Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 24 Apr 1998 04:08:18 GMT

In article <[email protected]> M.C. Harrison
writes.
>> Fine, for whatever reason you have it where it is, place it 18.724 
>> times the distance from Pluto to the Sun, from the first focus 
>> which you should consider the Sun.  Allow for a planet 23 
>> times the mass of the Earth, and 4 times the size.
>
> The acceleration of a mass at 18 times the distance of pluto will
> be very tiny, and this will mean a circular orbit (or whatever 
> shape you like) will have an extremely long period. Since 
> acceleration is very low, the curvature is very small and the time
> taken to complete an orbit is very long.

Like 3,600 years?  Like the description the Zetas gave me, in 1995, to
me, a woman with a high school degree, who knew zip about astronomy at
the time and in truth knows scarsely more than zip today.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM] on 12th Planet, recorded in 1995)
The orbit of the 12th Planet is long and narrow.  ...  The path of the
12th Planet is such that it spends most of its life out in dark space,
slowly moving from one giant tug to another.  As it approaches one of
these giants, your Sun being one, it picks up speed, and reaches a
maximum speed as it passes the attraction.  Having passed, it now has
double the gravitational attraction on one side, and quickly switches
back in the other direction, zooming just as rapidly much along the
path it just took.  Out in space again, caught between the two giants
that dominate its life, it settles down to a sedate few thousand years,
only to zip around the Sun's counterpart in a like manner and head back
toward your Solar System.
(End ZetaTalk[TM] recorded in 1995)

In article <[email protected]> M.C. Harrison
writes.
> Another thing which follows an inverse square law is "sunlight".
> This is also fairly self-evident as the area of the sphere light is 
> spread out only increases with the square of the diameter, and 
> this obviously means there is less sunlight per square meter.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
And if gravity causes things to go in circles, why does it not so
affect sunlight?  You measure your stars, their distance away,
understanding with great confidence that gravity does NOT cause things
to go in circles!  Please be aware, in this, that we understand the
missing components your formulas do not have.  You are stating, within
this same posting, contradictions, and yet you are unable to deal with
them.  Such is the mental schism that human astro-physics has developed
under, and anyone employed in this contortion must look the other way
or become unemployed!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])