by Nancy Lieder
Satellites intended to go round and round over the poles, or anywhere but the exact equator, must be moved out of the
circular path around the Earth's gravity center which they naturally assume. The satellite when launched indeed hugs
the gravity center of the Earth uniformly, circling the lump, but this leaves the satellite masters unhappy as the satellite
is not a uniform distance above the Earth's surface, be it land or water. They then puff the satellite about until it is not
circular about the lump, the gravity center, but is a uniform distance from the surface, be it land or water, in other
words, is an ellipse. The reason they have so much trouble achieving a uniform distance from the surface is not
because the satellite wants to go in an ellipse, but rather the opposite, because it wants to go in a circle about the
gravity center of the lumpy Earth. It has to be tweaked out of this into an artificial orbit, into an ellipse!
Earth's center of gravity may have been nicely centered when she first congealed after the local Big Bang, but she is as
centered as a three legged elephant now. The collision that sent her out of her former orbit in the Asteroid Belt and
into the orbit she is currently in left her as oddly shaped as Halley's comet, and only her waters, pooling evenly about
her, covered her scars. Over time she has molded herself, during repeated passages of her big brother, the 12th Planet,
so that her molten core is circular, but her crust is anything but even. Depth of the oceans and distribution of the land
masses is not all there is to it, as the composition of the crust must be factored in also. Lava flows from the depths
have a different composition than the original crust of the Earth, heavier, and where these flows have spewed forth
repeatedly during traumatic times, there is a gravity weight in that direction - the sum of the parts, wherever they may
lie
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s62.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:18 AM]
ZetaTalk: Trajectories
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Trajectories
Note: written on Feb 15, 1996.
Trajectories that parallel the surface of a large object exerting a strong gravitational pull lob up, then curve, and finally
drop straight down, upon close examination. Some shots low to the ground barely get into their downward drop before
arriving on the surface, and thus this point is missed on those not astute. But videotaped trajectories, examined in a
frame by frame manner, display this scenario:
The object desires to go in a straight line, in the direction pointed in and impelled.
As the gravity pull is at its side, the straight line is diminished into a curve, as the drop of the object due to
gravity is superimposed on the trajectory. The magical curve, in fact, is a combination of linear momentum and
gravity drop.
When the object reaches its apex, the linear momentum no longer is away from the gravitational giant, as the
object now is pointed toward the giant. This is a significant turning point, no pun intended, as from this point
forward the object now finds that its linear momentum and its gravity drop are combined, and thus, with this
combined force, it ends up heading straight down.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s59.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:19 AM]
ZetaTalk: Oort Cloud
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Oort Cloud
Note: written on Jan 15, 1996. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
Ah, the theoretical Oort Cloud. As with the mythical Quark - give it a name and it becomes real. It is not real. Humans
assume that comets just happen along, and sometimes get caught in a repeating cycle. Humans speculate on the origin
of comets. The majority of comets visiting your Solar System return because they originated here, during planetary
breakups caused by the periodic passage of the 12th Planet, for one. Look to the nature of your Solar System, the
composition and shape of the planets. How would irregularly shaped chunks of ice, which in essence comets are,
begin? The Earth was once a water planet, but lost much of her water following a collision with a traveling moon of
the 12th Planet. Where do you suppose her waters went?
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s51.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:19 AM]
ZetaTalk: Repeating Comets
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Repeating Comets
Note: written on Jan 15, 1996. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
Repeating comets are attracted to the Sun, are heading for it, but miss due to the same sensitivity to the solar wind that
causes their dust clouds and gasses to blow away from the Sun. Humans assume that tiny particles will be more
affected by the solar wind than larger particles, but this assumption is wrong. If this were the case, then how to explain
the Asteroid Belt, which has trash of all sizes, seemingly unaffected by the solar wind. A small object may lose its
velocity faster than a larger object, due to the gravitational differences, but the effect is the same when they are
sensitive to the solar wind - they are pushed away. Comets that hit the Sun have, through repeated trips around the Sun,
lost enough water vapor so that the balance of their composition weighs against repulsion by the solar wind. In short,
they've lost their protection. They come zooming in from outer space, but this time, they don't veer out, they collide. In fact, comets close their orbits, coming closer and closer to the Sun, during this process.
Where a repelling force exists, such as the solar wind against a comet, the comet will veer out upon approach and as it
gains speed coming into the Solar System, veer in again. The increasing speed of comets allows them to push past their
sensitivity to the solar wind, to some degree. Thus they have a quick trip around the Sun while held at the distance
where they are essentially getting a blast of wind they cannot proceed against.
The solar wind is steady, its change incremental, as with every measure closer the intensity increases by a similar
steady measure. The length away that the comet maintains is not explained by an analogy such as a car hitting a brick
wall or a diver entering the water or even a man walking into a hurricane. The comet is slipping to the side as it
approaches, going in the direction of least pressure, of least resistance, while still aiming for the Sun. The point where
this balance is reached is dependent on the speed of the comet, which increases steadily the closer it gets to the Sun,
and the intensity of the blast from the solar wind. At every point along its orbit, these determinators are at play. When
out in space the comet's pace is relatively sedate, and thus slides to the side rather than approaching the Sun directly.
When it enters your Solar System the reverse is occurring - the speed effect overcoming the solar wind push, so that
the comet curves toward the Sun, but always these two factors are at play.
Quite clearly some comets are periodic, as they appear regularly after a set number of years, approach from the same
direction, turn around within the Solar System at the same place, exit the Solar System in the same direction, and give
the same predictable appearance. But comets that have a long period have been documented in the past in a manner
that leaves much doubt. Where astronomers within this very millennium assumed the Sun orbited the Earth, just how
h
ttp://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s50.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:21 AM]
ZetaTalk: Repeating Comets
accurate can their records have been? And how does one know that a previous comet is returning, even when it
approaches from the same direction? Is it not possible to have more than one comet with the same track through the
Solar System? Humans are barely out of the Dark Ages, and if honest would admit that they are guessing. Do they
have these comets marked? Do they have an accurate basis of comparison? What are they judging on, the pencil sketch
made by someone in antiquity?
Humans think that because mankind spots comets as they loom into range, announcing themselves by outgassing
as they enter the Solar System, that human scientists know where the comet has been, and know what its orbit
has been. They do not. They can't find these tiny dark specks when they are out in space. When they catch sight
of them, the comet orbits are already taking into account their sensitivity to the solar wind. This curve starts well
outside the Solar System, a fact known by astronomers.
Humans think that a comet's orbit is maintained by its momentum. Of the factors affecting a tiny comet that
approaches the Sun, the force of its current momentum is not dominant. Any child who has thrown a ball and
watched it drop toward the Earth as it sped along its trajectory can sense this. Archers allow for this in
attempting to hit their target, aiming above the trajectory to account for the drop. Momentum is an effect, not a
cause. What caused the momentum if not gravity. A ball thrown in space, where there is no gravitational
influences nearby, will continue apace, but a gravity pull behind its path will slow it down. When a comet is
leaving your Solar System, it is heading at an essentially straight line away. Gravity behind the comet slows it
down, and thus the momentum disappears.
Humans see but what is essentially the end result of a comet's orbit, or at least that portion of the orbit that
involves the Sun's gravity. The tiny comet, dark until it enters the Solar System where it flares under the
influence of the Sun, cannot be located by humans while it is out in space. They assume that the orbit is broader
or at least as broad, when out in space, as that seen when the comet becomes visible. It is not. As we have
explained in detailing the 12th Planet's entry into the Solar System, comets aim for the Sun, and if influenced
away from the Sun by any factor, adjust their orbit away from the Sun. Then, as they near the Sun and, caught in
the grip of this giant's gravity pull, accelerate, the increasing speed allows them to come closer. Humans only see
that part of the orbit where the initial adjustment away from the Sun has already occurred. They see but half the
picture.
The human argument that the long orbit can be determined by the angle of entry, the parabolic curve, is therefore
absurd. Some long period comets have several foci, and some only one. Just how does blind man, peeping up from a
planet he cannot leave, looking out from a Solar System he has never left, know how many foci this or that comet
has? Since a parabola and even an ellipse smoothes to an essentially straight line, how do they know how far that
straight line goes before a turn around is effected? They do not. They are guessing.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s50.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:21 AM]
ZetaTalk: Ephemeris
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Ephemeris
Note: written on Oct 15, 1995. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
Ephemeris are mankind's best efforts at predicting the behavior of comets. They take into consideration the direction
and speed of a comet, when first sighted, and apply math that has proved true of previous comets. Most of the time
this works. When it does not astronomers tell themselves a variable came into play, such as the gravitational pull of a
nearby planet or that something internal within the comet caused it to behave in an abnormal manner. The ephemeris
are assumed to be correct. They are not. Humans have backed into their formulas for explaining the motion of the
planets, and gravity on the surface of their planet. They tried one theory on after another, until one seemed to work
most of the time. Then they congratulate themselves on arriving at the ultimate answer, which will stay on the pedestal
until it fails to answer some physical phenomena, new to their arena.
The human understanding of Orbital Physics is based on what they have observed. They backed into their
understanding, their mathematical theories, based on what they had seen. Thus, when they plot the orbit of an object
tracking in a familiar manner, they plot it reasonably well. This does not mean that the math is accurate or correct. It
only means that their descriptions, up until now, have worked in the main. We are not saying that human equations fail
to predict comet orbits. We say the base understanding of the full comet orbit is incomplete. We say the theories about
where comets come from is incorrect. We say the explanation of why comets don't all go into the Sun is wrong. If the
mailman comes by each morning about 10:00 o'clock, the child may make up any number of complicated theories
about why and how the mailman's route is as it is. Then, when the mailman arrives the next day, on time, the child
congratulates himself.
Ephemeris assume, first, that comets are attracted to the Sun, are aiming for it, but miss. What nonsense! Why do they
miss? Did the Sun move out of the way? Where a planet the size of the 12th Planet is likewise aiming for the Sun but
misses because of the repulsion force, smaller comets do not have the required mass to invoke a repulsion force in the
Sun. Small comets miss because they by nature contain elements that are sensitive to the solar wind, and can no more
come close to the Sun than can mankind walk forward into the full force of a hurricane. Is this not a form of repulsion
force? It differs as the repulsion force is invoked in both parties involved in a potential collision, and the comet's
sensitivity is a drama played out only in the comet. Essentially, elements within the solar wind push the comet away,
keeping it at the distance it maintains from the Sun. Why does the solar wind not so push the Earth and other planets,
or the debris in the Asteroid Belt? It does so push, but the planets by their size resist and the debris in the Asteroid
Belt does not have the sensitivity that comets do. This is one reason, in fact, that they remain as debris and do not
become comets.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s39.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:21 AM]
ZetaTalk: Dark Ages
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Dark Ages
Note: written on Mar 15, 1996.
Coming out of the Dark Ages, man believed the Earth was flat, and that the heavens revolved around the Earth.
Evidence that contradicted these assumptions was ignored until the weight of evidence became so heavy that the
comfortable assumption was eroded. How could such a theory as the flat Earth even evolve? To man today, this theory
seems laughable, but when it evolved, the edges of the horizon always seemed at the edge of a flat plane, so this was
the newborn child's first conclusion. But did not the fact that the stars moved about the heavens in a manner that lined
up with a solar system model not move him to question? The toddler assumes the world revolves around him, an
d is
loath to let this go. The alternate explanation, that the heavens were dancing for his amusement, fit his mind-set. Did
not the Sun rise when he felt refreshed, and set when he was weary? All to serve his needs, he had no doubt.
Elaborate mathematical descriptions of trajectories and orbits were drawn up in an age when man had not peeked
beyond the Solar System with high powered telescopes floating above the atmosphere, and when slow motion video
was unheard of. The only complete orbits known were those of the planets which hugged the Sun, and as the math was
drawn up to fit these orbits, the orbits fit the math. The explanation for comets either fit the model or they didn't. When
they fit the model they were assumed to have the orbit, when out of view, that the model dictated. If they didn't fit the
model then they were dressed up in mathematical curves, parabolas or hyperbolas, which came close enough to let
everyone go home at the end of the day feeling smug. As concepts tend to solidify as time passes, the young taking as
absolutes what their elders preach, the Earth was now no longer flat, and the heavens no long revolved around the
Earth, but most certainly all orbits were elliptical.
When slow motion video demonstrated that trajectories do not, in fact, mirror the downward side to the upward side,
the facts did not change the precepts taught to the young. Why change a handy tool that works for everyday
applications? Close enough, and change would require reprinting all those books! The fact that the downward side of
the trajectory marries the forward thrust to the gravity drop was noted by those who think deeply about such matters,
and is a known but not extensively taught fact. For most, the Earth is still flat, as they have not been told otherwise
and are not inclined to question. Where the trajectory precept stands inviolate to most, the precepts of elliptical orbits
have even fewer challenges. Man sees the dance of stars, but there are so many variables that come into play, about
which he is uncertain at best, that the arrows of doubt seldom get launched. Yet the arrows exists.