RESULT These figures showed a massive Moon, per the Inverse Square law, of millions of trillions of metric tons of equivalent weight if on the surface of the Earth, moving at a rate of only 1023 m/s. Article: <6l912i$715@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> 5 Jun 1998 14:58:26 GMT Copied below and at http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00680.htm ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

In article <356F1C21.25F1@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C.Harrison writes: > I'll express the inverse square thing as simply as possible. > Given an orbiting object, with distance (d), period (p) and > mass of primary (m), we expect p^2/d^3 to be constant for > a given primary. And we also expect mass of primary to > define acceleration force, so we expect m * p^2/d^3 to be > constant for all orbits. And then goes on to compare the orbit of the Moon around the Earth versus various other orbiting objects in our Solar System with closely estimated distances, periods, and mass to show that m * p^2/d^3 all equals about 80, implying that the formulas are correct. The formula used meters, days, and I would assume some standard metric for mass such as metric tons. LOOKS pretty impressive. But the Zetas want to speak to this. Basically, the closer an orbiting object moves to its gravitational giant, the faster it must move to stay aloft. This formula does indeed describe a phenomena in nature. However, this formula PRESUMES that all factors are known and taken into consideration. Only a few centuries ago your astronomers were describing the Sun and heavens orbiting the Earth! They too thought they had the right formulas, which they worked up to describe what they observed, but were missing a big piece. The Earth was NOT flat, the Sun did NOT orbit the Earth, regardless of how nicely their math described what they observed. The child might deduct the Postman rule, stating that each day for each household a Postman arrives, except on Sundays. In his small world, this is correct, but would you say he had a Universal formula there? We have demonstrated, though your and Eric's contributions, that your inverse square law put together with Newton's rule balancing gravity pull and centrifugal force would have the equivalent of a million, trillion metric ton Moon up where your satellites and Concord position themselves, moving at only twice the speed of the Concord or 1/4 the speed of your stationary satellites. Intuitively, the common man understands that something is wrong! What is wrong is what is MISSING. The Moon fails to fall to Earth, in spite of having this great pull toward Earth with scarcely any orbiting speed, because it is being pushed UP by exiting gravity particle flow, what we have termed the Repulsion Force. If you state that this is NOT so, then you must explain how the Moon could have an equivalent weight of a million, trillion metric tons Earth surface weight, while only moving at 1023 m/s, twice the speed of the Concord and 1/4 the speed of your stationary satellites. Would you stay smug about your formulas when they have been shown to be absurd?ZetaTalk™Last week, in article <6kl07u$ga5@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> The Zetas stated: > The theatre of the absurd is about to open. And it has!