Where orbits are snug about their center of gravity, there is little contradiction between these and what mankind calls
their laws of gravity and motion. These are not laws, of course, but elaborate descriptions of what they observe. The
flaws in the laws, however, were always present. If gravity diminishes with distance, but distance is attained with
speed, then an object in a snug elliptical orbit seems to logically be adhering to the laws of gravity and motion. Speed
up during the approach, sling past, and the speed carries the body outward where the diminishing gravity pull slows the
body down so that its curve sidewards takes predominance. The theory fit what man observed, and thus was not
questioned until his powers of observation increased. Tiny comets, seen by man in the past only when they gave their
brilliant displays while going around the Sun, have only recently been observed in great detail during this passage.
Repeating comets are not slinging past, as in a passing body. They are in orbit, doing the better part of a circle about
the Sun. Unlike the planets, whose center of gravity is just that, at the center, the comet does not behave as though the
Sun is its center of gravity. The elliptical orbit of planets is such that if one were to examine the distance from the Sun,
the difference at any given point would be slight. It is more circular than not. Comets, however, are at the other
extreme. They appear to be a fan, rather than an eye. For the laws of gravity and motion to fit, the comet must be
increasing its speed as it leaves the Sun, thus explaining its increasing distance. However, careful studies have shown
this not to be the case. The comet is going its fastest when closest to the Sun, and has slowed down when it begins to
leave what is assumed to be its gravitational master. The slowing precedes the exit, thus throwing the smug
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s61.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:22 AM]
ZetaTalk: Dark Ages
assumptions of man into consternation.
In addition, the distance comets travel outward, and the curvature of their exit are now able to be examined where in
the past they were an unknown. They go essentially straight away, not the curve anticipated. Thus the distance from
the Sun wherein they would have to complete an elliptical curve is extreme, challenging the laws of gravity and
motion. The distance where the elliptical curve would reinstate is too far, and the curve during the straight away too
slight. Rather than deal with this new information, the majority of scientists prefer their comfort factor over new
knowledge. Change is resisted, and for many the Earth is still flat.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s61.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:22 AM]
ZetaTalk: Contradictions
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Contradictions
Note: written on Mar 15, 1996.
The long elliptical orbit stands in contradiction to human trajectory theories, which have a trajectory curve downward
mirroring the trajectory curve upward. Repeating comets are going in an essentially straight line away from the Sun, a
line parallel and very close to the one that would be drawn from the very center of the Sun. Human theories of such
trajectories on Earth state that an object going in an essentially straight upward path returns from the same place,
plunging straight downward with a curvature mirroring its upward path. In contradiction to this explanation,
complacent humans find nothing strange when comets reenter the Solar System at a great distance from where they
left. The explanations given by humans for this contradiction in their logic is the Magical Ellipse explanation. The
ellipse needs no explanation, it just is. When asked to describe the forces that control an elliptical path, humans proffer
a technical description of an ellipse. They describe it, not explain it.
The long elliptical orbit stands in contradiction to human gravitational theories, which has the gravitational tug rapidly
diminishing with distance. Where the temporary orbit around the Sun has an explanation in the steady gravity tug from
the Sun, this same explanation is given for the curve they claim is instituted by the repeating comet at a great distance.
Essentially, humans refuse to even address this contradiction, falling again into the Magical Ellipse explanation. Their
response, like the cat which falls to licking itself when it is discombobulated, is to proffer greater and greater detail on
the math they use to draw or describe an ellipse.
Comets, whether termed repeating or non-repeating by humans, assume, however temporarily, an orbit around the Sun.
In this they are going the fastest when going into this curve, and are going slower when they leave off from the Sun.
This behavior stands in direct contradiction to the favorite explanation of why comets leave the Solar System
where and when they do - escape velocity, which is slower when the comet escapes than when it apparently gets
caught. This was a recently learned fact that mankind has yet to deal with. The atmosphere reduces man's ability
to see details close to the Sun, as the Sun's rays scatter in the atmosphere, creating confusion. Likewise distance,
when the comet is on the dark side of the Earth, cannot be measured accurately when the comet is pulling away.
It is the drama when comet's go round the Sun, are spanning the sky when one is looking at them during the day,
that one can measure speed. When one is measuring speed during the night, one is seeing the backside of a
comet, and measurements of speed cannot be accurately determined. It is the recent ability of probes and the
Hubble to get above the atmosphere that allows mankind a clearer picture. In particular, that time span when the
comet is changing its brief orbit to a break-away. The comet slows before it breaks away, in direct contradiction
to man's math.
Likewise perturbations by other planets do not explain why the comet leaves off where it does, and even such a
well known comet as Haley's regularly leaves off from the same spot in spite of vastly different planetary
alignments each time. Human astrophysics doesn't even attempt to address this, as it causes too much
discomfort, apparently. The favorite tactic when faced with this contradiction is to carve up the comet's path into
tiny slices, and focus just on the point where the comet leaves off, and then insert a magical and unnamed
something that perturbs the comet so that it can escape.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s60.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:22 AM]
ZetaTalk: Newton
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Newton
Note: written during the 2001 sci.astro debates.
For a tiny object, such as a climber falling from a cliff, there is not the distance from the Earth to create a situation of
equality in the updraft and downdraft of gravity particles. Satellites are placed at a distance by your astrophysicists in
order to have them behave in accordance with Newton and sustain their distance, supposedly based on velocity? What
Newton has included in his math, without knowing, is the balance of updraft and downdraft of gravity particles. In
point of fact, if an object was not at the distance to create this balance, it either plummets to the gravitational giant or is subject to attraction by another passing or nearby gravity giant. Thus, those orbiting objects you examine are there to
be examined because of the updraft and downdraft balance. Thus Newton and his followers negated t
he influence of
gravity particles in his orbit equations, as all they saw seemed to fit!
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s118.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:23 AM]
ZetaTalk: Absolute Properties
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Absolute Properties
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.
Absolute properties, such as the mathematical zero, a figment mathematicians use to make their formulas work, do not
exist. The absolute vacuum is a figment of physicists, struggling to make their formulas work. By this we mean that
absolute properties do not exist in the physical world. The physical world has at any given point more or less mass,
degrees, but never nothing. Absolute zero, the theoretic temperature where all molecular motion stops, also never
happens. In all this neither the mathematicians or physicists are correct, and any formulas that require such factors are
inherently incorrect.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s18.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:24 AM]
ZetaTalk: Mathematical Proofs
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Mathematical Proofs
Note: written on Feb 15, 1996.
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.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s54.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:24 AM]
ZetaTalk: Vectors
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Vectors
Note: written on Jul 15, 1996.
Humans place too much importance in what they call velocity vectors, which are only a mathematical representation.
The motion of asteroids or comets or planets is there for a reason. It is not, as humans frequently assume, because the
motion was set in place for some reason long ago and things just follow. The motion does not rule! The motion is a
result, not a primary force. Humans treat motion as though it stood alone, outside of all other factors. What caused the
motion? All motion is a result, from the acorn dropping from a tree, or the wind swaying branches as air masses move
The breeze that bows a young sapling over a bit will not keep that sapling bent when the breeze stops blowing. Just so,
an object may even be stopped in its course, but only for a moment. Then on it comes, impelled by the same factors
that impelled it in the first place, as its motion was determined by the gravity pull of objects nearby, and those objects have not moved! An object will be motionless in space for one of two reasons. An object in the absence of gravity
from outside influences has no reason to move at all, and is still only because there is no call to do otherwise. It does
not have inertia, or a reluctance to move. Objects have inertia when they are caught in the grip of a gravity influence,
and most often in the grip of several gravity influences. Therefore, when undertaking the study of motion, limiting the
examination to the object and its speed is only effective when all other factors hold steady.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s76.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:25 AM]
ZetaTalk: Quantum Mechanics
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Quantum Mechanics
Note: written on Aug 15, 1996.
Hand in hand with the realization that atoms were formed of particles of different natures - subatomic particles - came
the science of quantum mechanics. Matter was weighed and measured, the electrical flow calculated, the degree of
intrusion required to cause atoms bound to one another to break apart noted, and all this went into quantum mechanics,
a worthy science. What interferes with the data going into the formulas is mankind's lack of knowledge in general
about subatomic particles and the many types of what they would call energy waves that exist. If one were asked to
compute the amount of water required to turn a water wheel at such a speed and for such a duration, but were not told
that the temperature on occasion would be below freezing or that at other times the water would flood a
nd reverse the
direction of water flow - the computations would invariably be wrong.
Quantum mechanics balances out what it does not know with careful observation, so the formulas are the result of
observed facts and behavior, not theory. In this regard they are accurate, but where the science begins to go amuck is
in the theoretical aspect, where data tied to observed facts is expected to take second place to theories - the facts to
follow the theory. Our advice is to stick to observing, as at least that way you were getting someplace.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s78.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:25 AM]
ZetaTalk: Spin
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Spin
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997.
Spin is a phenomenon that occurs regularly in nature and is frequently observed on Earth, from the large swirls that
hurricanes form to the small tornadoes in the middle of water going down the drain. The fact that such a spin moves in
different directions when it is above or below the equator gives evidence that spin is affected by factors outside of
itself. The phenomenon of spin is observable when the object in motion is not constrained. Air and water are fluid, but
spinning tops or figure skaters on ice also demonstrate the phenomena. The theoretical speed of a spin is fastest toward
the center of the spinning object, a factor easily noted by comparing hurricane wind speeds with those at the center of
tornadoes. But why the difference?
Spin on the surface of the Earth reflects what is occurring in the core of the Earth. If the Earth were not rotating, its
core moving to escape or pull toward other matter in the Solar System and beyond, then spin would be affected only
by the various attractions or repulsion the spinning object itself has to its immediate neighborhood. All objects on the
face of the Earth have these same influences from the core of the Earth, but this is not evident due to lack of fluidity or
lack of motion. Spin in an object develops slowly, and is only evident to man when accumulated. Thus, water in a