| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: PERTURBATIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 3 Jan 1997 15:30:49 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Greg Neil
writes:
>>Nancy ([email protected]) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]> Eric
Kline writes
>>> For some applications (viewing a planet from the
back yard)
>>> the precise position of the planet need not be
known.
>>>
>>> The point you missed, or decided to ignore, is that
the orbits
>>> do change by small, but measureable amounts.
>>> eric kline <[email protected]>
>>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You've just contradicted yourself, again.
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> On the other hand, if you want to know where to point your
> telescope to find a given planet, say, five hundred years
from
> now, or where the planet might have been in the sky several
> hundred years ago at a certain time of day, then you'll want
to
> wheel out the heavy pertubation methods and do the math
> accurately.
> [email protected] (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're making our point! The only reason you CAN make all those
exacting mathematical calculations is because the orbit of the
planet is used as a BASE. You assume it to be a constant! WHY is
it a constant when it has been perturbed, this is the issue!
Address the issue! If a planet has been perturbed OUT of its
orbit, then why does it return if NOT for the reasons we stated.
Give alternate reasons, don't just say we're wrong and point in
all sorts of irrelevant directions in an attempt to take an
intelligent posture. You're fooling no one here!
You DON'T have an explanation. Admit it! We will ask our
emissary, Nancy, to repost our PERTURBATION topic so that the
readership can see our point, which you have been UNABLE to
counter in any intelligent or meaningful manner.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])