ZetaTalk: Science
Page 35
taking place in their sun. All suns, being hot and therefore liquid or vaporous in the main, rotate, and do so for the
same reasons that the Earth rotates - parts of the core are seeking to escape this or that side of the Universe, and due to
the motion of rotation that this escape attempt initiates, these same parts find themselves back where they started from,
not having any brakes as it were in a liquid or vaporous environment. The Sun's influence on its planets is more than
light, more than the solar wind in all its components, more than the magnetic field it generates which reaches out
beyond the planets. The Sun's rotation reflects the influences on it, those parts of the Universe that exert a gravitational pull or a magnetic clash, or if there are other large bodies close enough, a repulsion force.
A sun's rotation does not just happen, it begins due to attraction or repulsion. This is what begins the motion. A sun's rotation reflects this, and whatever rotation institutes within the sun has a dominant effect on the planets that are about
the sun. Why do the planets not orbit in all directions? Logically, if there were no enforcement, it would be chance, yet
it seems instead to be the rule. A sun's rotation indicates where the dominant forces are on the sun, and these dominant
forces effect more than the sun. They rule the planets too, pulling and pushing on them, as well. But beyond these
outside influences, the rotation of a sun has an effect on her planets, as the streams within her core, being uneven in
their composition, pull and push on the planets as they may be susceptible to these forces. Thus, coalescing planets
may not start out all in a line, but as they are pushed and pulled they tend to move as far or as near as they can get, and in the end, are in a line with the sun's moving parts, as this is where far and near lie.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s64.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:16 AM]
ZetaTalk: Binary Orbits
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Binary Orbits
Note: written on Nov 15, 1995.
How often do planets, such as your Sun's 12th Planet, take up an orbit around two suns rather than remaining
dedicated to one sun. Rarely, as this requires the wanderer to be large enough that a strong repulsion force develops
when it approaches one of the suns and to also have congealed after a big bang in such a position between the two
suns that this binary orbit ensues. If close to one sun it will settle into the normal orbit around this single sun. But if
fairly equidistant it will approach one sun with comet like speed and return in the same direction, as comets do, to
begin its binary orbit.
Are such binary orbits always disruptive to life on planets orbiting one or the other of the suns? Most certainly,
depending upon the placement of the planets, angle of entry into the planetary orbital plane, and relative size of the
wanderer. If the wanderer is small, its action is like a comet. If the wanderer is larger than planets it passes, then
scenarios such as pole shifts can potentially occur. This likelihood is further reduced by the magnetic potential, which
is strong or weak depending on the composition of the planets and wanderer. This potential is further weakened by the
relative number of life bearing planets that are dry land planets, as most life bearing planets are water planets. Life in the water, during earthquakes, is not traumatized to the degree that life on land is traumatized. Water cushions any
trajectories by braking the speed.
Thus the periodic trauma your Earth undergoes as a life bearing planet is quite unusual. Where this happens elsewhere
in the Universe the inhabitants have reacted much as humans have - with denial beforehand and deliberate amnesia
afterwards. In this, you are typical.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s42.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:16 AM]
ZetaTalk: Planet Revolutions
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Planet Revolutions
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997.
The slow motion of planets around the Sun has long puzzled mankind, who are acutely aware that without continuing
impetus to motion, motion stops. Only in dead space, where no gravitational attraction or repulsion forces exist, does
motion continue without impetus. Motion without a continuing impetus is eroded by gravitational influences nearby, as
in the case of an object thrown upward which slows gradually until turning to plummet to Earth. Children learn with a
ball on the end of a string that standing still results in the ball dropping to the ground, as only the continued impetus of
their arm throwing the ball away and up from them keeps the ball in motion in an orbit. This same pattern is apparent in satellites sent aloft to circle the Earth, as they are in a slow plummet and eventually plunge to Earth.
What keeps the planets, perpetually, the same distance from the Sun and their motion around the Sun at the same
pace?
Understanding only part of the phenomena, and unable to admit they do not understand, humans have engaged in
elaborate mathematical descriptions of the motion they observe, but descriptions do not suffice as an explanation. The
explanation eludes modern astronomers and physicists because they are considering only some of the factors, and are
no further along on the matter of motion than their counterparts in the middle ages. To best understand motion,
mankind should throw out all prior arguments and look upon the matter with the clear eyes of a child.
If a planet is slowly orbiting a massive Sun, but does not drift into it, then obviously there is a repulsion force as
well as the gravitational attraction humans are so painfully familiar with. We have described this force as the
Repulsion Force, and though mankind is not specifically aware of it from their long history on the face of the
planet Earth, this does not mean that this force does not exist.
If a planet is continuing in a steady orbit, without any impetus such as the propulsion humans find necessary to
keep their probes and satellites from drifting off the path they are set upon, then something is either steadily
pulling or pushing the planet to maintain its orbit in the face of all other influences. The influence of the orbiting
planets upon each other would otherwise, over time, alter the orbits dramatically. Why would they not? Each
time a given planet lined up with the massive Jupiter, and was perturbed to speed up or slow down due to this
influence, unless there were another influence this perturbed planet would remain in motion a bit slower or
faster, perpetually.
If the planets resume their motion around the Sun after being perturbed by each other, then the impetus setting
them in motion is not inherent in the planets as an influence upon each other. A planet slowed by the influence
of Jupiter behind its path would not speed up again to resume its steady pace unless this other impetus existed.
This other impetus, which does exist, has the same basis as the magnetic alignment of the Earth and her Sun. This
influence reaches beyond the Solar System, and dictates motion within the Sun not visible to mankind but nevertheless
present. Just as the core of the Earth revolves at a speed dictated by the thickness of the Earth's liquid core, to chase
away from or toward magnetic influences that exist in the Solar System, just so the Sun's core rotates, dragging her
children around her like baubles on the ends of her apron strings.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zet
atalk2.com/science/s81.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:17 AM]
ZetaTalk: Perturbations
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Perturbations
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997.
What does perturb mean? This is recorded in a change in the motion, else it would be a meaningless term. I could say
the planets harumpf, but give no evidence of this, and none would agree. Therefore, perturb gives evidence, and this evidence is a slowing or speeding up, or a wider orbit or closer orbit, but it most certainly does not mean no change.
Given that the planets change when they are perturbed, they should stay changed, according to man's theory. If an orbit swings wide to move toward a giant it is passing, should not the orbit stay wide then? If a planet slows slightly
due to a giant's gravity attraction behind it, should it not stay slower? Human astrophysics has two discomfiting
notions they use as guides in this situation. They can't put these notions together, so like two passengers in the back
seat of a car who can't talk to each other, they stare out opposite windows and pretend the other doesn't exist.
1. The first notion is that the orbit of planets is due to a state of equilibrium between the gravity pull of the sun and
an original straight-line forward motion of the planet. This notion assumes the planet got caught in the gravity of
the sun to the extent that it is in a perpetual tug of war between this gravity pull and its momentum on the
original path. The fact that, almost invariably, all the planets orbit in the same direction is presumed to be due to
the original path of the planets being conveniently all in the same direction. Conveniently, that is, for the notion.
2. The second notion describes another phenomenon that is also visible and measurable to humans - perturbations.
Perturbations are known to man as they can observe and record the actions of two planets passing each other in
their orbits. The smaller one will speed up upon approach to the larger, due to the gravity tug between the two,
and after passing will slow down in a comparable manner, lingering as it were. The larger planet has also been
perturbed, and however slightly has slowed to meet the approaching smaller planet and likewise will try to tag
along with the exiting smaller planet. If neither planet were in motion, it could be argued that the speed of the
orbits should net out so they are returned to the same point. Both planet orbits have also altered in their shapes,
but as this challenges the first human notion it is never addressed.
There are several problems for humans here, none of which are addressed due to the discomfort factor. While the
larger planet is slowing to pull toward the smaller planet, on its approach, the smaller planet finds the larger coming to
meet it and increases its speed toward the larger somewhat due to this. The point of passage is not equidistant in the perturbation swath, it is placed toward the early part of the drama, due to this, with the rush to meet being quicker and
taking place in a shorter period of time than the lingering exiting phase. Since the two planets are traveling in the same
direction, they spend more time together during the exiting phase than the approach.
If either the larger or smaller planet were standing still, the human argument that the speed of orbit is compensated
upon approach and exit might be valid, but as they are both moving, the perturbation is not equal on both sides. Net -
the smaller planet should be slowed overall in its orbital speed, as it has the larger planet in close proximity behind it for a longer period of time. This is due to the larger planet tagging along behind the smaller planet. Net - the larger
planet should be sped up overall in its orbital speed, as it is being encouraged to chase the smaller planet now ahead of it for a longer period of time. This should be intuitively obvious to humans, who find the car slows more, overall, the
longer the brakes are applied. To state that the length of time is irrelevant would be absurd.
More than the speed of the orbit is affected when orbiting planets perturb each other, the shape of the orbits is also
affected. Given a smaller planet passing on an inside track and orbiting at a faster speed, the smaller planet will pull
outward toward the larger during passage. Thus, its orbit has been changed, as for a period of time it is tracking along
in a wider curve, at a greater distance from its sun. According to the human explanation for orbits - that they represent
an equilibrium between the planets forward motion and the gravity tug from the sun such that the forward motion has
been bent into a curve, and that the equilibrium is maintained by centrifugal force caused by the continuing tug of the
forward motion - this new orbit shape should be maintainable with no need for the planet to return to its pre-
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s83.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:17 AM]
ZetaTalk: Perturbations
perturbation state.
We have asserted that the equilibrium of orbits is maintained by a combination of not only the gravity tug from the sun
but also by the repulsion force that has been generated between the planet and its sun, and the planets being swept
ahead of rotating energy fields thrown out from the sun like long sweeping arms. That the perturbed planets return to
their pre-perturbation state is in line with our explanation, not the human explanation for orbits. Nevertheless, our
explanation is called wacky and the dictates of the gods of science whom childish humans cling to in their desperate
need for security in an uncertain world once again perpetuate the Dark Ages of Astronomy, which are with mankind
still.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s83.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:17 AM]
ZetaTalk: Centrifugal Force
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Centrifugal Force
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997.
Motion is not a thing, immutable, unchangeable, eternal, once born at the start, as during a big bang or whatever, never
to go away. Motion is not a thing, it is a result, a reaction, and as such it changes. Human astronomers explain orbits
as a balance between a straight line motion tangental to the sun and a gravity tug to the side, and assume that the
forward motion is translated into a centrifugal force that never erodes as it is a thing. This looks good on paper, but
examine the reality a bit closer and the contradictions and inadequacy of that argument emerge.
Each time an orbiting object corrects its straight line path due to gravity tug, its straight line path would be diminished
in its intensity. Is this not the case in your all-too-familiar situation of having to put on the brakes when driving? The
car is in motion along a flat plane, propelled continuously only as long as the foot is on the gas pedal. This equates to
the forward or tangential motion of the planet. Should one brake simultaneously while still stepping on the gas, the car
slows. This equates to the interference in the orbiting planet's tangential motion caused by gravity. Now take the foot
off the pedal, and you do not have the same forward motion as before. It was not a thing, but a reaction, and now it is a reaction to the push caused by the foot on the gas while starting from the car's state of rest.
Just so, the orbiting planet requires a continual push, from something, in order to continue to move. Left without this
push, the object would steadily spiral into the sun, and humans would scarcely have had time to evolve into intelligent
creatures pondering this scenario as the spiral would not take all that long! This spiral is what happens to your Earth
orbiting satellites, which are often kept aloft only due to a puff now and then from the jets built into them. Left alone,
they spiral to Earth, the gravity tug affecting their forward motion each instant. The gravity tug is not strictly a
sideways tug, as in all cases the planet's path is pointed away from the sun, however slightly. For any given instant
moment:
1. draw a line representing the planet's straight line path,
2. draw a second line representing the path the planet is being set upon by the gravity tug, essentially a second
tangent to the sun,
3. the angle between these two lines is the degree of backward tug that the planet is experiencing.
Thus, there is erosion in the forward motion, which is not a thing but a reaction. In order to keep the planet
continuously revolving, there must be a push, and a push there is. It is caused by the swirling matter in the sun's core, which creates fields of influence such as magnetic fields that affect the orbiting planets to varying degrees depending
upon their composition. Why do you suppose that planets orbit all in the same direction? Is it by accident that this
same pattern presents in all solar systems? Retrograde planet motion is the extreme exception, so the fact that planets
invariably revolve in the same direction should be a compelling clue to anyone seeking an explanation for why planets
continue to revolve.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s84.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:18 AM]
ZetaTalk: Satellite Orbits
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Satellite Orbits
Note: written on Mar 15, 1996.
From the Moon, the Earth looks quite round, though is it anything but round. The Earth is lumpy, all her land mass on
one side so that her gravity center is a bit more landside than seaside. And with her waters bulging at the equator, she
tends to be squat with a bit of spread about the middle, so a circling satellite would appear to be lower over the equator
than in fact it actually is, in relationship to the gravity center.