link to Home Page

Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

In Article <W4ql7.23128$> Greg Neill wrote:
> In Article <> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>  Your understanding of SPEED in relationship
>>  to gravity is based on your comfortable
>>  little solar system with planets sedately
>>  going around in circles, NOT heading
>>  directly for the Sun.
>>      ZetaTalk™
> Drop a ball.  Measure the acceleration due to
> gravity of an object falling straight down in
> a gravitational field. At the supposed distance
> of this supposed planet X the gravity of the Sun
> provides insufficient acceleration to have it
> show up on schedule.

    Your ball is within the atmosphere, and has
    this drag, for one.  For another, it gets
    STOPPED shortly after it starts!  Third, we
    stated they had to be LARGE objects heading
    for each other, and your ball does not qualify!
    Present an example as we asked.  NOT small,
    NOT stopped almost as soon as starting, and
    with NO artificial finite limit in time.

In Article <> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> A mysterious new planet would obey the same
> gravitational forces that a comet or
> spacecraft would obey.

What the Zetas SAID, was:

In Article <> ZetaTalk wrote:
>  What is the finite limit for a body, moving through
>  space, between two large objects with a gravity
>  attraction between them?  An what is the explanation
>  for this finite limit, should you be silly enough to post
>  this?  Objects falling to Earth, burning through the
>  atmosphere?  Comets floating past the Sun, held away
>  by the solar wind, with the tiny gravity attraction that
>  would muster between a comet and the Sun?  What
>  LARGE objects, in space, approaching each other
>  have you or your human scientists had the opportunity
>  to watch?  And what are the brakes that space puts on
>  such an approach?  That ... some other human who
>  arbitrarily decides the finite speed allowed, in space?
>      ZetaTalk™