Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6h95lj$8t6@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 18 Apr 1998 03:11:47 GMT

In article <6h88ub$mg0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Jeff Smith writes:
> In the midst of this diversion, Campbell issued the following
> challenge and is awaiting your answer:
>
>> Now the challenge Nancy if you or the zetas are up to it, please
>> explain to me how a planet on a long elliptical path and 
>> orbiting masses placed at both foci could be stable, failing that
>> how could such a system conserve energy/momentum? 

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
The instability lies not in the orbits, which can and DO exist, but in
your pathetic math formulas which cannot deal with such orbits.  This
is a failure of PROCESS, which you ascribe to reality.  The process,
for you, has been 1. observe a phenomenon, 2. toy around with a math
formula until it adequately describes the phenomena, even to the point
of predicting it, 3. state that the math formula applies to the
Universe, even those parts unseen.

Now, what's wrong with that process?  1. you assume that formulas that
have been developed to describe phenomena EXPLAIN the phenomena, 2. you
assume you have observed all there is to observe, 3. when your math
does not apply to a situation, you reject the situation rather than the
rejecting your precious flawed math.

What's wrong with your theories?  As we have rather endlessly
described, you assume that motion drives orbits, when it is only a
factor.  You assume that gravity is only a factor, when it is what
drives orbits.  You assume that gravity is only countered by motion,
when it is countered by a repulsion force.  For more about all that, go
to the web site our emissary, Nancy, so laborously maintains.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

Ahem, web site at
http://www.zetatalk.com