[geocentrism] Bernies problems.

answers in royal purple  Phil. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bernard Brauer 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:23 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?


  Philip,

  Does the magnetic field of force of the 3,000 pound magnet
  in my living room extend forever or everywhere? It may, but the practical
  pulling force is only for nearby objects. After a certain distance
  the pull force is zero. Without any other fields in proximity, all of the 
lines from one pole will curve out and re enter the other pole, given the 
hypothetical convention of direction from N to S. The amount of distance this 
strained line at the outer periphery of the curve reaches is dependent on the 
magnetising force of the magnet, and the elasticity resistance offered by the 
aether in storing the force. It is not a good practise to use the analogy of 
magnets which are dipoles, for gravity which are "monopoles"  

  But when I sit on it for 3 hours watching television my
  bones start to hurt and ache.   : ~ )   Any suggestions? Try reversing the 
polarity, or use a thicker cushion?  

  Also when I vertically extend my right arm over my head 
  then reach behind my back to scratch the rear of my left shoulder,
  it hurts every time when I do that - about ten times a day.
  What should I do? Same thing happens to me. I get up and horse scratch my 
back on a door jam. A long handled brush helps but I reserve that for the 
toilet. I don't think the magnet is the cause. 

  Any time, Dr. Phil. 

  Bernie 

  philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Bernie, I'm not expert here, but there is no real "zero gravity", as 
regards the force "field" Notice I enclosed "field" because it is a mathmatical 
abstract to represent visually what is only hypothetical. 
    The field of force is technically everywhere, even in a neutral zone. What 
we are getting confused with is weight. or weightlessness. We experience this 
phenomena during free fall. You might recall seeing these free fall experiments 
in high flying aircraft. A satellite in orbit is in a continuous "free fall " 
mode, as it technically falls "towards" but around the earth. 

    It looks as though no one offered the means to calculate the weight of an 
object within the gravitational field, so I'll do a quick search and get back 
to us. we should be able to calculate exactly the weight (force) due to gravity 
at 22000miles up. but I just hate the metric system because it converted simple 
pounds into a Jewish name...  

    I do not think it is a conspiracy here as regards the orbiting objects and 
the formulars used, The devil may know, but these guys are just believing 
blindly what to them seems a rational concept. The world does not produce many 
Faradays or Teslas like us you know...  

    Philip. 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Bernard Brauer 
      To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:01 AM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?


      Neville,

      You were saying that there was still a gravitational field strength
      at 22,236 statute miles above sea level, because I had thought it was 
zero gravity.
      Zero gravity is what I was told as a child that enabled astronauts to 
float.

      So I thought if the Earth was still creating a gravity pull force at 
22,236
      then it must be very weak. It would be like playing with a helium balloon 
      here on Earth - a little tap and it moves up, not much force required.
      I wonder if there is a table of completed calculations for the percentage 
strength
      of gravity at various altitudes above the Earth? What kind of gravity 
power are
      we dealing with at 22,236 considering there's an inverse distance squared 
rule?

      So my thoughts are that the so-called geosynchronous satellite
      just sits there, no engine, practically zero gravity
      and takes decades to fall back towards Earth and burn up in the 
atmosphere, by which time it has been replaced with a new satellite.
      Or, they are lying about the thrusters being used for lateral drift and 
they are really for, or also for, vertical lift and we have another 
State-sponsered conspiracy on our hands,
      a la Federal Reserve, Apollo, 911, Iraq, etcetera, ad infinitum.

      Bernie

      "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        Bernie,

        I am very interested in this.

        I know that geosynchronous satellites have thrusters to correct for 
lateral drift, but I did not know that they had "vertical" thrusters. Do you 
have any more info on this? In particular, the thrusters would need to be of 
very low power, but constantly running (solar power/battery).

        Neville.


        Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          The gravitational field strength is very weak at the 22,236 altitude,
          because of the inverse square distance rule. So the satellite
          would just need a small strength vertical thruster to keep it in 
place.
          I read they do indeed have thrusters.

          Bernie

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! 
Mail.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
      in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. 

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

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date: 
27/03/2007 4:38 PM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TV dinner still cooling?
  Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.


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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date: 27/03/2007 
4:38 PM

Other related posts: