Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 6 May 1998 04:25:39 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
> No, Nancy, you are wrong again.  We use exactly the same 
> gravitational laws whether we are dealing with comets, 
> spacecraft, heavy objects or light objects.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You OMIT the gravitational laws when it pleases you, and INSERT them at
other times!  Thus you protect them from true scrutiny, and likewise
protect the "laws" you assert control your Universe in other places
from the contraditions that would ensue if you included your
gravitational laws!  Try including your gravitational laws into the
ephemeris.  You OMIT them as to include them devastates these so-called
laws.  Admit it!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
> What I am asking is where are all the other "attractants" 
> for each and every object orbiting our sun?  All of the 
> asteroids, comets, and even planets.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You deal in simplitics, and fail to understand the Universe with all
the nuances that play out before your very eyes.  You give motion too
much authority, claim all motion was instituted eons ago and all the
dances you see today are just endlessly paying homage to some even eons
ago, when the present is powerful.  You have admitted to a substance
you call gravity and solar wind and magnetic field, but there you stop!
There is MORE than gravity and magetism that influences where bodies
float in space.  There are fields such as magnetic fields, which you do
not SEE, which capture some planets but not others.  

There are dances between elements that are trapped, while kept apart,
which influence the cages they are trapped within.  Such dances do more
than cause the core of a planet to churn and chase, they also influence
where the planet moves during it's other dances.  More than one step is
being done while the planet is out on the dance floor.  If this does
not imply that you will not necessarily SEE the other attractants, then
we will so state.  You cannot always SEE another attractant, anymore
than you can SEE a magnetic field with your eyes, or even, for that
matter, the pull of gravity with your eyes.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
>> can be involved without requiring the orbiting object to 
>> circle that attractant.  
>
> Then that "second attractant" will come crashing down into 
> the sun if it doesn't orbit.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
By what asinine logic do you conclude THAT?  One of your planets might
vere TOWARD another attractant, and because it does not go ROUND that
attractant this means an inevitable crash?  Your Solar System has
planets that lean this way and that, pulling in different directions
depending upon their composition and what else is out there to
influence them.  Clearly, their leaning does not pull whatever they are
leaning toward into the Sun!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
>> What happens when an object comes BETWEEN two 
>> gravitational giants?  A choice is made at some point.  
>
> No, Nancy, no "choice" is made.  You simply add the 
> gravitational pull of every body in the Universe (and 
> fortunately most objects are distant enough not to be 
> significant).

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
It turns back.  That's the "choice".  Not intellectual, but the
difference between the gravitational giant it is leaving and the
gravitational giant it is headed toward, the second focus.  If the one
behind it's back has a stronger voice at this point, the orbiting
object "choses" to return, and thus you have what appears to be an
elliptical orbit, around what you assume to be a single focus.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])