Re: Jan 25th Havas Images

Jim Scotti wrote in message <b13vjd$24e$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>
> Steve Havas wrote on Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:58:13 GMT:
>
> :SH David Tholen wrote in message <gw3Z9.26276$h9.7310867@twister.socal.rr.com>
> >> Steve Havas writes:
> >>
> >> > At this time, according to existing ZT, Px is about 4- 4.5 times the
> >> > distance away from the Sun to Pluto.
> >>
> >> Go ahead and compute the velocity need to get from there to here in four
> >> months, Havas.  Then compare that value with the escape velocity of the
> >> Solar System.  Then come back and insist that it's on a periodic orbit.
> >>
> :SH From a quick calculation if px is currently around 15 billion miles
> :SH away it would have an average speed of around 6,000,000 miles/hour
> :SH (almost 1% of C) to get here by May 15, 2003. If px has been through
> :SH our solar system many times before it must have a complete disregard
> :SH for the calculations of escape velocity of the Solar System.
>
> Well, here I go again, trying to apply known, well tested, human
> Physics to ZetaBabble [tm] claims.....
>
> The escape velocity for an object at the claimed distance is less than
> 1/9 of the Earths orbit velocity (about 30 km/sec), so that escape
> velocity out there is about 9 km/sec or about 20,000 MPH or 300 times
> smaller than the speed you've caclulated for the fictitious "Px".
> May I remind you that EVERYTHING (and I do mean EVERYTHING) that we
> have EVER observed in the Universe behaves by the laws of physics that
> we have derived from observing EVERYTHING.  And in all that time,
> NOTHING (and I do mean NOTHING) has behaved in a way that Nancy's
> fictitious "Px" is supposed to behave.  I don't care what sort of
> imaginary claims she makes (or says that her Zetas tell her), there
> is absolutely zero evidence to support her (er, I mean the Zetas)
> claims for a "Px".
>
I assume by your use of capital letters in your reply that you are confident 
of the meaning of the word "everything". I would suggest that the everything 
you claim that we have observed in the Universe is only a small fraction of 
the everything that is in the Universe. It has only been relatively recently 
that astronomers have observed planets outside our small Solar System. Our laws
of physics in a more accurate sense would be reflecting the limited amount 
we have observed in the Universe and in no way is the Universe bound or ultimately 
described by those laws as there is much that we do not know and the behaviour 
of the Universe is beyond our control. Subatomic particles alone are something 
man has only begun to explore and with current technology it is not something 
which readily reveals itself. If everything is based from these unimaginably small
particles, the nature of which is almost completely unknown, how can we claim 
with confidence our laws of physic are perfect?

I do not argue that modern man has not observed any objects in space which 
behave in the way Px is purported to behave. There are no massive planets that 
have recently whipped through our solar system which would give us a basis to 
understand the nature of how such an object may behave when coming on a direct 
path straight towards the sun, emitting light primarily in the red spectrum and
towing many dozens of moons many of which larger than our own moon. The probes 
NASA has sent out into deep space have offered mysteries in their behaviour that 
remains open to speculation. Surely, we can expect the all that is of Universe 
to throw us some surprises now and then...

> Her claimed object at a 2nd focus would be readily observed in the
> orbits of all the comets and, indeed, all the distant planets and
> asteroids we've discovered, not to mention our Pioneer and Voyager
> spacecraft.  It is obvious that Nancy (er, the Zetas) do not
> understand the concept of orbits and foci, demonstrating a childs
> level of understanding (or more correctly, misunderstanding).
>
> >>
> >> Not much time until you are eating crow, Havas.
> >>
> :SH If nothing happen at that time then you can personally serve
> :SH it to me on a platter.
>
> You better find something to help wash that crow down because
> there is absolutely zero evidence that Px will appear at the
> appointed time and cause the predicted affects.
>
> Jim.
>
> Jim Scotti
> Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721 USA                 http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/