[geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Philip,
What i think you fail to fully appreciate is that all properties even the
definitions of the ones you address have no intrinsic meaning eternal of a
relationship to something else.... context is everything.....in the same way
that atmospheric pressure, generally, can not be perceived it is the "natural
state". It is only by showing a relationships to some other value(s) that it
has any meaning and those values only have any meaning in context with
others....just because fold did not perceive the pressure of air 600 years ago
does not mean it had no pressure it only means that a meaningful relationship
had not yet been established.....finding the right "meaningful" relationships
is the whole point of these discussion on the aether’s pressure.....we don’t
have those or a meaningful relationship yet.....THAT’S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT.... you cant say that since it does not conform to known
relationships that it therfore has no pressure
anymore then it would have been correct for those folk 600 yeas ago, who knew
what pressure was to state that the air has no pressure...why they knew about
air/ breathing...it’s the same thing, and you are attempting in essence to
argue that since there is no meaningfull understanding, thus proof that there
is nothing meaningful to understand....?
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:51:56 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
In physics, density is mass m per unit volume V—how heavy something is compared
to its size. A small, heavy object, such as a rock or a lump of lead, is denser
than a lighter object of the same size or a larger object of the same weight,
such as pieces of cork or foam.
But Allen you should clarify you were being disambiguous. Not only
disambiguous, but non specifically out of all the denseness below you chose
just one plank of it , if you can pardon the pun. More below.
Density (disambiguation)
Density and dense usually refer to a measure of how much of some entity is "in"
a fixed amount of other space. Types of density include:
In physics:
Density, mass per volume
Area density, mass over a (two-dimensional) area
Linear density, mass over a (one-dimensional) line
Planck density, Planck mass per Planck length
Specific gravity, a dimmensionless ratio based on the density of a substance to
the density of water
Relative density, a measure of density in comparison to the density of
something else
Vapour density, a relative density used for gases
Current density, the ratio of electric current to area
Charge density, the electric charge per volume
Energy density, potential energy per unit volume or mass, depending on context
Force density, force per unit volume
Information density, the amount of information compared to many units
Optical density, the absorbance of an element
In mathematics:
Dense set and nowhere dense set in topology
Schnirelmann density in number theory
Natural density (also called asymptotic density) in number theory
Lebesgue density in measure theory
Probability density function, a function which maps probabilities across the
real line and whose integral is 1
Density estimation is the construction of an estimate of a probability density
function
Kernel density estimation, used in statistics to estimate a probability density
function of a random variable
Density in graph theory, the fraction of possible edges that exist in a graph
Dense order in order theory
Dense-in-itself, in geometry, is a set that contains no isolated points
In forcing (mathematics), a subset D of a forcing notion (P, ≤ ) is called
dense in P if for any p in P there is d in D with d≤p
In other scientific fields:
Population density, population per unit area
Computer storage density, bits (how computers store information) over an amount
of area or volume
Density can also refer to:
Spiritual density, states of being for various planes of existence
Density (band), an Italian progressive rock band
Why should we listen to Plank????who sounds like a man from the big bang ,
The God in which Max Planck believed was an almighty, all-knowing, benevolent
but unintelligible God that permeated everything, manifest by symbols,
including physical laws. His view may have been motivated by an opposition like
Einstein's and Schrödinger's against the positivist, statistical subjective
universe of the quantum mechanicists Bohr, Heisenberg and others. Planck was
interested in truth and Universe beyond observation, and so objected against
atheism as an obsession with symbols.
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, "faith"
interpreted as being similar to "having a working hypothesis". For example the
causality principle isn't true or false, it is an act of faith. Thereby Planck
may have indicated a view that points toward Imre Lakatos' research programs
process descriptions, where falsification is mostly tolerable, in faith of its
future removal. [5]
[hide] v • d • ePlanck's natural units
Base Planck unitsPlanck time · Planck length · Planck mass · Planck charge ·
Planck temperature
Derived Planck unitsPlanck energy · Planck force · Planck power · Planck
density · Planck angular frequency · Planck pressure · Planck current · Planck
voltage · Planck impedance · Planck momentum
The Planck density is the unit of density, denoted by ρP, in the system of
natural units known as Planck units.where:
mP is the Planck mass
lP is the Planck length
c is the speed of light in a vacuum
is Dirac's constant
G is the gravitational constant
This is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 1023 solar masses
squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. At one unit of Planck time
after the Big Bang, the mass density of the universe is thought to have been
approximately one unit of Planck density.
Come on Allen need I go further with this nonsense.. Paul will immediately
find in Planck the source of our evolution energy...
I will respond to the other points which sounded more real later
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1:46 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
The Aether most certainly has density!.......
First i was alluding to the theoretical construct based on the calculation of
plank "absolutes"....this is a reasonable "starting point"...if for no other
reason then there is no other viable alternative...
Second as for the density of the Aether it most certainly does have a density
this is proven via the Aspeden effect and gravity slingshots tides..ect....the
correct illustration would be that of air..... what is the density of the air
that you all move though in our own houses?..you can't perceived it cause it is
the "natural state" but it is real and can be measured but only measured in
terms that have meaning such as how it correspond to the density of water or
mercury...... Now the key think to keep in mind is the fact that "density" is a
specific descriptive term for ordinary and observable effects that do have
meaning to an observer......... I point this out because we can described the
density of the Aether not just in theoretical calculations of plank absolutes
but also in terms of observable effects such as the aether’’s ability to have
mass in motion impart force to the aether and then the aether in turn to impart
that energy back to a
mass...Aspeden effect, gyroscopic effect..grav slingshots...in the short term
any calculations will be general estimates but still useful descriptions.......
The Aether most certainly has density, because it has physical affects on
physical objects and physical objects have a effect on it......... think about
that....the only difference is in our ability to perceive the "natural state"
of our own environment..like a fish in water or a man walking in is own
house..the issue we have to address is not if it has density but rather what is
the best way of relating/describing or understanding that density ..or what is
the best demonstrable and knowable frame of reference from which to objectively
measure it by...i only point out the based on the bibles description of a
firmament and planks calculations it is a good starting point but i think can
be refined based on the other observations i mentioned
...................................
The key is in the efficiency of the "force" transfer between aether and
"ordinary mass" and visa versa....that can give us a useful measurement and
thus a "frame of reference" by putting some properties into context of the
ordinary..... we can then extrapolate/ measure against that its some of its
other properties....it won’t be perfect but it will be useful.........
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
What do you take the density of the aether to be?
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
I leaving shortly for a short trip ill be back late Thursday or Friday Lord
willing. However to address your question in short ..we can discuss this in
more detail when I get back …..based on the apparent interaction (transfer of
energy/force efficiency) of aether and mass and visa vers ie Aseden
effect…gravitational slingshots and such…taking into account the presumed
“density� of the aether,… the "known" mass and mass distribution patterns
observable within the universe a few Ukn variables such as the size of the
Aether(universe) ….I suggest not only is a vibration with a active and
reactive matix the most logical and demons ratable solution but it is the
frequency necessary to produce the attached ……just like something you can
produce on a sound board with sand the only difference is a 3 matrix (aether)
rather then just the 2d of a sound board……
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:31:29 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
Allen I know that in the past I have tended to disagree if not just avoid your
vibrational universe. This may have been a communication problem of my own. I
do not like calling Light electromagnetic waves having the same theoretical
structure as radio for instance. Can anyone demonstrate an electrical current
at light frequencies for example, as they can do with radio frequencies? I
think not. Light might be corpuscular, radio is not. Light might be photons,
radio is not. I say "might" because I doubt it.
Hence, likewise vibration. I do not like the use of the term vibration in any
context other than as something physically felt.. pressure sound. I would
never call a 60hz electrical current flow a vibration, except by way of
analogy. eg the electrons vibrate longitudinally in the conductor.
But on re reading your words I get the impression you use the term for all
types of cyclic variations, in anything, be it pressure, mechanical, electrical
etc. Perhaps you are calling any single cycle sinisoidal or non sinisoidal,
event that has a frequency of one year or a hundred years, a vibration...I
wouldn't, but if you are doing so, then perhaps I can agree with you as regards
the aether having a frequency. Nay, perhaps even several different cyclic
events as effects on matter, due to interveneing forces in matter itself.
Having cleared that up, I can now see what you are driving at, re the aether
pressure (gravity) "squeezing" the water of the oceans towards the moon because
the moon interferes with this aetheric "pressure" on its side of the earth.
But I see this effect without need of any "vibration".
If you are saying the aether itself has a basic frequency of "vibration" , what
structure does this cycle have, and what is its frequency? Why cannot this
gravity pressure be a static constant in a given location, just as is and for
the same reason water pressure in a pond, is static.
This water pressure phenomenon is transmitted via the molecular/nuclear
"vibrations" , but the vibrations are not the cause of the strength of the
pressure. Likewise perhaps you might agree is the aether.. I can get that.
But you are assuming what all do, and which may be incorrect, nay most probably
incorrect, that the aether has the properties of a material substance.
Back to Harold Aspden... the aether is a simple neutral state of electrical
charges which without intervening environment , demonstrate no external
material measurable effect. . eg when we make an electrical current flow, we
disturb these charges balance, and create a magnetic force stress.
Philip.
...
Get Free Smileys for Your IM & Email - Learn more at www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google TalkTM and
most webmails
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 19/09/2007
3:59 PM
Other related posts:
