[geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?

Nevile,
Yes i understand what you mean. although the criticism of Plank's constants may 
warrant some scepticism, i would argue, the criticism of them thus far is far 
too simplistic, without a good alternative....Why use Planks constants?....I 
would suggest the better question is..........Why Not?.......If you want to get 
to the lowest level of assumptions.......
1. grav is a vibration for the reasons i keep harping on.....it must be a 
demonstratable mech that can reproduce what we see and be undetectable except 
in its effects....
2. That kinda grav needs a extremely dense medium to propagate in such a way as 
to accomplish the observable work undetectable...there is only one known 
physical mech that could do that kinda work and yet still be undetected.....a 
vibration that propagates so fast that it cant be detected...that kinda speed 
requires a medium of such density to accommodate it...planks constants fit that 
bill...like i said it is just a starting point but it is the only starting 
point that meets the fundamental requirements. 
3. Planckʼs constantans although may not untimely prove to be the most 
fundamental absolutes. However, since they are based on calculations of 
relationships that can be observed...whatever the most basic fundamentals are 
they would certainly encompass planks constants even if they donʼt describe the 
most basic fundamental....planks constants are based on mathematical 
relationships of real physical phenomena so what ever the Truth untimely is it 
must encompass those relationships to some degree.......
I would argue there simply is far better reason for assuming them at this point 
then there are reasons to avoid them, particularly since there is nothing any 
better to replace them with.........so although it is true that they are 
assumptions they are far closer as starting points then any other construct to 
date...... I think the criticism of Planks constants thus far is overblown.. 
why use them?....They are the only relationships based on physical phenomena 
that even begin to describe or coincided with any kinda physical mechanism to 
explain what we observed......otherwise we are left with just a metaphysical 
ones. So if the question is why use planks constants i would have to ask the 
question for what good reason would you leave the best description you have for 
some description(s) that have no bases external of I donʼt like Plank....? 



----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:54:30 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?


Yes, Allen, I agree with Philip. Why take Planck "absolutes"? You rightly say 
that we need a starting point, indeed that is why I have assumed the aether to 
be a totally non-viscous fluid, but as far as I understand Gerardus Bouw's 
position, his starting point is a supposed interrelationship between 
"fundamental constants."

I am not attacking your starting position, only trying to get to the lowest 
level of your assumptions.

Neville

www.GeocentricUniverse.com



-----Original Message-----
From: joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:02:42 +1000


why they knew about air/ breathing...itʼs 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....?  
Allen
 
I understand i think? what you are saying Allen..  But why resort to way out 
quantum physics of Planck, who uses his own units to explain evolution via a 
big bang.    Math is a great and necessary tool of the engineer,mechanic, but I 
do not accept it when it is used as a means of supporting invention (ideas) .. 
which quantum mechanics are..  inventions..  Imagined inventions..  like worm 
holes for intergalactic instantaneous transportation. 
 
Lets get down to specifics.
 
You said,
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... 
 
You should be able to explain to me in a single paragraph of a few sentences 
what YOU understand in practical terms what is   "theoretical construct based 
on the calculation of plank "absolutes".
with specific explanation of these absolutes. 
 
Philip.

Other related posts: