[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

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: