Where a repelling force exists, such as the solar wind against a comet, the comet will veer out upon approach and as it
gains speed coming into the Solar System, veer in again. The increasing speed of comets allows them to push past their
sensitivity to the solar wind, to some degree. Thus they have a quick trip around the Sun while held at the distance
where they are essentially getting a blast of wind they cannot proceed against.
The solar wind is steady, its change incremental, as with every measure closer the intensity increases by a similar
steady measure. The length away that the comet maintains is not explained by an analogy such as a car hitting a brick
wall or a diver entering the water or even a man walking into a hurricane. The comet is slipping to the side as it
approaches, going in the direction of least pressure, of least resistance, while still aiming for the Sun. The point where
this balance is reached is dependent on the speed of the comet, which increases steadily the closer it gets to the Sun,
and the intensity of the blast from the solar wind. At every point along its orbit, these determinators are at play. When
out in space the comet's pace is relatively sedate, and thus slides to the side rather than approaching the Sun directly.
When it enters your Solar System the reverse is occurring - the speed effect overcoming the solar wind push, so that
the comet curves toward the Sun, but always these two factors are at play.
Quite clearly some comets are periodic, as they appear regularly after a set number of years, approach from the same
direction, turn around within the Solar System at the same place, exit the Solar System in the same direction, and give
the same predictable appearance. But comets that have a long period have been documented in the past in a manner
that leaves much doubt. Where astronomers within this very millennium assumed the Sun orbited the Earth, just how
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s50.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:21 AM]
ZetaTalk: Repeating Comets
accurate can their records have been? And how does one know that a previous comet is returning, even when it
approaches from the same direction? Is it not possible to have more than one comet with the same track through the
Solar System? Humans are barely out of the Dark Ages, and if honest would admit that they are guessing. Do they
have these comets marked? Do they have an accurate basis of comparison? What are they judging on, the pencil sketch
made by someone in antiquity?
Humans think that because mankind spots comets as they loom into range, announcing themselves by outgassing
as they enter the Solar System, that human scientists know where the comet has been, and know what its orbit
has been. They do not. They can't find these tiny dark specks when they are out in space. When they catch sight
of them, the comet orbits are already taking into account their sensitivity to the solar wind. This curve starts well
outside the Solar System, a fact known by astronomers.
Humans think that a comet's orbit is maintained by its momentum. Of the factors affecting a tiny comet that
approaches the Sun, the force of its current momentum is not dominant. Any child who has thrown a ball and
watched it drop toward the Earth as it sped along its trajectory can sense this. Archers allow for this in
attempting to hit their target, aiming above the trajectory to account for the drop. Momentum is an effect, not a
cause. What caused the momentum if not gravity. A ball thrown in space, where there is no gravitational
influences nearby, will continue apace, but a gravity pull behind its path will slow it down. When a comet is
leaving your Solar System, it is heading at an essentially straight line away. Gravity behind the comet slows it
down, and thus the momentum disappears.
Humans see but what is essentially the end result of a comet's orbit, or at least that portion of the orbit that
involves the Sun's gravity. The tiny comet, dark until it enters the Solar System where it flares under the
influence of the Sun, cannot be located by humans while it is out in space. They assume that the orbit is broader
or at least as broad, when out in space, as that seen when the comet becomes visible. It is not. As we have
explained in detailing the 12th Planet's entry into the Solar System, comets aim for the Sun, and if influenced
away from the Sun by any factor, adjust their orbit away from the Sun. Then, as they near the Sun and, caught in
the grip of this giant's gravity pull, accelerate, the increasing speed allows them to come closer. Humans only see
that part of the orbit where the initial adjustment away from the Sun has already occurred. They see but half the
picture.
The human argument that the long orbit can be determined by the angle of entry, the parabolic curve, is therefore
absurd. Some long period comets have several foci, and some only one. Just how does blind man, peeping up from a
planet he cannot leave, looking out from a Solar System he has never left, know how many foci this or that comet
has? Since a parabola and even an ellipse smoothes to an essentially straight line, how do they know how far that
straight line goes before a turn around is effected? They do not. They are guessing.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s50.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:21 AM]
ZetaTalk: Ephemeris
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Ephemeris
Note: written on Oct 15, 1995. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
Ephemeris are mankind's best efforts at predicting the behavior of comets. They take into consideration the direction
and speed of a comet, when first sighted, and apply math that has proved true of previous comets. Most of the time
this works. When it does not astronomers tell themselves a variable came into play, such as the gravitational pull of a
nearby planet or that something internal within the comet caused it to behave in an abnormal manner. The ephemeris
are assumed to be correct. They are not. Humans have backed into their formulas for explaining the motion of the
planets, and gravity on the surface of their planet. They tried one theory on after another, until one seemed to work
most of the time. Then they congratulate themselves on arriving at the ultimate answer, which will stay on the pedestal
until it fails to answer some physical phenomena, new to their arena.
The human understanding of Orbital Physics is based on what they have observed. They backed into their
understanding, their mathematical theories, based on what they had seen. Thus, when they plot the orbit of an object
tracking in a familiar manner, they plot it reasonably well. This does not mean that the math is accurate or correct. It
only means that their descriptions, up until now, have worked in the main. We are not saying that human equations fail
to predict comet orbits. We say the base understanding of the full comet orbit is incomplete. We say the theories about
where comets come from is incorrect. We say the explanation of why comets don't all go into the Sun is wrong. If the
mailman comes by each morning about 10:00 o'clock, the child may make up any number of complicated theories