link to Home Page

Re: ZetaTalk and Spaceguard UK

Ms Lieder,

Having read your responses, I am afraid that I will need some more
convincing answers before I publish anything in an internationally
distributed journal.  For example:

> Deflection requires pushing it OUTSIDE of the current area it is in,


> as it is not, contrary to man's assumptions, trucking along on its current
> trajectory simply because it was pointed in that direction at some time in
> the past!

Motion is constant unless a force acts to change it, so NEOs are trucking
along on their current trajectories simply because they were pointed in that
direction at some time in the past.

> It's in an orbit, and STAYING there, for dozens of reasons, and would return
> to that orbit unless removed from the area.

Agreed, though "removed from the area" is a very vague term.  Once an orbit
has been changed it remains changed unless something else applies a force to
change it again. See above.

> When your planets get perturbed, do they not resume their original orbits
> and pace?

No.  That's obvious.

> So include in your deflection calculations PUSHING the asteroid far enough
> out of its path so that it would not RESUME its original orbit.

See above.

> This logic assumes that Newton is correct, and as we have repeatedly argued,
> his so-called laws only describe what mankind observes, not DICTATE
> behavior.

Based on what evidence?  Common sense and observation dictate that Newton's
Laws of Motion have stood the test of time, and no macro-experiment has yet
disproved them.  I'm afraid that your statement requires rigorous proof
before it becomes credible.

> Man's theories are lately falling like raindrops as he learned new
> information about the Universe around him.  Take for instance the theory of
> why Jupiter's rotation produces alternating bands on its surface.  Man's
> explanation, modeled successfully in a computer lab, dropped onto the floor
> with a thud.

Did it?  I would be grateful for references.

> We have explained why the rotation appears as it does, and are confident
> this explanation will model well, but are unlikely to hear that we are, once
> again, correct where man is wrong. One does not simply re-direct an asteroid
> into a different direction.  It is on its path because of gravity pulls as
> well as mometum,

Momentum is a function of mass and velocity, the latter being produced by a
force - in this case, gravity.

> and the momentum will RESUME when it pulls about to approach its gravity
> pull, once again heading into the direction it was in, originally.

Only if another force is applied.  See above.

> Mankind's deflection will be a momentary DELAY, not a redirection.

A "delay" can only be produced by applying a force in a direction opposite
to the velocity.  There is, therefore, no reason why a similar force cannot
be applied in a different direction adding a velocity vector at an angle to
the original - a deflection.

> An image was obtained at Neuchatal observatory, but destroyed on orders from
> those who seek to keep the public quiescent while those in power struggle
> with a solution.

This is sadly convenient, for without evidence one could claim anything,
attracting only the gullible.  But surely the object would also have been
detected elsewhere if it is as obvious as you indicate?  With only a maximum
of 18 months to close approach it should be clearly visible - even small
comets are visible to amateurs at thi time to perihelion.

> Sitchin's 12th Planet and Planet X are one and the same, and it is inbound
> and due to pass Earth, causing another pole shift, in 2003.  The repeated
> sighting of this inbound giant, a planetary magnet like Earth, were found at
> the coordinates given by us, in three countries, by three different teams.

References please.

> This is a planet that assumed an odd orbit around BOTH suns in your binary
> system, when your solar system was first formed.

Binary system?  Surely we are not invoking the old "Nemesis" hypothesis?

> Having taken that orbit, it was caught, perpetually, to continue it.  In the
> past, is passed in its swing past your Sun through the Asteroid Belt, the
> results apparent and worrysome to you now.

The NEA population evolves through well understood mechanisms that do not
involve a rogue planet, so I am unsure about the results to which you refer.

> As your Sun shrank in mass and consequently shrank in its gravity pull, this
> planet has passed closer in, and now passes between the Earth and your Sun.
> The Sun loses mass all of the time (E= mc2), but this is too small a loss to
> be significant.

The approach of this giant magnet is what is causing your volcanoes to
become active,

> Volcanoes are always active somewhere in the world - there is no increase in
> activity.

 your oceans to heat from the bottom up,

> They are not heating in this way.

> your weather to defy prediction by your forcasters,

It always has done, it's a chaotic mechanism.

> and your magnetic field to become rapidly diffuse.

Sadly it isn't.

> Newton's description of what he observed, the so-called laws, do NOT stand
> when put together with your other laws and applied to the Moon.  Take the
> size and composition of the Moon and Earth, and compute the gravity
> attraction between them by your inverse square law.

The gravitational attraction between two bodies is calculated using the
standard gravitational formula.  Compositions are irrelevant, only mass.

> This was an exercise done in a 1998 sci.astro debate, with the
> conclusion by your own mathematicians that the Moon, at its current
> distance, is EQUIVALENT to a body weighing several million trillion metric
> tons at the surface of the earth, while only orbiting at a speed of 1023
> m/s.

Sorry - this is meaningless.  At the surface of the Earth?  I fail to see
the thrust of your argument here.

> Start with NASA and JPL, hardly an independent agency and infiltrated with
> CIA agents due to the supposed need to keep the public ignorant of the
> approach of Planet X and the fact that their leaders are NOT the most
> intelligent and powerful creatures in the Universe.  You will get private
> admissions from individuals, but nothing you can print.  Those who work for
> these agencies, or in large observatories, value their jobs and their lives.

Knowing the people at NASA and JPL I think that you are barking up the wrong
tree here!  In fact, if you knew these individuals, you would know that they
would find this sort of thing laughable!

Thanks for your time.