- View SourceB1 and all,
When I went to PlanetX.com, I found that it looked like a hoax at
first, then as I dug into the details,l began to get the idea that there was
a whole lot more to be found. The person I talked to also said that the Bible
has records which would support the 3,300 year orbit story.
Truth based upon accuracy in any area, makes criticism based on
ignorance or a controlling desire, rediculous. Not taking responsible action
due to fear of some side affect can be the mother of defeat, ultimate
failure, or death. One who speaks always on the negative side is likely
controlled by fear of revealing catastrophic inferiority or dictation.
The power available to turn the earth faster is here and now
turning the earth at aproximately 1,000 miles per hour. If this power is
focused to make it able to increase the spin by simply focusing of conductive
placement and paths, then conceiving of a force that can do it is not such a
Making the jump to conceive of the processes of theSolar
Electrojet has been a problem because so much of the accepted lor of Science
has been founded upon guessing. Guesses like, "The earth turns on its axis
because it always has, by momentum." which because it was not confronted as
unreasonable, had become accepted. Here is another one, "Gravity is what
holds the planets in orbit". "Gravity" has no rules which describe why the
planets are arranged in a flat circular pattern, nor demonstrates why the
planets all go in the same direction around the Sun, nor why the total lined
up configuration of the planets known as Perigy syzigy, does NOT cause the
building up of momentum that would combine force and be much more of a
problem IF the definition of gravity were consistent with observed phenomena.
I.E. If the Perrigy Syzigy tides behavior were consistent with laws of
defined gravity, then every such line up of the planets would cause
consistently high tides. This does not happen. When a NorEaster happens
with the line up there is a great increase in the tides highth and
destruction. I believe the high winds that cause the destruction and higher
tides is caused by the availability of undischarged Solar Electrojet current
by any storm at sea along the conveyor belt. So the SE Current on the belt
is available to seek the greater conductive grounding of the high tides and
come in, blow toward the land in those high places and increase the
It occurs to me that if NASA is tracking this threat that it is a
known threat that needs to be confronted. Walter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- View Source
> The person I talked to also said that the BibleI'm not familiar at all with anything in the Bible that would support
> has records which would support the 3,300 year orbit story.
this? Please provide the verses your friend is referring to.
> Guesses like, "The earth turns on its axisconfronted as
> because it always has, by momentum." which because it was not
> unreasonable, had become accepted.That's because its true. Think of something as heave as a planet and
turn it at 1000 mph, and you have a tremendous amount of momentum.
Even so, the Earth is in fact gradually slowing down in its rotation
due to tidal drag. Every few years a "leap second" is added to
re-synchronize the atomic clocks to Earth's rotation.
>Here is another one, "Gravity is whatwhy the
> holds the planets in orbit". "Gravity" has no rules which describe
> planets are arranged in a flat circular pattern, nor demonstrateswhy the
> planets all go in the same direction around the Sun, nor why thetotal lined
> up configuration of the planets known as Perigy syzigy, does NOTcause the
> building up of momentum that would combine force and be much more of aphenomena.
> problem IF the definition of gravity were consistent with observed
Well, I have no idea what Perrigy Syzigy is. However, gravity has
nothing to do with why the planets are all in a relatively flat disk,
and going in the same direction. It has to do with the way the solar
system was formed originally.
> It occurs to me that if NASA is tracking this threatthat it is a
> known threat that needs to be confronted. WalterThey aren't. I would like to see if you have proof to the contrary,