Article: <6l90uv$ibn@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti Date: 5 Jun 1998 14:56:31 GMT The Zetas have stated that humans cannot get their math formulas to sit on the same page. To demonstrate this, they forced math challenged me to grope though the formulas, and fortunately I was rescued by Eric George and M.C. Harrison who inserted the RIGHT figures. They show a massive Moon, per the inverse square law, of millions of trillions of metric tons of EQUIVALENT weight if on the surface of the Earth, moving at a rate of only 1023 m/s which is 1/4 the rate of our stationary satellites or only twice the speed of the Concord. To refresh the readership on where these calculations arrived, I'll repeat last weeks posting, article <6kl07u$ga5@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, below: ........... In article <6kgd61$rh3@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Eric George writes: > Oh boy, where to start... Thanks for rescuing me, Eric :-) I'll use your figures and recap for the readership, and then move on to the point the Zetas have been dying to make, via or through math challenged me. The recap: Earth diameter of 12756.27 km. Moon diameter of 3444.193 km. using volume of sphere as 4/3*Pi*R^3 volume of Moon is 0.019683 of Earth Earth is 1,237,857,886,976 km^3 in volume Moon is 21,392,457,765.53 km^3 in volume a metric ton is 1,000,000 grams granite density as 2.64-2.76 g/cm^3, close enough to 2.5 assuming (Nancy's) 2.5 density, Earth: 2,707,894,750,000,000,000,000 Metric Tons Moon: 54,997,342,400,000,000,000 Metric Tons Eric's reference Earth density: 5.5170 g/cm^3 Eric's reference Moon density: 3.3411 g/cm^3 (1.34 times granite density used by Nancy) so Earth: 5.9763e+24 kg ( 5.9763e+21 Metric Tons) or 2.70789475e+21 Metric Tons Moon: 7.3508e+22 kg ( 7.3508e+19 Metric Tons) or 5.49973424e+19 Metric Tons or 73,696,438,000,000,000,000 Metric Tons <========== gravitational equation F = G*m1*m2/r^2 acceleration of the moon due to gravity toward the Earth F = 2.20228796E+16 metric ton force or = 20,228,796,000,000,000 metric tons-force <===== C = Pi*2*R = Pi*D C = 2415768.45 km gives a circular orbital speed of: 1023.183 m/s <========= At this point the Zetas want to comment. First, my comments on what the Britannica states to be the supersonic speed that the Concord flies, when breaking the sound barrier. 1,200 mph, or 1,920 km/hr, which is 1,920,000 m/hr, which is 32,000 m/minute or 533.33 m/second, is it not? Second, if the diameter of the Earth is 12,756.27 km, then stationary satellites must travel 4,635.7155 m/second. (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) Here we have the Moon, weighing the EQUIVALENT of some 73 tillion trillion metric tons if on the surface of the Earth. Bring that Moon down to where your supersonic jets, your Concord, fly without burning up due to friction and with a minimal amount of fuel required to keep it moving. To eliminate absurd arguments mixing Newton's theories in with reality, let us state that the Moon does NOT weight what it would close to the Earth's surface in point of fact, but only what you have calculated it to weigh while out in space at the distance is rides, the gravitational force mass of a mere 20 million trillion metric tons based on your inverse square law of gravity. This is the ADJUSTED weight, the equivalent weight, the actual weight at that distance, and thus is the REAL weight if one is to place it close to Earth. Eric has kindly calculated the pace of your Moon at some 1023 meters per second.. Your Concord flies at less than HALF the speed that the Moon is traveling, and it is scarsely about to fly off into space due to centrifugal force! In fact, it requires a full tank of fuel and a shape to eliminate air friction as much as possible in order to stay above ground! Would your Concord fly off into space if the speed were doubled? Do you satellites fly off into space, when going at faster speeds? Satellites that are stationary above the Earth are circling the Earth each day, and this speed is far in excess of what the Moon experiences. Do they fly off into space? The answer to both questions is NO, and so much for Newton's short sighted theories. Your Moon, adjusted for the distance it is, and going at the rate it does while carrying this adjusted weight, is going at only 1/4 THE SPEED OF YOUR SATATIONARY SATELLITES! Do they, the lighter body, fly off into space? Your astronomers, unable to bring all their equations and physics together on one page, are telling you that your Moon, at an adjusted weight of 20,228,796,000,000,000 metric tons, could cruise along at 1/4 the speed of your stationary satellites, or only twice the speed of your Concord jets, and maintain it's place DUE TO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE! The theatre of the absurd is about to open. (End ZetaTalk[TM]) Newton's laws as applied to circular motion: Ar = V^2/R where Ar is the acceleration in the radial direction and towards the center of the circle. Using the orbital velocity on radius from above: Ar = (1023.183 m/s)^2 / 384,403,000 m Ar = 0.00272345 m/s^2 F = mA = mAr F = 7.35085E+22 kg * 0.00272345 m/s^2 F = 2.00197E+20 kg*m/s^2(Newtons) This is the centripetal force due to the orbital velocity The force due to gravity calculated previously was F = 1.98296e+20 N The error between these calculation is 0.91% Does F=mA=mAr mean that you've pre-balanced your equation by saying mass equals mass, and thus the aceleration OUTwards equals the aceleration DOWNward - ah, Newton works? At this point, the Zetas which to interject again. (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) You've cheated again, following your master cheater, Newton. He has described what he saw, and fiddled with the math long enough to get this or that factor, when inserted on this or that side of the equation, to balance. Not difficult when the BASE figure, mass, is placed on both sides of the equation, in the same influential position. For Newton to have credence here, he must address why the Moon can float up where the satellites do, at the ADJUSTED (not true) weight when reduced for distance from the Earth that it normally rides, and go only twice as fast as the Concord, or only 1/4 as fast as your stationary satellites, and not fall to Earth! The reason, as we have explained, is NOT due to Newton's centrifugal force, but due to the outbursts of gravity particles, as we have explained. We will ask our emissary, Nancy, to repost our Repulsion Force explaintion, along with Gravity Particles and Gravity Flow, so that the readership can see how this better meets the situation they observe every night when they gaze upward at their monster Moon. (End ZetaTalk[TM])