| |
|
Article:
<5a8mc2$j1e@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: CENTRIFUGAL FORCE - the Zetas Explain
Date: 30 Dec 1996 15:16:18 GMT
In article <5a67m0$ji0$1@news.sas.ab.ca>
Paul Cambell states:
>> 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.
>
> At that precise moment a line drawn tangent to the sun on
> the planets orbit and the planets straight line path would
be
> the same line. The difference would then be zero. Doesn't
that
> mean the existance of a backwards tug is zero, therefore
> non-existant?
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Oh please. Did you not read our earlier statement on this matter,
posted less than a week ago? Your math rules except when it
contradicts something else you hold precious, and then it is
allowed to disappear so you can avoid the contradiction. IF YOU
DIMINISH THE TANGENT LINE INTO NONEXISTENCE, IT CANNOT BE USED IN
YOUR EQUATIONS. No matter how small you make the moment, there is
a point before the planet veers from its straight line path and a
point AFTER it has veered. That moment, also a factor that IS NOT
ZERO in your equations, especially when you are dealing with
motion, not a stationary object, has the 3 things we mentioned
above.
Now, forced to actually address what we've
stated instead of evading it. Explain why planets continue to
revolve when degradation of their momentum is obviously
occurring, and can be measurable by your math on the force of
gravity, and stands in contradiction to your pet formulas
describing orbits.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])