[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Neville have you read my treatise on this subject, which I posted recently 
which goes along way to answering your questions, requiring only specifics ... 
If you missed it I post it again below. 

Philip. 
A Philosophy of science, time and space. the aether (by meself it is.) 

It is not an un-natural attribute of man for him to limit his thoughts and 
imagination to what he can experience with his normal senses. And for the 
normal man, which is the majority, the idea of God as an omnipotent omnipresent 
eternal personal being is generally accepted as a mystery beyond what his 
Creator expects him to comprehend. Yes, that God Himself uses imagery such as 
the fatherly figure, angels in the human form and many other apparitions, is 
indicative of the fact that He is satisfied with the child like simplicity that 
allows normal man the uncomplicated faith. To whom much is given, much is taken 
away. 

Yet out of normal men, arises those who have an adventurous spirit, a vocation, 
the desire to understand more. Is this unwise? We have the example of Adam who 
was forbidden the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Yet since we have inherited 
the fall from grace, because of his disobedience and not his desire for 
knowledge, it appears rational enough to me, that so long as our adventures 
into the unknown are done within full compliance of His commandments, according 
to His Word, there could be no sin. We must keep in mind that such adventures 
are fraught with danger, which is the reason no doubt, why the original 
prohibition was imposed. This is where Galleleo failed. He allowed his faith in 
the Cabalistic science of men such as Newton, to overule the commandment of 
obedience. And thus began the disorder of making the word of God completely 
conform to the science of men rather than the correct order where science in 
the first place must conform to the word of God. By saying in the first place, 
I mean of course, where necessary. 

At first I wondered at the wisdom of venturing into this article, because of 
the dangers I have already noted, and because I worried that any contribution 
to knowledge, or even directions of research I proposed, might lead the man of 
weak faith into the same error of pride that consumed Galleleo. But this was 
false reasoning considering that all of us on this list have already consumed 
the fruit of error one way or another, and are endeavouring to get things 
right, or at least establish truth. 

Science (of inertia) time and space, the aether.

This is an endeavour, a philosophical approach. It is not to be taken as the 
absolute or final truths of the subject. It proposes to be a guide to an 
alternative approach or concept of physical realities, to that taken by 
mainstream science. It is based upon what is the absolute truth as far as it 
has been revealed to us, the Word of God. I try to utilise the evidence of the 
physical sciences as they have been demonstrated to exist, and present them 
with alternative theoretical possibilities and causes which do not conflict 
with or oppose that Word which is true. If I am delving into the physical 
unknown, it is because in mainstream science, these subjects are unknown; based 
as they are upon theoretical reasoning, that I do not deny appears reasonable, 
but theory upon presumptions nonetheless. 

If science can reasonably treat of the possibility of the aether, and it does 
so among many notable theorists, without the help of the Word of God, then so 
might I also treat of it; and that I claim it is the more reasonable because it 
allows conformity with God's word, should not raise any objections from the 
dissidents, less they risk being seen as bigots.

In proposing the aether as the all encompassing ingredient necessary to explain 
all physical experience, my most difficult task, even among Bible believing 
geocentrists is to bring the dimension of time into the discussion. This is why 
I called this article a "Philosophy" of science, time and space, because the 
difficulties are philosophical rather than physical. How can one explain the 
experience of the rainbow to a person blind from birth? Intelligent imagination 
may give one the concept of color, but never the experience. 

To the same extent I can say that our three dimensional senses make us 
"spiritually" blind to a fourth dimension. One is capable of seeing the trees 
immediately in front and behind, but not the whole forest. But like the blind 
man, you just might be able to grasp the concept. 

Why does God call Himself, 'I am alpha and Omega' in one place, and "I am" in 
another, and then Jesus in another again says, Amen, amen, I say to you, before 
Abraham was made, I AM? 

Can you see the powerful scientific statements here, that transcend our 
experience of time? He did not say "I was" ... He said "I am." Past present or 
future 'He is' for ever and ever. 

So what is time? Basically its a sequential experience. I'll re-phrase that. We 
experience everything physical sequentially as time. Time like color has no 
reality without there existing a sentient being to experience it with his 
senses. Most importantly this experience is limited by the senses we possess, 
which are three dimensional. This is the cause of the apparent sequence of a 
ball rolling, or your interference with its direction. Time is a mental 
component. And this raises the important question of free will, and what 
happens when we interfere with the direction of the rolling ball. We think we 
changed its future, and we think that destroys the concept I propose. 

But we are wrong on both counts. What we think is about as accurate as what a 
blind man might conceive the color blue to be. What we did when pushing the 
ball in a new direction, was to change the shape of the fourth dimension and in 
so doing experienced the inertia (resistance) that such action presented. 
Physically the action was similar to compressing a ball and changing its three 
dimensional shape into a pyramid. We experienced a change to all four of its 
dimensions. 

We see and experience the sun as it moves across the sky. The sun could say " I 
am" and our experience of its sequential change of position is just that. An 
experience as we view it in all its positions sequentially. Subjectively our 
three dimensional senses as we sequentially view this solid fourth dimension 
give us the impression that the sun moves. How else could Jesus say He was 
before Abraham, and presumably He WAS before creation and after the consumation 
of the world? 

"And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in 
the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world. 9 
If any man have an ear, let him hear. "

Isn't that last sentence marvellous? Daniel says similar. "Let the reader 
understand!" which Jesus re-asserts in Mathew 25:15.This contradicts the 
doctrine that reading the Bible alone can save all; and confirms the need for 
an authorised teacher. 2 Peter 3: 15-17 Acts8: 30-31. 

But I digress.

Is it such a big stretch of the imagination therefore to call our "time" no 
more than an experience of inferior three dimensional senses? I say inferior 
because until our soul is released from these limiting bodies, we are told our 
experiences are inferior and incomparable to the experiences of our being after 
death, whether our destiny be Hell or Heaven. We will see Jesus in all His 
glory as He really "IS" , yes, even before Abraham was. 

If this seems impossible to you then you will have difficulty comprehending the 
application of this principle to the physics of inertia, which attempts to show 
how this concept of time allows for a four dimensional created world, having 
four real physical dimensions, and because of this, how it follows that the 
effect of what we call the aether, is the primary cause of our subjective 
experiences of inertia and the other force fields.. The implications as applied 
to the limitation on the speed of light , magnetic fields, and gravity are 
fascinating to say the least and will merely complicate this post to go into 
all of it here, but perhaps later. 

Have you ever seen those iron filing diagrams around a magnet which allegedly 
demonstrate the position of a line of magnetic force? Ever wonder what that 
alleged line is? Can't be weighed. Can't be touched, felt or smelt. Nobody, 
that's absolutely nobody, knows what it is or why it is or even if it is a 
line, other than it is an effect due to electrical activity, called charge, 
which is another unknown. I can't tell you what they are either. But with 
Faraday, I can say there must be some sort of "reason" that "acts" like a 
"medium" to allow them to exist in a pure vacuum. I further say that this 
reason is the existence of a solid physical fourth dimension. 

But if you want to look on the aether as just hypothetical three dimensional 
"fluid" or even call it a spiritual "ecktoplasm", that may suffice, but this 
fails to satisfy any reasonable investigation of its physical existence. It 
cannot explain how Jesus could say, 'before Abraham was, I am.' They cannot and 
never will find any such a medium, simply because it is not there. But this 
cannot change the reality of the effects it causes. As Faraday once said, 'you 
cannot exercise a force at a distance without a medium.' I need though, to 
extend the term medium to " a cause" or a "reaction" , something quite 
different to a "conceptual fluid". The "cause" is the reaction to the finite 
physical solidity of the entire four dimensional created universe. 

That is my definition of the aether. The aether is a physical reaction to the 
finite physical solidity of the entire four dimensional created universe. 

Gravity.

The first casualty of this scenario of a finite universe has to be the Newtons 
universal gravitation law. Whilst it can be conceded that this formula f/g = 
m1m2/d sqd. can be used accurately locally anywhere in this area of space 
called the solar system, this does not necessarily mean it is so to the finite 
limit of the universe. 

Assume that this universe is a finite four dimensional entity, there being no 
infinite space, such as what we call space "outside" of this creation. We have 
to deny the contradiction imposed by the weakness in our three dimensional 
senses which implies otherwise. 

In this universe we can say that gravity is a push which directs mass towards 
mass, rather than a property of mass that causes attraction. This pressure 
comes from the surrounding universe by all of its four dimensions, (aether?) in 
which we may PRESUME to be the centre. With this cause of gravity the principle 
naturally follows that the true centre will experience gravity equally from all 
directions, and as our world does so experience such, we may in such a universe 
as I have described, safely deduce that it is the centre. 

Correspondingly if one were to move away from this centre towards the edge of 
the universe, this force will become unbalanced, ultimately changing from 
positive to negative. The inverse square law cannot hold true. 

Whether this presumption be true or not, we do have anomalies in navigation 
reported by deep space probes, which may be attributed to gravitational 
defects. In any case as I said, this is not a local effect and has no bearing 
on our problem of the geostationary satellite. This latter was easily explained 
by a rotating univese, synonomous with a rotating aether, and the inertial 
forces it produces. (see previous paper)

Whether the red shift is valid, accurate or not, I can see this theory of 
gravitation supporting the expanding universe theory, which is ok as far as it 
goes, except it can only go as far as its end, its finite end in space, called 
the end of time, already acomplished, in eternity . 

We will apply this scenario to the speed of radiation which effects the 
presumptions of stellar distances, a more complex technical discourse requiring 
more actual data, at a later date. But in the mean time consider this. The 
spectral shift of a star, its speed away from or towards us all depends for 
accuracy upon the speed of light being constant. And as we get closer to the 
edge of creation I do not believe such is necessarily so. 

Philip. 

wavelength = velocity / frequency. 

velocity (of light) = wavelength X frequency 

The frequency of the source is fixed. If the source is moving away the 
wavelength is increased and we "observe" a lower frequency. But if the velocity 
of light is lower, the wavelength likewise is lower, and a lower frequency will 
be observed, without the source moving anywhere. 

MS depends so much on their belief that c is constant, to support red shift as 
proof of the big bang expansion. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dr. Neville Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:00 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Aether effects


  Back to scientific issues.

  Could I ask those of you who advocate an aether to supply your thinking as 
regards what effect the aether would have on material bodies (planets, 
satellites, gas molecules in the atmosphere, or whatever).

  I ask this because it seems to me that the aether cannot support (pun 
intended) the geosynchronous satellite.

  Neville.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up 
for your free account today.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/764 - Release Date: 17/04/2007 
4:43 AM

Other related posts: