THE SLING ORBIT OF PLANET X

Binary Suns

The Zetas, and only the Zetas, have described the orbit of Planet X as a sling orbit.
Planet X is a rogue planet that slings through our solar system every 3,657 years or so.
This makes it a planet of our solar system, but one only appearing in ancient records because it seems to disappear into space between passages.
Why does it sling, and not go round and round like Earth and the other planets?
Coming out of the Big Bang, when the suns and planets were forming and clumping, Planet X started this sling orbit by going around TWO suns.
It slings back and forth past them like a pendulum, and cannot stop this pattern, once started.
Two suns?
We know our sun is one of them, what's the other one?
Most suns are binaries, dancing around each other in a perpetual dance, but our sun appears to be a singular sun.
This is only because its binary, the second sun in the pair, never lit, and thus as a dark hunk out in space we do not see it.
Our sun and its binary pair also do not have a frenetic dance, but are stationary, which may be one reason the sling orbit of Planet X was able to set in place.
Using the terminology of astronomers, because of the many debates done on the sci.astro Usenet boards, the suns are called a focus of the orbit, or foci, when in the plural.

ZetaTalk: Second Foci, written Oct 15, 1995

The Earth and the dark star that is the second foci of [Planet X]'s orbit do not rotate around each other any more than the planets in your Solar System rotate around each other. The reason for the latter is that the Sun dominates the planets, and their influence on each other becomes the lesser voice. In like manner your Sun and this dark star, of a comparable size, are caught in a larger net and are essentially motionless within your Galaxy. This net exists for all the stars in your Galaxy, as elsewhere, and is the reason the stars in the sky do not lose their position and float toward each other. It is not that they are so far apart that they do not influence each other. Influence, however slight, is always there. It is rather that influences have been balanced to where an equilibrium is reached. To you, who see that distance is maintained, it looks like the lack of influence. It is balanced influence. Were you to have seen your galaxy born, clumping into masses with these masses first attracted and then to some degree repulsed by each other, motion initiated as a result of these opposing forces, you would intuitively understand that large bodies that cease motion do so not because there is no influence upon them and not because they were not at one time in motion, but because they came to a situation where they essentially are in a dither.

The influences upon them are balanced. This second foci of [Planet X] has not been located by your astronomers because it is dark, not lit, and does not happen to block any view your astronomers are particularly interested in. They think it empty space. Unlike the Sun, this dark twin never lit. Although comparable in size and mass, its composition was subtly different, and it has no potential for becoming a lit sun under the present conditions in your part of the Universe. It has no planets of any size to mention, though is orbited by a lot of trash. Should one wish to search for it, it stands at an angle of 11 degrees off the Earth's orbital plane around the Sun, in the same direction we have given for the approach of [Planet X]. Not being a luminous body, and not giving off any radiation detectable by human devices, you will be unable to locate it, but this does not mean that it is not there. Do you, like a child with his hands over his eyes, think that if you cannot see something that it does not exist?

In fact, this second foci, the binary twin of our Sun, gives evidence that it is there, pulling as a gravity center, as our outer planets LEAN in that direction, and 13 long period comets also pull in that direction.
Obviously, something besides Planet X, which is just another planet, is out there!
This is the reason NASA and JPL went looking in that direction, in the early 1980's
This subject came up during the sci.astro debates in 1998, during a debate with Jim Scotti, who is an astronomer, well known in fact, who works out of the Tucson observatory, famously known as the Pope Scope because the Pope buys time there to peer into the southern skies, looking for Planet X.
Naturally, Jim denied that anyone was looking for the Sun's binary twin, or that during the search they discovered Planet X as a rogue planet slinging past both suns in it's pendulum orbit.

Article: <6ftpjo$e7j@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Planet X/12th Planet Search in Early 1980's
Date: 1 Apr 1998 16:22:16 GMT

In article <6fs4n2$g2i$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> Now who was "frantically searching" for Planet X in the 1980s?

Then the Zetas reply.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
YOU were, among others. What does it take to get articles published in magazines like Newsweek and Astronomy and on the front page of the Washington Post? A nap?
(End ZetaTalk)

And I list the magazines and article titles.

Astronomy magazine, Dec '81, article
"Search for the Tenth Planet
Astronomy, October '82, article
"Searching for a 10th Planet
Newsweek, June 28, 1982, article
"Does the Sun Have a Dark Companion?
US News World Report, Sept 10, 1984, article
"Planet X - Is It Really Out There?
Washington Post, 31-Dec-1983, a front page story
"Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered"

Jim Scotti comes back a couple days later with a reply.

Article: <6g2rbs$p88@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Search in Early 1980's
Date: 3 Apr 1998 14:22:52 GMT

In article <6fuac3$dr4$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> All these articles discuss the possibility of a new planet and
> maybe even some unconfirmed reports, but they are not
> scientific proof that there was a planet found or that there
> is a cover-up.

And I quote from various magazine articles in the early 1980's

Astronomy magazine, Dec '81, discussion on Planet X
:: However, tiny Pluto is 100 to 1,000 times too small to fully
:: account for Uranus' wobble, according to Thoman Van
:: Flandern of the USNO.

Astronomy magazine, Oct '82, discussion on Planet X on page 62.
:: Both Uranus and Neptune follow irregular paths that
:: observers can explain only by assuming the presence
:: of an unknown body whose gravity tugs at the two planets.
:: Astronomers originally though Pluto might be the body
:: perturbing its neighbors, but the combined mass of Pluto
:: and its moon, Charon, is too small for such a role.

Newsweek magazine, June 28 '82, a short article on page 83.
:: A "dark companion" could produce the unseen force that
:: seems to tug at Uranus and Neptune, speeding them up at
:: one point in their orbits and holding them back as they pass.
:: the best bet is a dark star orbiting at
:: least 50 billion miles beyond Pluto, which is 3.6 billion miles
:: from the sun. It is most likely either a brown dwarf - a
:: lightweight star that never attained the critical mass needed
:: to ignite - or else a neutron star, the remnants of a normal sun
:: that burned out and collapsed.
:: A companion star
:: would tug the outer planets, not just Uranus and Neptune,
:: says Thomas Van Flavern of the U.S Naval Observatory.

The articles switched their focus after the 1983 discovery of Planet X, approaching our solar system.
They were no longer searching for the binary twin of the Sun, the gravity force, but on the approaching monster planet,
a planet on the move and coming our way!

Washington Post, 31-Dec-1983, a front page story,
Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered
:: A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet
:: Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be
:: part of this solar system has been found in the direction
:: of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard
:: the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite.

US News World Report, Sept 10, 1984, article on page 74
:: Shrouded from the sun's light, mysteriously tugging at
:: the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, is an unseen force that
:: astronomers suspect may be Planet X - a 10th resident
:: of the Earth's celestial neighborhood. Last year, the
:: infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS), circling in a polar
:: orbit 560 miles from the Earth, detected heat from an
:: object about 50 billion miles away that is now the subject
:: of intense speculation.

Sling Orbit

Sling orbits such as the one Planet X assumes are not unheard of, but are described a LONG elliptical orbits when NASA finds one of them.

New rebel planet found outside solar system
It's roller-coaster orbit stuns scientists
October 23, 1996.

A new planet that breaks all the rules about how and where planets form has been identified in orbit of a twin star about 70 light years from Earth in a constellation commonly known as the Northern Cross. The new planet has a roller-coaster like orbit that swoops down close to its central star and then swings far out into frigid fringes, following a strange egg-shaped orbit that is unlike that of any other known planet.

So having the orbits of planets affected by more than one gravity center, more than one foci, is not unheard of.
The Zetas say that this second foci, the binary twin of our Sun, stands 18.74 Sun-Pluto distances away.
Not that far away, when you think of it, right in the neighborhood.
So why does it take so long, 3,657 years, for Planet X to sling past that dark binary sun and return, like a pendulum swinging back and forth?
Because when it gets in the center, it dithers.

ZetaTalk: Comet Orbit, written Aug 15, 1995

The path [of Planet X] is elliptical, making a long flat circle around its two gravitational masters, your Sun and a body you cannot see. The Sun's alter ego in this matter is not an object on your sky maps, but for the purposes of calculating the orbit [of Planet X], you can assume it be have the same mass as the Sun, and to be at a distance that allows the curve of the ellipse to smooth to an essentially straight line between the two orbital foci. The travels [of Planet X] are not unlike a train on parallel tracks, where the train is on one side of the tracks going in one direction, and on the other side coming back. It will surprise you to know that the second foci is not that far away. Since it rivals the Sun in mass, the assumption would be that your astronomers would know about it. However, being dark, they stare past it and think it space. To use multiples of the distance from your Sun to its farthest known orbiting planet, which you call Pluto, this foci is from the Sun 18.724 times as far away. The elliptical path of [Planet X] does little direct damage to the planets in your Solar System, which are lined up on a plane with each other. [Planet X]comes in on an angle, such that it is only the Point of Passage where a direct collision could occur. This point, at the present time, is not in the orbital path of any of your Solar System planets, although that was not the case in the distant past as your Asteroid Belt attests.

For this pole shift, we estimate that the Earth will be on the same side as [Planet X], at approximately an 18 degree angle from where [Planet X] comes closest to the Sun. Its return is on the other side of the Sun. On the return voyage, during this passage, the Earth will be protected by the Sun from a full impact, but mild earthquakes and heavy tides will recur at that time.Having passed by the Sun, [Planet X] now slows. The rate of slowing is dependent on two factors, essentially - its speed and the fact that both its gravitational masters are now behind it. As fast as the 12th Planet picked up speed approaching your Sun, it slows even faster, the nearness of your Sun behind it no small factor in this. Nevertheless, for a traveling planet the size of [Planet X], putting on the brakes and turning about is no small matter. It must first come to a stop, which it does in approximately 2 years 3 months after passing your Sun. The orbit [of Planet X] takes it well away from the Sun after passage, so that it moves out a distance equal to 1/4 of the distance between the Sun and its other foci before it slows to a stop. After passing through the Solar System, [Planet X] moves out on the opposite side some 3.560 times the distance from your Sun to its farthest planet, Pluto, then stops. It then hovers, not moving, essentially, for 3 years 6 months, and then slowly begins a return trip which telescopes or mirrors the voyage out.

Since the Zetas message about the return of Planet X is one that threatens the hold the establishment has on the populace, and they fear panic erupting if the populace learns that the government they are paying taxes to will not protect them or support them when a pole shift happens,
this description of the sling orbit came under ridicule and rejection during the sci.astro debates.
Under ridicule was the speed with which Planet X would have to travel, coming toward the solar system.

Article: <6ftpbo$6ku@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit
Date: 1 Apr 1998 16:18:00 GMT

In article <6fs4n2$g2i$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news again, Nancy, but if your
> [Planet X] is beyond 40 AU out, then it can't get here as
> [soon as] I heard you say in a recent post.
> Assumming it is coming in on a long elliptical orbit as you say
> and is still 40 AU out, than it will be 20 years before it arrives!
> If it's even further out, say at 100 AU, then it will arrive in
> 76 years. Obviously we'd see such an object with plenty of
> parallax.

And the Zetas replied.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
On what basis do you make this statement? The current sedate rate that
your familiar planets take, slowly circling the Sun, always within
their balanced range from the Sun? You have before you a recent
discovery of a planet on a long elliptical orbit that your science
CANNOT EXPLAIN! But you still insist on asserting that your math
explains ALL. Such is the arrogance of human astronomy.
(End ZetaTalk)

Not able to counter the Zetas argument except with an insult, Jim says.

Article: <6g2r58$bj4@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit
Date: 3 Apr 1998 14:19:20 GMT

In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> You don't understand the concept and the workings of an
> elliptical orbit.

But two can play at that game, the Zetas reply.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
Nor do YOU! You put into your equations only what you have SEEN, or what they present back to you is likely to occur base on what you have seen. When you come upon something you have not seen before, they you re-compute and get smug again. Smug is hardly the word, and arrogant is still too mild for the behavior of elite astronomers who have just recently had egg on their faces regarding their reversal on [comet] 1997 XF11. You don't ever make mistakes? You don't ever have to scratch your heads and go back to square one? What about the recent discovery that the Universe was not expanding more rapidly that supposed? Supposed is the operant word here, as this is what you DO! When you find your previous suppositions don't fit, you teak the math until it fits the new observation and then proclaim you know ALL. And when some things don't fit into the equation, you toss them out entirely.
(End ZetaTalk)

Retreating to the argument that human physics and math is sound, Jim states.

In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> Science can easily explain these "planets on long elliptical
> orbits", it's only the details of how things work that have
> perhaps not been worked out yet, but the laws of physics are
> not so easily dismissed.

And the Zetas reply.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
How can you make a pronouncement that OUR statements on the orbit of Planet X are utterly wrong, and in the next breath admit you cannot explain the orbits of two bodies recently discovered! You've just made our point for us. Thank you.
(End ZetaTalk)

Jim brings up the human astrophysics understanding that an orbit is always around one foci, not two,
and this foci is neither of the suns, but a point in space between the suns.

Article: <6g2r8a$3kh@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit
Date: 3 Apr 1998 14:20:58 GMT

In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> If it's to be here in 2003, then it can't be any further out than
> about 20 AU, unless, of course, it's not bound to our solar
> system, but then its not on a "long elliptical orbit". Once again,
> you have not learned what Johannes Kepler was able to figure
> out about 400 years ago about the motion of objects around
> our sun on elliptical orbits. You don't understand the concept
> and the workings of an elliptical orbit. The central body
> occupies only one of the two foci. The other is empty and has
> not affect on the motion of your [Planet X]. When it's near
> the other focus, it will be moving at its slowest, not "zipping".

And the Zetas reply.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
Now how could that be, logically? If you can't explain why an elliptical orbit is assumed, you place an imaginary body at a point in space to fit the math? It fits the equations of your Gods of physics, who must be worshiped, apparently, at all costs. If the math of orbits was worked out centuries ago, based on what they knew and had observed, then this same math must be applied. Is THAT logical? You're making the broad assumption that a body CANNOT orbit two foci. Why not? If all you have seen are objects looping far out in their orbits around a single foci, then this is all there is? It's a fact that most suns are binaries, and some so close at to give the appearance of barely keeping each other at arms length. Why should it be astonishing that a planet would institute an orbit around BOTH? Clearly, some of the new highly elliptical orbits recently discovered by your fellows show that orbiting bodies, much larger than dirty snowballs, are influenced by SOMETHING out there pulling on them. Are you saying it is impossible for a planet to orbit two suns?
Impossible?
(End ZetaTalk)

Then we get a concession.

Article: <6ganqt$am2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit
Date: 6 Apr 1998 14:11:41 GMT

In article <6g3109$qsc$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> A planet can orbit both suns in a binary star system.

And the Zetas want to press their advantage.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
You went through an elaborate statement to say you base your theories on orbits upon what you have OBSERVED - inverse square on Gravity and momentum conservation of energy rules. Bearing in mind that you have not OBSERVED a planet orbiting two suns, both suns in a binary system, what would that orbit look like? For the sake of moving this argument forward, we will assume for the moment that your orbital mechanics are correct, and not under challenge. Just paint for us what that orbit would look like. Not the several pages of math, but just something simple, in the manner you are so very skilled at employing. A simple verbal description of what such an orbit would look like. You have a head start in that your astronomy computer programs already ASSUME a second foci in elliptical orbits. Just put that foci out there, WAY out there, some 18.724 times as far as Pluto is from your Sun. Assume the same factors published prior to the search for Planet X, Van Flandern's statement that the perterbations observed in the outer planets would require a planet or brown dwarf 2 to 5 times as large as Earth. We are requesting for this discussion that you assume a planet 4 times as large as Earth, as this is our statement. Grant us this assumption in return for our granting you that YOUR assumption on orbital mechanics is correct, tit for tat, one concession for another, and since both assumptions are based on human assumption, you should have no objections. This hypothetical discussion would be no different from any other occuring on sci.astro in that regard, applying known physics, as you say, to a hypothetical situation. What would such an orbit, where a planet orbited both suns in a binary system, look like?
(End ZetaTalk)

But at this point, forced to discuss the sling orbit the Zetas have described for Planet X,
the one going around two binary suns 18.74 Sun-Pluto distances from each other,
Jim stops the debate and does not return.
This was April 6, 1998, so on April 10, the Zeta gave a nudge, but the debate was now one sided, Jim having left the floor.

Article: <6glvol$e7p@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 10 Apr 1998 20:34:29 GMT

(Begin ZetaTalk)
We will note you are avoiding an exercise we asked you to take, one that should be a piece of cake for you, Jim, as your computer program are setup to support this. We asked, a week ago, following your confirmation of our statement that a planet could orbit both suns in a binary system, what such an orbit would look like, given the distance that we have, and the mass of this planet. Are you holding back because the results would confirm our description?
(End ZetaTalk)

Just another example of Zetas RIGHT Again!

Gravity Centers

The issue of what would CAUSE a sling orbit came up repeatedly, since all known orbits are round and round.
Per the Zetas, it is having two gravity pulls behind it when the pendulum swings to a far side that causes Planet X to turn around and come back.
And it is momentum that causes it to travel from one Sun to the other.

ZetaTalk: Sling Orbit, written during the 2001 sci.astro debates

There is confusion, in understanding the nature of the Planet X eccentric orbit and the effect it and your Sun's dark binary twin have, because man is struggling to reconcile this new information with existing astrophysics theories and the math formulas used to describe them. Somehow they all must fit, and they don't. The problem lies with the theories and formulas, though few throw them aside as then they feel adrift, without an anchor. The insecure slam shut the doors, close out new information, and develop the closed-mind syndrome recently under discussion here on sci.astro. For those not closed minded, we will describe the eccentric orbit of Planet X, between your Sun and its dark twin. This unlit binary sun lies some 18.74 times the distance from your Sun to Pluto, at a 11 degree angle from the ecliptic, in the direction of the constellation of Orion. Though farther away, twice the distance or more, from where Planet X rides at the moment, it is a large gravitational giant, and thus between these two binaries Planet X is caught in a highly elliptical orbit. This orbit does not fit into man's astrophysics theories, and thus it cannot be described by the math used by man to describe comet or orbit behavior. Yet the orbit makes sense, if one puts the dictates of man's current theories aside.

There is a desk-top toy composed of several metal balls hung in a line from a wooden frame, which when set in motion causes the end balls to swing out, then return to bump all the balls in the row until the ball on the opposite end swings out in an equal manner, thence continuing until gravity wears the motion down to a stop. This toy is a simple example that an object will stop, when "escaping" a gravity pull, and return toward that gravity pull by reversing its course. The back and forth sling is a return trip, as the toy demonstrates. The difference between Planet X and the desk-top toy is that the toy had its major gravity pull in the center, bringing the motion to a stop, where Planet X has dual gravitational pulls at the ends of its sling orbit, which keeps the slinging motion going.

Naturally, the sling orbit described was discounted by those debating the Zetas on sci.astro in 1998.
The argument was that such an orbit and the speed required during passage of any one of its suns would slings it so far out of the solar system that it could not return.
Planet X would just keep on going.
A term used to describe this, in astrophysics, is escape velocity.

Article: <6ghcrq$r6g@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Distance at Present
Date: 9 Apr 1998 02:47:22 GMT

In article <6ge0kn$onh@pmgm.Stanford.EDU> John Ladasky writes:
> The escape velocity of the Sun is 617 km/sec! Therefore it
> is IMPOSSIBLE for this imaginary object to be in an
> elliptical orbit around the sun. It would be moving too fast.
> The orbit would have to be hyper- bolic, and the object cannot
> return to the solar system.

And the Zetas reply.

(Begin ZetaTalk)
Impossible? You stated with smug assurance the age of the Universe a year ago, and now an impossible date has been hurridly calculated to take into account some new information based on observations. My my, it's impossible only until it is demonstrated NOT to be impossible. Sound traveling silently through the air as it passes between a ball held in front of one man and arrives into a box in front of another? Impossible until radio waves became common place. You are a fool to use that word! You diminish yourself, as we know you are no fool. The odd factor giving you fits is your stupid "escape velocity" factor, in which you imagine that speed is what allows an object to exit the solar system, and that this SPEED is a constance, the cause, the silly conservation of motion rules that NO LONGER FIT INTO YOUR EQUATIONS BUT YOU STILL CLING TO. Speed is a factor of attraction and repulsion, NOT a constant that rules.
(End ZetaTalk)

Jim Scotti came to the rescue at this point, being the senior astronomer and all,
touting mankinds accomplishments.

Article: <6glv9b$11d@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Distance at Present
Date: 10 Apr 1998 20:26:19 GMT

In article <6giqqq$qeg$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> 400 years of observation and calculation has shown that gravity
> and elliptical orbits (along with parabolic and hyperbolic orbits)
> go hand in hand (the detailed derivation of such can be found in
> any Celestial Mechanics textbook such as Danby's "Fundementals
> of Celestial Mechanics"
> We've accurately predicted the last 4
> returns of comet Halley and hundreds of its short-period comet
> cousins along with all the planets, asteroids, and most recently
> have sent manmade spacecraft to the moon and planets using
> exactly this theory of gravity.

And the Zetas responded:

(Begin ZetaTalk)
You are replacing an EXPLANATION with a DESCRIPTION! We've made this statement perhaps hundreds of times on this Usenet. Your posture is no different from a 2 year old stating the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it because he observes this and can predict this will be the case the next day, or when he walks to the horizon and still sees the horizon flat before him! Would you allow this to stand? You'd say, in a superior and smug way, that he would have to place his childish theories up against what YOU have observed, and RECONCILE them. Well, we're asking little Jim to do the same.
(End ZetaTalk)

Jim replies:

In article <6giqqq$qeg$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> We've successfully predicted the return of Halley's comet since Sir > Edmund Halley himself predicted the 1758 return.

And the Zetas say:

(Begin ZetaTalk)
The 2 year old with the flat Earth theory, the Earth the center of the Universe theory, could point to some 700 repeated occurences. Does that make him right? Does his theory and observations line up with other known facts?
(End ZetaTalk)

Per the Zetas, what causes Planet X to turn around at the end of its pendulum swing and return is that the Sun's gravity pull is the STRONGEST voice in the vicinity.
The Zetas point out that since there is no friction in space, that speed for such a traveling planet in a sling orbit can be much more than mankind assumes.

ZetaTalk: Escape Velosity, written during the 2001 sci.astro debates

Mankind is not oriented with how fast objects can travel in space. They are held to the concept of speed on the surface of Earth, where friction is a factor. When traveling on the surface, there is drag from the atmosphere or from water, so there is a finite speed attainable. When leaving the surface, an object is fighting gravity, a struggle. And when trying to get to Mars or the other planets, for a peek, a probe is propelled by jets and a limited amount of fuel, so does not attain speed. But in all these cases there is either: 1. friction or drag, 2. lack of impetus. Mankind sees the planets floating about in their orbits and think this the speed that planets attain. But space does not offer friction or drag, so this element is utterly missing. And when there are large objects gravitationally attracted to each other, no jets or fuel supplies need be a limiting factor. Thus, when approaching the Sun, in a direct line that has not had the Repulsion Force invoked as yet, Planet X has no brakes. How fast is fast? During the passage, it has not achieved the maximum speed that such a traveling world might. It has just started to step on the gas.

During its rapid approach into the solar system, Planet X assumed a speed close to the speed of light.

ZetaTalk: Speed, written during the 2001 sci.astro debates

Speed, in space, is a relative thing. Your submarines move more slowly than your cars because they deal with less drag. Likewise, objects shot into space or incoming feel little distress when out where the atmosphere is negligible, and tend to heat up and burn when in the thick of Earth's atmosphere. Thus, objects in space have no ill effects from a high speed, other than what they might encounter. In the dozen or so years prior to a passage, Planet X speeds up from almost a standstill to a zoom, toward the foci it is approaching. Imagine the Earth without atmosphere, and a rock some miles overhead. What is the speed limit on this rock as it plummets? There is no limit in space, only that which mankind assumes. During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been surmised that the speed of Planet X approaches the speed of light during its most rapid approach, and this astonishes those in the discussion. Why is it assumed that light is the fastest thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because it is something he can measure. He is aware of such a small percentage of matter and energy about him that to say that he comprehends 1% of what the universe is composed of would be an overstatement. Our space travel is faster than light, and we do not melt. Man does not understand, so we cannot give him satisfaction in our explanations.

Repulsion Force

Planet X zooms into the solar system, and then slows as it nears the Sun, dramatically so. Why?
Because of the Repulsion Force, an anti-gravity force,
which is in essence gravity particles blowing out from a gravity sink.
Gravity particles drift toward the Sun, pulling the planets toward the Sun,
but when there is an accumulation inside the Sun they burst forth outward in a laser type outburst.
The drifting toward the gravity sink, the Sun, most affects the planets being kept as satellites around the Sun,
because it is a steady pull,
Whereas the laser outburst is sudden and quick.
Overall, the pull toward the Sun is present more often, and prevails as the dominant gravity feature.

ZetaTalk: Speed, written during the 2001 sci.astro debates

Planet X is, of course, drawn by the gravity pull of the Sun, and thus its periodic passage. But it is also pushed away by the gravity particle streams emitted by the Sun, which can be described as a fire hose of force, meeting the fire hose of force from Planet X itself. They buffer away from each other, forcing the speeding Planet X to bypass the Sun, at a distance based on its mass and the mass of the Sun. The reducing mass of the Sun explains why Planet X is coming closer, during its passage, at the present time, than its past passage which were through the Asteroid Belt. Were Planet X to encounter a small object, such as occurred in the Asteroid Belt in the past, it would either be treated like a meteor or if large enough become a moon satellite of Planet X as many objects have. The pelting to pieces that occured in the Asteroid Belt was due to collisions of objects not of significant size enough to invoke the Repulsion Force. Small planets, passing close to Planet X during its high-speed passage, might become a satellite moon, or be pelted to pieces by one of Planet X's trailing moons, though this has not occurred except in the heavily crowded Asteroid Belt, which contained some 24 planets and various moons of same prior to the past passages.

But where zooming through the Asteroid Belt, Planet X slows dramatically when it reaches the Sun, due to the intense hosing of gravity particles known as the Repulsion Force.
But there are other slowing influences, such as particle flows moving out of the Sun at it's middle.
Per the Zetas, it is a crowded Ecliptic, and as Planet X is trying to pierce the Ecliptic, coming through the solar system at a slight angle from the South to the North
Planet X is plowing through a headwind!

ZetaTalk: Slowing Influences, written May 18, 2002

When moving from the mid-point of its orbit between its two foci, the Sun and its dark twin some 18.74 Sun-Pluto distances away, the speed of passage is:

* at first slow as the gravity particles pulling it toward the Sun are scarcely more than the gravity particles pulling it toward the dark [binary sun]
* exponentially faster as the gravity particles increase at this rate the closer Planet X gets to the Sun
* without impediment when afar from the solar system as represented by the planets orbiting the Sun, alone
* increasing in essence at an exponential speed when approaching this solar system complex
* decreased dramatically at about the orbit of Mars by the braking action of the Repulsion Force, at last strong enough to counter the inbound plunge toward the Sun
* slow to a floating rate so that it floats past the Earth during the week of rotation stoppage, which is the point it is also floating past the Sun, rather than zoom past
* increase in speed to leave the inner solar system as the laser blasts of gravity particles coming from the Sun added to the momentum past the Sun already in place combine to speed it on its way.

Many of these concepts, the Repulsion Force and the crowded Ecliptic, came under ridicule when presented on the sci.astro Usenet board in 1998.
The Repulsion Force is what holds the Moon up there, as it is way to large and moving way to slowly to be held up there by centrifugal force.
Remember as a child, holding an object at the end of a string, going round and round and keeping it aloft?
Remember how FAST you had to be going to keep it aloft?
The discussion on sci.astro started with I, Nancy, suggesting we replace the nebulous term 'mass' in two equations that describe where the Moon is, and why it stays up there, with 'weight', the weight of granite.
After all, the Moon does not have a molten core, and is rock.
The two equations were the inverse square law, which more or less describes that the closer an object gets to a gravity draw, the stronger that gravity pull becomes, and second, Newton's law which describes how fast an object must be orbiting another to stay aloft.
During the debate, I, Nancy, was rescued by a couple mathematicians who took over the computations, so this was, in essence, THEIR math.

Article: <6k3ul7$kif@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 22 May 1998 13:30:15 GMT

My challenge to the astronomers on sci.astro

>> So what you are saying is that you calculate the mass by
>> placing it opposite your orbital mechanics equations, and
>> then you point to the way these balance, the numbers on
>> the left and right side of the equal sign, and crow about
>> how accurate your math is!

>> Try plugging in a REAL
>> estimate of the weight of the Moon. Solid rock, with x
>> radius, and what number do you come up with? You have
>> a monster Moon up there, drifting slowly around its
>> gravitation attraction.

>> Intuitively, is seems it should be
>> dropping to Earth and not losing any time doing so. If
>> you use REAL numbers for its mass, your orbital mechanics
>> go out the window, do they not?

Or as the Zetas stated the issue:

(Begin ZetaTalk)
Per your fellow, M.C. Harrison, the force of gravity is equal to the force BETWEEN two objects, and one
must take them both into consideration. Take the weight of a square foot of granite, on the surface of your Earth, and use that as a constant for mass, as some constant must exist. Calculate the weight, then, of the Earth, and likewise the Moon, and thus produce F, the force of gravity between them in a manner the common man can relate to. Two masses of solid granite, or nearly so, pulling toward each other.
(Begin ZetaTalk)

The math computations covered
diameter of the Earth and the Moon
volume of a sphere, thence volume of Earth and Moon
weight of granite
computed metric tons for Earth and Moon
gravity pull for inverse square law, using weight of the two objects, Earth and Moon, and distance
and the orbital speed of the Moon.

The Britannica states to be the supersonic speed that the Concord flies, when breaking the sound barrier, is 1,200 mph, 533.33 m/second.
Stationary satellites must travel 4,635.7155 m/second to stay aloft.
So the Moon is traveling at the rate of a Concord, while weighting the equivalent of 23 million, trillion tons!
Note the weight of the Moon has been adjusted DOWN from its actual weight on the surface of the Earth, reduced because it is at a distance, so the REAL pull on the Moon is equivalent to a hunk 23 million, trillion tons, riding just off the surface of the Earth, and moving much slower than a satellite would have to move to stay aloft!
Does this make sense?
It's not centrifugal force keeping that Moon up there, it's the Repulsion Force as described by the Zetas.
The Zetas replied.

Article: <6l90uv$ibn@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 5 Jun 1998 14:56:31 GMT

(Begin ZetaTalk)
Your astronomers, unable to bring all their equations and physics together on one page, are telling you that your Moon, at an adjusted weight of 23 million trillion metric tons, could cruise along at 1/4 the speed of your stationary satellites, or only twice the speed of your Concord jets, and maintain it's place DUE TO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE! The theatre of the absurd is about to open.
(End ZetaTalk)

But this was defended, despite the evidence that mankind's two precious math formulas, the inverse square law and Newton's law for orbiting object, could NOT be put together on the same page, and make sense when real quantities were substituted for the abstract of mass.

Passage

So where are we now?
In 2003 Planet X did indeed zoom into the solar system, roaring up to the Sun, as was seen from Earth during the Summer of 2003.
Earth was on the opposite side of this drama, and the sunlight bouncing off the dust cloud shrouding Planet X created dramatic Second Sun sightings during that Summer.
Then it slowed, crept past the S Pole of the Sun, and is close to the Ecliptic now, fighting the particle flows coming back toward the Sun, fighting this headwind.

ZetaTalk: Dead on and Deadly, written Apr 3, 2006

Since the Earth encountered Planet X in her orbit on Dec 25, 2003, her orbit has stalled, as she encountered an elephant in the road at this point and could not pass. Planet X had been plunging toward the Sun, rapidly entering the solar system in the short years prior to 2003 at a speed close to the speed of light. As Planet X approached the Sun in early 2003, brilliant Second Sun sightings and photos were possible because the Earth was on the opposite side of the Sun from the approaching Planet X, and thus sunlight was reflected off the dust cloud and bounced back toward Earth. Then came the encounter with Planet X in Earth's orbit, and things changed. As Planet X was moving, still, toward the Sun, sunlight now was at its back, bouncing back toward the Sun, and visibility of this dust shrouded planet changed from brilliant and dramatic Second Sun sightings to puzzlement. Like an object in a fog bank, it was lost to view except for those times when its swirling tail and moons caught sunlight and deflected this to Earth. Evidence of the presence of Planet X in the inner solar system, slowly passing the S Pole of the Sun, was reduced to taking the pulse of Earth herself - increased earthquakes, volcanic activity, an Earth wobble evident to those astute enough to take note, and erratic weather accompanying the wobble.

The eddy flow created by particles flowing coming from the Sun and thence around the sides of Planet X trapped Earth in her stalled orbit, and held her there in front of Planet X, no escape. As Planet X proceeded past the Sun's S Pole in his sling orbit, he went within the orbit of Venus, and thus likewise trapped Venus in this eddy flow cup when she came round in her orbit to encounter Planet X. The Earth's dark twin, sharing an orbit with Earth, joined this group of trapped planets within months, remaining behind the Earth, likewise stalled in their shared orbit, a dark hunk of black rock reflecting little light and thus essentially invisible to man. This has been the setup throughout 2004 and into 2005, the rapid plunge of Planet X toward the Sun countered by the Repulsion Force into a slow creep past the Sun. This is not a static condition, however. Caught in the eddy flow cup, Venus and Earth and her dark twin are pushed backwards in their orbits as Planet X progresses in its retrograde sling orbit past the Sun. For those who think that this would result in horrific trauma on Earth, we point to what causes orbits in the first place, the gentle nudge from the sweeping arms of the Sun causing all the planets in the solar system to move in the same direction, counterclockwise, around the Sun. Orbits are not sacred, they are composed of planets bobbling in particle flows and nudged into momentum when these particle flows have force and direction. Orbits can move in one direction or another, without impact on the planets which are passive during this process.

We have described the point where Planet X pierces the Ecliptic, moving from alignment with the Sun's magnetic field where the lines go into the Sun's S Pole to alignment with the magnetic field where the lines come out from the Sun's N Pole as a time of 270° roll for Planet X. It turns in place 180° to point its N Pole away from the Sun's S Pole, then stands upright at the Ecliptic, and later does another 270° roll while adjusting to the magnetic flow lines coming out from the Sun's N Pole. Lately it has been noted that Planet X appears slightly to the right of the Sun, when sighted or captured on film. We explained that during this 270° roll, the N Pole of Planet X swings round according to the retrograde rotation of Planet X, clockwise, and thus the hose of magnetic particles coming from the N Pole of Planet X emerges on the right side. This causes Earth to scuttle even faster backward in her orbit, to the left, to escape this hose of magnetic particles. This is where we are today, in the Spring of 2006. For those who say such maneuvers of Earth would be apparent, announced loudly by astronomers, we point to the many observations that things are not normal, and the obvious cover-up against admission that Planet X is in the inner solar system, to dampen panic in the populace. Just why do you suppose Bush is frantic to be sitting on all the world's oil fields at this time, if not that he realizes a pole shift is around the corner? To prevent such panic as might allow Bush to declare martial law, we and other benign aliens tweak the planets and the Moon for key events like an eclipse to simulate normalcy, and tip the globe to simulate the seasons, giving the appearance of apparent precision in astrophysics.

What comes next? Early in the ZetaTalk saga we described the ZetaTalk Triangle, the relationship between the Earth, Sun, and Planet X when Planet X pierces the Ecliptic. This ZetaTalk triangle was featured in July 2003 in dual Wisconsin crop circles, a move that was made by ourselves and others in support of a beleaguered Nancy who had suffered through our White Lie regarding the May 15, 2003 date. What puzzled many was the placement of Planet X to the right of the Earth, when we likewise had described the pole shift as occurring when Planet X stands between the Sun and Earth, supplanting the Sun's dominance as the largest magnet in the solar system. Based on our more recent description of the 270° roll and the Earth scuttling to the left to avoid the hose of magnetic particles, this triangle can be fitted into the larger equation. At the point the Ecliptic is pierced, Planet X has pointed its N Pole away from the Sun, and toward Earth. Earth reacts by leanings its N Pole away, into the 3 days of darkness predicted for the northern hemisphere. Prior to this, as the N Pole of Planet X is swinging round, the Earth falls on its side, as we have described, the N Pole of Earth to the left in the extreme, thence rolling into the 3 days of darkness as Planet X points its N Pole directly at Earth.

This is a rapid and highly dramatic time for Earth, lasting but days at each stage, but what of the months leading into this drama? Earth scuttles back in her orbit, Planet X is seen to the right of the Sun, and increasingly coming closer and appearing larger and unmistakably not as a solar flare or sundog, and the Earth falls to her side, little by little. This makes for a lopsided arc of the Sun across the sky during the day, the Sun not where expected, hardly something the pat excuse for the Earth changes, global warming, could accomplish. During this slow 270° roll Planet X is steadfastly moving closer to the Earth, as the diagrams Nancy and friends have constructed show. It not only appears larger in the sky, it has a steadily stronger grip on the Atlantic Rift and the poles, creating a stronger and more violent wobble. This equates to stronger quakes and volcanic activity, wilder weather, and the populace starting to question matters in a shrill, not polite, manner. If this is global warming, what is that to the right of the Sun, and why is the Earth falling to her side? We predict the White House will shutter their windows and refuse questions on the matter, if they are functioning at all at that time.