[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:28:59 +1000
Once again I repeat .. Why do we accept MS physics in its deviations of
assumptions sometimes if it suits us. I read upon the deBroglie wavelength
"particles," and as far as I see it should remain in the realm of
hyperphysics where I got it from.. More einstein.. .
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html
Confirmation of the DeBroglie hypothesis came in the Davisson- Germer
experiment. ??>?
it represented a major step forward in the development of quantum mechanics.
Sounds like they really needed something.. But go look, it did not look like a
proof to me, any more than the generally accepted theory of orbital electrons
is any more than a reality, nice as it is... The question remains, is a photon
a true particle or a electromagnetic wave.. The evidence still favours the
latter. The evidence that it is a corpuscle is a theoretical presumption based
upon the experiment that it imparts momentum to the object that it reflects off
of.. implying it had mass. I favour the term equivalent mass.
The electron as part of an atom of matter has been shown to have mass.
Note.. I am not denouncing the probability or possibility that all matter owes
its physical existence to vibrations... Buut then we get into how God holds His
creation together.... do we not...
Philip.. stirrin the pot..
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
Allen,
Enough colours - especially after your pale blue!
I now see what you are trying to get at with the clockwork orange "example,"
but the essence of the aether argument is what effect the aether would have on
anything moving through it. The aether would have to carry the object along in
one instance, but also have no impeding effect on the object going against the
aether (this is what I believe Martin and I are talking about).
Water is basically incompressible, so the body of water in front of the boat
acts in such a way as to stop the boat, although a water current would carry
the boat along with it. I have no problem with this, of course, but this is
where the analogy ends when solid matter, rather than deBroglie wavelength
"particles," are considered in an aether.
I ask once again, where is your evidence (not assumptions) that light is
deviated off course by some kind of E-W bias?
Neville.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My responce to you in green....Me in Light blue
In green response to me in Blue :
Me in blue response to you in red
Planets, stars, the Sun and the Moon are all moving not only with but
through the aether, yet the movements of the heavens are like clockwork. There
is no slowing down of these objects.
I think you you looking at this backwards...If you take a steel rod and
force it through a orange you can do that........ but if every thing observed
were equivalent to pushing a rod through a orange then there would be no way to
distinguish this from anything else because that is/ would be the normal
resistance to all mechanics observed. We could theorize about what the orange
is made of and what the nature of the force we are using is but at the end of
the day it would just be normal with no metric by which to evaluate that force
. Now take that rod and put it in a drill and cause it to spin it will go
through the orange a little more readily..only now do we a point of reference
from which to establish any meaningful measure of the force required in our
everyday mechanical exercise. You can measure the natural resistance because
you would have nothing to measure its against however in the DePalumer and
Aspden motor we can see that the addtiona of spin makes pathways though the
aether and can be explained/ correlate to at least some ordinary fluid
/hydro-dynamic process.....Take a spinning rod place it in a liquid and spin at
high velocity then disconnect the rod such that the rod free floats,,now the
rod will eventually come to a standstill but there is still a vortex of water
that won't have enough force to spin the rod but will enable less force to be
use to get the rod spinning again...this is experimentally reproducible and
easily understood..now as for the Moon and stars they are travailing with the
aether why would there be any resistance to the aether such that it would cause
them to slow down or act like anything other then Clock work ? If a fluid is
spinning or in motion a object will travel with it now some objects are smaller
and denser while others are more massive but just as in the case of any river
if you observe all objects in it do not travel at the same speed but neither do
they all come to a stop because of the resistance to the water...I think you
are looking at it backwards..
The objects in a river are all flowing in the same way as the river.
Planets, for example, are not always flowing in the same way as the aether, but
often against it.
How do you know they are not flowing with the aether?....The aether
although we may consider it "homogeneous" does not necessarily mean
unidirectional. The "homogeneous" oceans have many different currents that run
in different directions and in different layers although they are found in the
same sea water that circulates throughout the oceans..
As for your example of the clockwork orange, I do not follow your
reasoning.
You would not/ could not objectively measure the resistance to the
orange if everything were in a orange but as in the spinning gyroscope you can
measure the difference in resistence spinning has on the resistance moving
through a orange/ aether...if everything weighed as much as I do then there
would be no point of reference that would give any meaning to 180lbs. How do
you weigh the ultimate scale you weigh everything else against?..You cant use
everything else you weighed on that scale to weigh itself, that has no meaning.
That would still just be equivocating to itself which means what .....nothing
objectively..? everything moving in the aether would must be measured against
it so how do you measure the aether?..you cant directly but you can denote
changes in it based on various criteria it is those changes that give
comprehensible useful meaning to the aether...or you could just ignore those
differences and say it does not exist at all, because without those differences
there would be no objective meaning to it... resistance, viscosity, density or
otherwise...?... That what MS attempts but that is not LO&E..
The resistance is there for sure but what you measure is something that
causes less resistance such as a spinning object in the river not some
resistance to the river that will eventually cause the objects to come to a
stop or slow down....the currents and wave forms in the river have far more
force in them then the water in a stagnate pond...There is resistance in both
the river water and pond water but the resistance can really only be observed
and measured in terms of change in motion within the river or pond because tho
objects in it are travailing with it. The only resistance that can be measured
is the observed fact that some objects do move faster then others Moon sun
stars.. .......However, even in a pond that is perfectly still a small boat
will drift almost indefinitely if pushed
No, I not not think that it will. Please explain the physics behind
your assumption of the continual drifting of the boat.
not withstanding the other influences such as gravity and surface
tension and such things about which we are attempting to ascertain about the
aether itself in these very discussions............If there were no wave form
created in front of the boat then there would be little to not resistance for
the boat.......(take a boat and push it along a still body of water wach what
hapens and how/when it slows down). The only idfference here with the aether is
the energy threshold limits for any given wave form.....As I cited in the
previous experiments they give us figures and observations to evaluate and
measure those threshold limits in respect to ordinary matter........in fluids
"resistance" is almost exclusively a function of the wave forms acting in any
given fluid(s). Although the nature of any wave forms in a fluid medium are
determined via the properties of the medium the fluid medium itself does not
determine resistance only the nature of the wave forms travailing though a
medium will. That is one of the most basic differences between a "solid" and a
"fluid"..and there are all extremes in between.. the diference between solids
and liquids is merely the energy thershold limit for any given waveform or
matter to traverse it/through it.,,once that energy threshold limit is overcome
the only issues to "resitance" is the type of wave forms created...this is why
super cooled simcondutors become superconductors they lower the energy
threshold limits for certain wave forms.
until such time as some wave form created by its relative movement to
the edge of the pond or some other object in the pond reflects back to
eventually cause it to stop but the waves created by also allow it to resume
with less force the initial force needed ..There is nothing new or different
here......GRAVITY pushing waves!
Furthermore, when I was associated with firing powerful lasers directly
up through the atmosphere, I noticed no such tendency of light to deviate from
its initial direction (other than random refraction of course).
As for lasers they are disturbed in a measurable e-w direction way just
as laser light is disturbed in a measurable way via a flowing river ( you can
detect the direction of the river)but the direction of the beam itself is not
altered if it originates in the water just as the direction of a beam is not
altered in the aether.
You are talking of the Arago effect of light going through glass,
water, etc., which is completely different. Where is the evidence that light is
bent with any form of E-W bias?
If the aether behaves/ exhibits properties like a fluid (the afore
mentioned experiments shows that it does) then it does not matter the principle
is the same for the aether as it is for a laser in a river...motion affects the
light not necessarily the path of light ..in the same way that in a river it
clearly moves other objects in the river even in various eddies and such but
the path of a laser is not affected. call it what you want but light does not
behave the same as ordinary matter in any theorectical frame work based on O&E.
We should be looking a it as a Hydrodynamic process waves and
all................
Neville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774 - Release Date: 23/04/2007
5:26 PM
Other related posts:
