply trying to made it appear that OUR argument is illogical.

Please explain why you, Paul, think that the Sun's gravity would disappear and perturbed planets must head straight for a larger outlying planet? We await your explanation with baited breath.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5bcr9b\$lp4\$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell wrote:
> Is that why you've invented the SAE (sweeping arms of energy)?
> Yet from what I read the SAE would add energy to the system
> making the less massive planet go faster and therefore have
> an even wider orbit.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You've made a leap from ridiculing our explanation of continuing planet revolutions due to sweeping energy arms from the Sun to full acceptance, it seems. Yes, due to their smaller size, less massive planets DO tend to react to this arm with greater speed than more massive planets, a fact you find in your solar system. Good for you, Paul, you're thinking a bit here. Oops, lost it again on your next statement. Just why would a planet assume a wider orbit if its orbit speed increased? Your logic please.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <5bcr9b\$lp4\$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell wrote:
> That must mean that if we are to acheive stability then the
> SAE and the backwards tug must be in equilibrium. If then
> they are in equilibrium, how can the backwards tug operate
> to send the perturbed planet back onto it's original course?
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
It would seem that Paul is caught in circular logic, but he knows better and is just pretending. The point is to fill the page and pretend he's made an argument. The planet's orbits represent A STABLE EQUILIBRIUM. They float where they can come no closer to the Sun due to the repulsion force having reached an equal point with the force of gravity. While floating they move ahead of the sweeping arms, their speed in proportion to their size and closeness to the Sun, i.e. intensity of the arm. Their speed is held in check by the tug back toward the Sun with every adjustment in the planet's straight line forward movement. Equilibrium.

Then Paul says that having ALREADY INCLUDED the backward tug that this should be RE-INCLUDED to disturb the equilibrium. Why would it get into the equation twice, Paul? Please explain.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])