| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 6 Feb 1997 14:26:20 GMT
In article: <[email protected]>
> Whether or not aurora's have been recreated in a labrotory
> is irrelevant. The phenomena that cause aurora are
> understood by most everyone on this group but you. You
> claim gravity plays the dominant role and you are wrong.
> Can you admit that?
> eric kline <[email protected]>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
As we said - pig headed. You have a theory, you can't get nature
to line up with your theory, in the lab or out, but YOU are
right.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <[email protected]> Greg Neill
writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You're handing out an explanation that you CANNOT
>> recreate under identical situations in the lab, that
DOES NOT
>> recreate in the atmosphere close to large
electro-magnetic
>> motors or anywhere else that the factors you claim
create
>> auroras occur in nature, but OUR explanation is wrong,
>> and you're correct!
>
> Unless you are expecting someone to create a whole planet
> in the laboratory, you are doomed to be forever
disappointed,
> Nancy old girl. However, the fundamental mechanisms
> involved in auroral phenomenon are understood, and have
> been studied in the lab.
> [email protected] (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Pieces of your theory are demonstrated, NOT the auroral
phenomena! Your theory holds that auroras are caused by
magnetism, so you demonstrate magnetism. Does this prove that
auroras are caused by magnetism? No! Your theory holds that the
light from auroras is cause by excited gasses, so you demonstrate
various excited gasses IN QUANTITIES THAT DO NOT OCCUR IN NATURE,
emitting light when electricity or whatever is thrown at them.
Does this prove that auroras are caused by excited gasses being
bombarded? No!
Admit it guys, you can't support your theory in the lab!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <[email protected]> David
Evens writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You're handing out an explanation that you CANNOT
>> recreate under identical situations in the lab, that
DOES NOT
>> recreate in the atmosphere close to large
electro-magnetic
>> motors or anywhere else that the factors you claim
create
>> auroras occur in nature, but OUR explanation is wrong,
>> and you're correct!
>
> I see you really are unfamiliar with physics in the lab. The
> mechanism that produces auroral displays is not only an
> elementary experimental effect, but is seen every day. It
makes
> neon and flourescent tubes work.
> [email protected] (David L Evens)
In article <[email protected]> Bob Garwood writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Are you saying the computer screen is an aurora?
Hahahah!
>> ... the light emits from the screen in a manner
>> not much different from sending light through a tinted
lens.
>> Where and how the light will go is determined by a GUN,
>> which FOCUSES depending upon the magnetization of the
>> screen.
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> The magnets inside your computer monitor or television
> carefully direct the beam of electrons at the screen. When
> these electrons hit the screen they cause chemicals on the
> screen to glow. Its those glowing chemicals that emit the
> light that you see. Different chemicals emit different
colors.
> Bob Garwood <[email protected]>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
So answer me this, Bob. How much of what you're describing occurs
in nature where you see auroras? There's a gun shooting electrons
up in the sky? In any case, electronic moving into your normal
atmosphere DO NOT create light! Do you see auroras surrounding
high power lines, with all their leakage? Does you atmosphere
have the special chemicals you describe as being on the TV screen
coated upon IT? Do those chemicals occur in the atmosphere in the
proportion that they occur in the coating?
We're discussing auroras here, not how TV's operate.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])