| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:00:39 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Greg Neill
writes:
> The bending of light is one of the predictions of Relativity
> which has been confirmed by direct observation. During a
> total solar eclipse, the bending of light by the mass of the
> Sun was observed as a displacement of background stars.
> The effect is very slight, even with the great mass of the
sun
> used as the gravitational lense. To imagine that auroras
could
> be the result of gravitational bending of light is clearly
bogus;
> if the effect were that pronounced, we could see around
> mountains!
> [email protected] (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
The degree of light bending that occurs is NOT NOTICED except
during scenarios such as an eclipse because diffusion and
diffraction is in general NOT NOTICED. Your eye does not register
minor diffraction when the overwhelming mass of light is not
diffracted. Diffraction occurs all the time, to some degree, but
is filtered out mentally due to the great weight of
non-diffracted light. The mind picks and chooses from what it
received, forming patterns and then relating these patterns to
other patterns in memory, and thus sorts out sensory perceptions.
The only reason bent light during an eclipse was noticed AT ALL
was due to the LACK of straight line light.
Why do you not see light bending around mountains? You DO see
this, but you ALSO see the mass of light reflected off the side
of the mountain or coming straight from objects in the background
to either side of the mountain. Diffracted light is filtered out,
mentally, as so much noise, just as when you listen to a
telephone conversation you process what you perceive to be the
voice, putting it into word patterns, and make no attempt to put
static into these word patterns. You discard the static. Same
mental process. Diffracted light from objects under water IS
mentally processed as such because almost ALL the light is
diffracted, and almost none is straight line light. In this case,
you mentally go with the great weight of sensory perception,
seeing the object where it is NOT, based on the mass of sensory
input.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <[email protected]> Greg Neill
writes:
> The aurora is caused by charged particles interacting with
the
> Earth's magnetic field; they tend to spiral down towards the
> poles. On the way they ionize gas molecules, leading to the
> observed light show. Note that these effects can be
reproduced
> in the lab (actually you see a related effect every time you
> look at a neon sign!).
>
> Charged particles moving through a magnetic field move
> in curves. This can be observed at any accelerator lab.
Heck,
> everytime you watch TV you're seeing electrons deflected by
> magnetic fields.
> [email protected] (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You are describing a THEORY of what causes auroras, not facts.
The fact that electrons can be deflected by a magnetic field does
not relate, nor does any laboratory experiment where charged
particles in the process of emitting light can be made to move in
accordance with magnetic fields relate. The big flaw in relating
these non-related phenomena to auroras is the fact of LIGHT
EMISSION. What is the SOURCE of light in an aurora? What
equivalent source do you have in nature? There IS no equivalent
source. Your atmosphere, in and of itself, does not glow, nor
does it glow when surrounding power lines or large electro
magnets, nor does it glow in response to solar flares or sun
spots, nor does it glow during extreme turbulence such as
tornadoes, nor does it glow under volcanic eruptions or earth
tearing during earthquakes, nor does it glow under ANY influence
whatsoever.
What you produce in neon tubes is NOT a condition that occurs
in nature, so drop the comparison. If this was a natural
occurrence you wouldn't need to enclose the process in sealed
tubes.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])