From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The Uranus Myth
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:08:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.080837.23926@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.183235@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
>> So, many of you are now wondering: how was the Earth orbiting Uranus? How
did
>>this reduce the "felt effect of gravity"? and What the hell is he talking
>>about?
> 
>I gather that since Uranus is not mentioned in mythology, we must conclude
>that the collective subconcious has suppressed all memory of this event
>because it so traumatic.

  Nonsense.  Don't you remember my earlier post.  The ancient greeks had a god
named Uranus.  This could only be if they somehow knew that it existed before
the official discovery date.  Obviously history shows that the Earth was
orbiting Uranus, and when historical fact and science disagree . . .
 
>> Well the answer to all these is simple once you recognize one simple _fact_:
>>Uranus is a superconductor.
> 
> This, of course, flies in the face of all that we know about superconductors.

  Which isn't very much right now.  Are you visiting from the future in a time
machine?

>If you had the slightest knowledge of physics and cosmology, you would
>know that the comsic abundances of elements necessary for high temperature
>superconductors is too low for Uranus to have been a superconductor.

  Er, wouldn't the compressed helium in the core form a superconductor with
enough pressure?

>Besides the rotation of the Earth would have produced a force in the
>direction of the axis which would have sent the Earth skittering out of
>the Solar system.

  Who said the north magnetic pole lined up with the rotational axis then?

> Please cite references.

  Hmmm.  Well there is the piece of scratch papel I wrote on that is sitting on
my desk.  I'll fax you a copy.

  The reason there aren't any published works is because establishment science
is doing all it can to supress the truth.  Any fool can see it's true, but
scientists aren't just any fools.

>>  The Earth still orbited Uranus, but because of the magnetic repulsive force
>>from Uranus, it did not need to orbit as quickly as the distance would have
>>required.  This means that the Earth was _not_ in gravitational free fall!
> 
>Please give us detailed analysis of the physical forces operating at the
>surface of the Earth.  Be sure that you include the effect of eddy currents
>in the Earth's core.  After all, how do you expect us to pay any attention
>to you if you don't show us your work.

  Magnetic Pressure <- o -> gravity   O<- Uranus

  Simple, isn't it?  Now I may not have everything worked out to the nth degree,
but it must be true, why else would thge establishment scientists spend so much
effort trying to hide the facts?

>> Since one side (not the pole) was always facing Uranus, all of the sauropods
>>etc. were living on the pangaea supercontinent that sat on that face.
> 
>> Uranus would heat the planet facing side of the Earth, but what about the
far
>>side?  Wouldn't that side freeze over?
> 
>If Earth were rotating Uranus with the same face pointed towards Uranus
>it would show both back and front sides to the Sun.  Are you claiming that
>Uranus was a star?  Please cite references of stellar ignition temperatures
>that verify that Uranus could have been self luminescent.

  Uranus didn't produce light, just heat.  The sun would have been too far away
to be of any use.  The light was reflection off of Uranus.
 
>>No!  Remember, Uranus was generating a repulsive force on the Earth's
magnetic
>>core.  This means that the core was _closer_ to the surface on the far side
of
>>the planet.  The mantel would have been dragged toward Uranus.  The constant
>>stresses put on the core would have kept it heated, but the extra-thick
mantel
>>on the near side would protect the inhabitants from excessive volcanism.
> 
>>  So there we have it, a complete, self consistant explanation for all the
>>_factual_ discrepancies between history and science.
> 
>It's good to have you with us Warren.  Now please state the theory
>of creationism.

  One way to redress the balance would be presentation of evidence _for_
creation. I am hoping to address this area in due course.

--
Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
HTE