### Re: ZetaTalk and Spaceguard UK (D11)

ESCAPE
Use an abstract of mass, not reality of granite, in Newton's laws
Article: <6l91an$qut@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>
5 Jun 1998 15:02:47 GMT
Copied below and at http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00682.htm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

In article <6ko22i$1ca@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> Eric George writes:
> The Mass of the moon is approx. 7.3508e+22 kg regardless
> of how close or far from the earth it is. The weight will change
> and is the force exerted on the mass by the local gravity field.
Fine. Please address the issue that our massive Moon, per the inverse
square law, is weighing the equivalent of a million trillion metric
tons, yet is moving, while at that "weight", at only twice the speed of
the Concord. We've calculated F, the force of gravity between the
Earth and Moon, and this is the HUGE "weight" the formula comes up
with. This is putting Newton's theory that orbiting bodies don't fall
because of their speed and the resulting centrifugal force in
perspective. Bottom line, it's absurd!
When faced with contradictions, you fall to claiming that mass and
weight differ. Is mass not REAL? In other formulas you plug metric
tons in blithely, and were happy to do so in our exercise here until
this exercise resulted in a contradiction. The static condition of the
Moon at present is that is has an EQUIVALENT weight of several million,
trillion metric tons, while moving at only twice the speed of the
Concord. "Weight" is the pull of gravity. The Moon "weighs" this
amount if on the surface of the Earth. Yet it floats at a slow speed.
The reality we are asking you to deal with is that your Moon, at every
instant, "weights" that much but is only being tugged away from Earth
by the speed of its centrifugal force.
When lined up alongside REAL examples, Newton's centrifugal force
explanation for why orbiting bodies do not fall into their
gravitational giants is absurd!
** ZetaTalk™**
Last week, in article <6kl07u$ga5@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> The Zetas stated:
> The theatre of the absurd is about to open.
And it has!