In Article <4QjT9.94036$B31.23144862@twister.socal.rr.com> Dave Tholen wrote: >> Jim Scotti wrote: >>> I am speaking the truth when I say that there is nothing >>> to cover up in regards to your Planet X - it simply does >>> not exist as you have described it and the way that you >>> describe it is totally inconsistent with the way we >>> understand physics to work. >> > ZetaTalk wrote: >> Jim, please explain to the astronomers on this Usenet >> why a sling orbit CANNOT exist, simply because you >> have not observed it. > > First, you have to define, mathematically, what a "sling > orbit" is, Nancy. Is Scotti sending in the second string, Dave? Jim engaged, and the Zetas engaged HIM, but this does not mean they are engaging YOU. To understand this, read the Rules of Engagement in the Rules section of ZetaTalk. You, Dave, apparently did not understand the question posed to Jim. I will quote from existing ZetaTalk on your silly insistence that your MATH DESCRIPTIONS of dirty snowballs repelled by the solar wind do NOT apply to Planet X, a point I'm sure you will Tholenize to death rather than address. Humans have a catchy phrase regarding relationships - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, of course it was the chicken, who gradually evolved to encase young in a shell long before it evolved to become a chicken. First came dropping the young into a water bed, as fish and frogs do, so the chicken's precursor came first. Humans treat mathematics much this way, expecting the world to line up with their math when the math evolved to describe their world. Starting with simple counting schemes, mathematical descriptions became more and more elaborate as they were endlessly adjusted until they described yet another aspect of nature. When math is used as a tool, and its origins understood, then when a particular model placed upon a natural phenomena does not fit there is no conflict. The mathematical model is understood to be the problem. However, just as there is confusion about the chicken or the egg, most humans lose sight of what came first. They insist the math is sacred, and stubbornly refuse to deal with the discrepancies this approach produces. Mathematics, for some, has become a religion. Mathematics builds upon itself, so that concepts put into place are continued and never discarded. Formulas that reasonably describe a situation when measurements are crude are never discarded, but are held up as standards to be disproved and defended. Creativity in math is nil, so that brilliant insights such as Einstein's are held to ridicule rather than discussed. Thus it is that mathematics are burdened with the absurd as well as the insightful, and thus regularly miss the mark. The Zetas are frequently asked what is wrong with human math, or how to do it right. Frankly, the right math will not be discussed, as this might put mankind on paths they are not yet to trod. As to what is wrong, we would suggest a simple exercise. Face problems with a completely fresh mind, and ploy the math you think would solve that. Compare what you have placed on paper with the traditional math. What differs? What about the traditional math forced it into the tradition? We predict you will find that a long history of being passed forward, regardless of worth, has placed certain formulas into mankind's mathematical view of the world. Would you allow yourself to be treated as the doctors of yore treated patients, by bleeding and starving or opening the head? Are women in labor to die screaming rather than undergo cesarean? Are doctor's not to wash their hands because infection spontaneously generates and germs do not exist? Mathematical proofs are not "proof". Mathematical proofs only demonstrate that the numbers resulting can be lined up with each other. In fact, this can be assured if one just ensures that the component pieces, in the formulas, are all from the same grab bag. In other words, if one is building a toy city with lego building blocks, one can get everything to line up if all the lego blocks are of a similar size or multiples of this size. To make this all line up, just throw out anything that doesn't fit. This is, in fact, what humans do with their mathematical "proofs". When something doesn't fit, they substitute another lego piece, one from the proper grab bag, and then get smug. They haven't proved anything. They've only gotten their math to line up, and they're not so good at that either. Contradictions are running side by side at the major universities, with the students asked not to question so the professors can continue to be smug. Just pay your tuition and shut up.ZetaTalk™: Mathematcial Proofs (http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s54.htm)