Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6j1v8n$lq7@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 9 May 1998 16:12:07 GMT

In article <6ip09l$4t0@pmgm.Stanford.EDU> John Ladasky writes:
>> There are dances between elements that are trapped, while
>> kept apart, which influence the cages they are trapped 
>> within.  Such dances do more than cause the core of a 
>> planet to churn and chase, they also influence where the 
>> planet moves during it's other dances.  More than one 
>> step is being done while the planet is out on the dance 
>> floor.  If this does not imply that you will not necessarily 
>> SEE the other attractants, then we will so state.  You 
>> cannot always SEE another attractant, anymore than you
>> can SEE a magnetic field with your eyes, or even, for that
>> matter, the pull of gravity with your eyes.
>
> But as these mythical "attractants" at "the second foci" [sic]
> of the ellipse both must exert graviational influence, *and* 
> be influenced by the gravitational influence of other bodies 
> (in Nancy's case, the Sun), it follows that the "attractants" 
> *must* orbit the Sun, or crash into it. 

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Did we say the attraction was gravity?  You are aware of gravity
because you bruised your knee at the age of 2, but only became aware of
magnetism under special circumstances.  Do you not suppose there are
other attractions and repulsions that you are UNAWARE of?  Might this
be possible?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <6ip09l$4t0@pmgm.Stanford.EDU> John Ladasky writes:
>> It turns back.  That's the "choice".  Not intellectual, but the
>> difference between the gravitational giant it is leaving and
>> the gravitational giant it is headed toward, the second focus.
>> If the one behind it's back has a stronger voice at this point, 
>> the orbiting object "choses" to return, and thus you have what
>> appears to be an elliptical orbit, around what you assume to 
>> be a single focus.
>
> If we were following such an object, which came under 
> temporary, strong influence by a third body but which then 
> returned to orbit its primary, the orbit would *definitely not* 
> resemble an ellipse.  

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Ah, one of our earlier points, with an advocate!  Indeed, we are asking
our emissary, Nancy, to repost that, which came under attach as the
argument was posted by Nancy and not one of your fellows.  Thank you
for this confirmation! However, for planets that are in what might be
termed short ellipses, and by this we mean egg shaped or even cucumber
shaped, the orbit falling short of circling the second focus would most
definitly be elliptical, odd shaped or symetrical depending upon how
close the second focus is.  The pull of the second focus draws it
farther from the first focus, but the dance between the planet and the
first focus is still the dominant factors in forming the orbit.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

As requested, existing ZetaTalk on the true shape of long period comet
orbits.
http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s50.htm
which has a graphic diagraming the true comet path, per the Zetas
...........
Humans see but what is essentially the end result of a comet's orbit,
or at least that portion of the orbit that involves the Sun's gravity. 
The tiny comet, dark until it enters the Solar System where it flares
under the influence of the Sun, cannot be located by humans while it is
out in space.  They assume that the orbit is broader or at least as
broad, when out in space, as that seen when the comet becomes visible. 
It is not.  As we have explained in detailing the 12th Planet's entry
into the Solar System, comets aim for the Sun, and if influenced away
from the Sun by any factor, adjust their orbit away from the Sun. 
Then, as they near the Sun and, caught in the grip of this giant's
gravity pull, accelerate, the increasing speed allows them to come
closer.  Humans only see that part of the orbit where the initial
adjustment away from the Sun has already occurred.  They see but half
the picture.

The human argument that the long orbit can be determined by the angle
of entry, the parabolic curve, is therefore absurd.  Some long period
comets have several foci, and some only one.  Just how does blind man,
peeping up from a planet he cannot leave, looking out from a Solar
System he has never left, know how many foci this or that comet has? 
Since a parabola and even an ellipse smoothes to an essentially
straight line, how do they know how far that straight line goes before
a turn around is effected?  They do not.  They are guessing.