Re: (no subject)
> 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,