Re: ZetaBabble [tm]

In Article <[email protected]> Dave Tholen wrote:
>> Jim Scotti wrote:
>>> I am speaking the truth when I say that there is nothing
>>> to cover up in regards to your Planet X - it simply does
>>> not exist as you have described it and the way that you
>>> describe it is totally inconsistent with the way we
>>> understand physics to work.
>>
> ZetaTalk wrote:
>> Jim, please explain to the astronomers on this Usenet
>> why a sling orbit CANNOT exist, simply because you
>> have not observed it.
>
> First, you have to define, mathematically, what a "sling
> orbit" is, Nancy.

Is Scotti sending in the second string, Dave?  Jim engaged, and the
Zetas engaged HIM, but this does not mean they are engaging YOU.  To
understand this, read the Rules of Engagement in the Rules section of
ZetaTalk. You, Dave, apparently did not understand the question posed to
Jim.  I will quote from existing ZetaTalk on your silly insistence that
your MATH DESCRIPTIONS of dirty snowballs repelled by the solar wind do
NOT apply to Planet X, a point I'm sure you will Tholenize to death
rather than address.

    Humans have a catchy phrase regarding relationships -
    which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, of course
    it was the chicken, who gradually evolved to encase
    young in a shell long before it evolved to become a
    chicken. First came dropping the young into a water
    bed, as fish and frogs do, so the chicken's precursor
    came first. Humans treat mathematics much this way,
    expecting the world to line up with their math when
    the math evolved to describe their world. Starting
    with simple counting schemes, mathematical
    descriptions became more and more elaborate as they
    were endlessly adjusted until they described yet
    another aspect of nature. When math is used as a
    tool, and its origins understood, then when a
    particular model placed upon a natural phenomena
    does not fit there is no conflict. The mathematical
    model is understood to be the problem. However,
    just as there is confusion about the chicken or the
    egg, most humans lose sight of what came first.
    They insist the math is sacred, and stubbornly
    refuse to deal with the discrepancies this approach
    produces.

    Mathematics, for some, has become a religion.

    Mathematics builds upon itself, so that concepts
    put into place are continued and never discarded.
    Formulas that reasonably describe a situation when
    measurements are crude are never discarded, but
    are held up as standards to be disproved and
    defended. Creativity in math is nil, so that brilliant
    insights such as Einstein's are held to ridicule rather
    than discussed. Thus it is that mathematics are
    burdened with the absurd as well as the insightful,
    and thus regularly miss the mark. The Zetas are
    frequently asked what is wrong with human math,
    or how to do it right. Frankly, the right math will
    not be discussed, as this might put mankind on
    paths they  are not yet to trod. As to what is
    wrong, we would suggest a simple exercise. Face
    problems with a completely fresh mind, and ploy
    the math you think would solve that. Compare
    what you have placed on paper with the traditional
    math. What differs? What about the traditional
    math forced it into the tradition? We predict you
    will find that a long history of being passed
    forward, regardless of worth, has placed certain
    formulas into mankind's mathematical view of the
    world. Would you allow yourself to be treated as
    the doctors of yore treated patients, by bleeding
    and starving or opening the head? Are women in
    labor to die screaming rather than undergo
    cesarean? Are doctor's not to wash their hands
    because infection spontaneously generates and
    germs do not exist?

    Mathematical proofs are not "proof".
    Mathematical proofs only demonstrate that the
    numbers resulting can be lined up with each other.
    In fact, this can be assured if one just ensures that
    the component pieces, in the formulas, are all from
    the same grab bag. In other words, if one is
    building a toy city with lego building blocks, one
    can get everything to line up if all the lego blocks
    are of a similar size or multiples of this size. To
    make this all line up, just throw out anything that
    doesn't fit. This is, in fact, what humans do with
    their mathematical "proofs". When something
    doesn't fit, they substitute another lego piece,
    one from the proper grab bag, and then get
    smug. They haven't proved anything. They've
    only gotten their math to line up, and they're not
    so good at that either. Contradictions are running
    side by side at the major universities, with the
    students asked not to question so the professors
    can continue to be smug. Just pay your tuition
    and shut up.
        ZetaTalk™: Mathematcial Proofs
            (http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s54.htm)