Allen, I have read all of your posts. You have responded about inertia in the exact same way as my teacher at school., "it natural stupid" . Which means he did not know and could not explain what causes inertia. We all know what it is.. No one has given a satisfactory explanation of what causes it. I speculated on a probable cause. Your, A body absent of any force will continue in its present state indefinitely or until acted upon by a force. This is what I believe inertia really "is". does not explain why or how. It merely states the obvious.. Most of the rest you wrote for example, "Electrostatic spin demonstrates this Phenomenon quite elegantly. It [aether?] is and can be felt mechanically however as a function of the mass and EM Energy. " does not make any sense to me , not in my training, or any physics references that I have. Lets just leave it as being above my level, Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:53 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether & geostats " Equivalent": Mass can be converted to energy. However, the first "law" of thermodynamics still describes or governs this process. "Free space" the aether has physical properties they were measured by Fressnel and others.This not to mention the effects on the MM experiment which showed a 0 velocity through the aether for the earth around the sun where the MG experiment showed the movement of the "free space" or the aether around the earth with the exact expected value. I don't know how you can say it cannot be felt mechanically. I do not, however, believe that the aether directly moves the mass in it. The aether governs at lest the flow of Energy. The "function" between mass and EM Energy results in "forces". The aether caries EM Energy; EM Energy carries mass. Mass interacts with mass as a function of mass and EM Energy. Since the EM Energy is carried around the earth by the aether, the EM Energy, as a consequence, carries the mass around with it. However the aether itself would not directly affect the mass. We are left with a hierarchy of functions. This is demonstrated in everyday life as well. P: "This pressure also is responsible for inertia" A: I don't believe that any pressure or anything else at all is responsible for Inertia. Inertia is just the natural state absent of any "force" which would be a function of the energy in the aether and mass. EXAMPLE: As darkness is to Light; Even though it is used as a noun, it is literally nothingness, the absence of something, light. If a ball in motion is not acted on by a "force" it will neither move nor stop nor change direction. This is because only a "force" can do work. But inertia is the absence of "force". If the ball strikes another ball then "force" is generated but to which object? It may stop one object while simultaneously put another object into motion. Answer: It is irrelevant, because "force" is a function of the masses and the Energy in the aether; not either or both of the masses themselves. A body absent of any force will continue in its present state indefinitely or until acted upon by a force. This is what I believe inertia really "is". P: "I have said hypothetically, that it is a property of the fourth dimension of this universe, which can be "felt" by electromagnetic phenomena, but not seen or felt mechanically, by us because we are three dimensional sensory beings. This is a temporal phenomenon. A: Electrostatic spin demonstrates this Phenomenon quite elegantly. It is and can be felt mechanically however as a function of the mass and EM Energy. I believe the eather is created, not apart of God he said as much and gave it a name. Everything is a different manifestation of the simplest of things. I think you may be thinking too complex with fourth dimensions and such. I think that approach, makes things more complicated than they really are and you would find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove anything anyway. Consider how identical geometric proportions show up in everything the human face, sea shells even plant leaves. I think this is why you are having these problems with your ethereal thought experiments and understanding of Geo-stationary satellites. P: Will there be any centripetal force by the wheel on the arm attaching it to the spindle? A: The aether would not have anything to do with mass directly. This to me is impossible as it is incompatible with experimentation and observation. However, there is experimental and observations impetus for the hierarchy as I have outlined above. Geo-stationary satellites are held up by an equilibrium of this function of mass and the currents of EM Energy, at that distance from earth. However, as the Aether is spinning around the earth and caries the EM Energy within it and the energy is carrying the mass, that function creates among other things the "force" we would call "Centrifugal". And the rocket must be launched in such a way as to counter that "force". I said "other things" because there are may dynamics to EM Energy its not all the same intensity or frequency or scale and such. All other "forces that would act upon the satellite would result from that function as well. As the distance from the earth or other masses is increased or decreased the dynamics and "forces" acting on it, due to the, EM Makeup, to include different currents and Eddies, would change. The aether/Plenum/ whatever you decide to call it would not directly affect mass. Differing mass with differing make ups would be affected by different cur rents and eddies with different properties. (I.e. Frequency and intensity of the Eddie and the mass of the body.) Since all mass have there own harmonics mass are kept in there respective currents and eddies, overall, due the fact that a particular mass is TUNED to a particular set of currents and eddies. I say "overall" because there are and would be some interference/ perturbations, which is why such things as wobble are observed. P: How else can we explain prophecy, and the words, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." . A: As for Prophecy God made the mass, energy and the aether and gave it a name, he is not bound by it. Hebrews 11:..... 3. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,.. The Mechanics would built into it. A: Phillip, We are in total agreement with the Aether penetrating the earth. What we don't know is what the nature of the terminal end is, or how it fastens itself to the earth. Except to say that it allows the universe to behave like a tabletop gyroscope. Allen Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: In light of what I said re inertia, here is a speculative model for the geostationary satellite. What do you think would happen to the thing. Would it be a good simulation? Let's have a 12inch record turntable turning at 78 rpm clockwise. This is the plenum. The spindle shaft is stationary. Next take an arm out from the spindle to a position 6 inches out with a motor driven wheel on the end resting on the turntable. It will be driven up to speed clockwise in the opposite direction to the turntables motion, so that it equals the peripheral speed at that point. It will of course be stationary with respect to the spindle. and to us the observers. It will be a geostationary satellite. The question is. Will there be any centripetal force by the wheel on the arm attaching it to the spindle? I'm laughing, because I don't really know. I think it would still want to fly out into space if it was released. And thus I do vindicate Roberts inertia position, which I failed to see originally, using a washing machine analogy. Sorry Robert. You did say I'd see it eventually if I thought hard enough. If you all concur, then I will next apply this to catching the moon. and landing on it. No offence Neville, Philip.