| |
|
Article:
<[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: Why NEWTON IS A GOD - the Evidence
Date: 22 Dec 1996 23:29:45 GMT
In article <[email protected]> (below) the Zetas challended Eric Klines's statement that the continuing revolutions of the planets are explained by Newton's laws. They gave specific instances where the law quoted DOES NOT hold up! They challenged Eric to respond, but he is ADMITTING that he CAN'T address these contradiction, right, Eric? Loud and clear. FOLKS, ERIC KLINE IS INCOMPETNET TO RESPOND TO THE CONTRADICTIONS THE ZETAS POINTED OUT IN HIS ARGUMENT, AND INSTEAD IS POINTING TO OTHER PEOPLE'S WEB SITES AND THROWING INSULTS.
In article <[email protected]>
Eric Kline states
>I'll also give you references to several texts which explain
>orbital mechanics. ...
>Nancy want's people to blindly, unquestionly accept her
fantasy
>and buy her book.
>eric kline <[email protected]>
In article <[email protected]>
Eric Kline states:
> Nancy claims to be in telepathic communication with friendly
aliens
> (who have no concept of basic science and physics) from Zeta
> Reticula. No one takes Nancy seriously (at least no one
should).
> eric kline <[email protected]>
[repost of Zeta challenge]
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Let's just follow the logic you presented, Eric, along the paths
nature would put it upon. Your planets do not ALL have the same
orbit, as you are aware. The Earth's year, with 365 days and a
fraction, is a much faster orbit than the outer planets. The
orbits are not circular. Thus, the planets come closer or farther
from each other regularly, and perturb each other. All this
you've said. BUT, you failed to apply your God Newton's law to
this happenstance, all the while claiming to worship him.
What does perturb mean? This is recorded in a CHANGE in the motion, else it would be a meaningless term. I could say the planets HARUMPF, but give no evidence of this, and none would agree. Therefore, PERTURB gives evidence, and this evidence is a slowing or speeding up, or a wider orbit or closer orbit, but it most certainly does NOT mean NO CHANGE.
So .. given that the planets CHANGE when they
are perturbed, according to your God Newton, they should STAY
CHANGED, should they not? If an orbit swings wide to move toward
a giant it is passing, should not the orbit STAY wide then? If a
planet slows slightly due to a giant's gravity attraction behind
it, should it not STAY slower? Please consult with the priests of
the Church of Newton and respond. We await your reply.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])