[geocentrism] Re: Fw: [creation] Moon landings?
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:51:07 -0500
Philip,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 6:11 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: [creation] Moon landings?
>
>
> OK, Philip - tear it apart...
> Pax Christi, frater.
>
> Robert
>
> No , I like it... It fits with what I said, and of course I was
> influenced by your own input previously, as I tried to understand
> it. . Whereas I spoke of the deviations allowed, within the
> degrees of arc, of the rotating radian, in a general term, you
> were specific on this effect to allow the moon and sun to slip
> , and if I read you right right, the effect of the coriolis on winds etc.
>
> I had not mentioned the increasing effect on bodies remote, as
> you did, but it was in my mind. So trying to fit it in with what
> you stated here.
>
> If it was easy to move unit mass against the cosmos near the
> centre, it would become more difficult the further out one went,
> and the amount or "distance" that a body could defy this force,
> though the same distance (relatively from the radius vector, )
> the further out it went, the degrees of arc behind this radian
> will decrease, till from our viewpoint here on earth, it will be
> in synchronism with the stars..
>
> I guess as I am a graphics person, and your a maths person, using
> word pictures can make communication confusing..
>
The next step is to describe the variation of the plenum as a function of
the radius of the universe, for latitude 0 deg. .
> Analogy: Take the original rotating radian line out to infinity.
> Near the earth tie a ball to this arm .by a short peice of
> elastic, that could stretch to a maximum distance equal to say 24
> circumferences of the earth. That is the maximum distance it
> could stretch.
>
> Eventually this distance further out will encompass just one
> circumference, and then half a circumference , and so on till
> even more eventually it will be merely equal to an infinitely
> small portion of the circumference.
>
> I hope that explains the way I see your point.
>
How about a weather sock tied to the radius line ? It would be limp at the
geostat distance, straight out West near the WAF and maybe halfway up toward
East on the Earth.
> By the way, I still do not yet see how this causes an outward
> centrifugal force on a stationary body such as the static satellite,
>
This shows you're paying attention: the PEO describes the total effect of
the plenum, whereas previously I described the rotational inertia component
only. Subtract gravity from the PEO and you have the rotation effect.
> If you are correct, then we have to confront the existence of two
> types of centrifugal force... One positive caused by the motion
> of the body itself relative to a central mass. And the other
> (something new to consider) caused by the rotation of the plenum.
>
All this assumes the object is in free fall (not powered like a rocket) and
has no charge.
Another topic: Is the cosmic plasma part of the plenum, with the E and B
fields it generates?
In other words, how does the Electroverse fit in?
> This being so, then the geostat satellite is at the true neutral
> point of gravity versus plenum centrifugal force, and all other
> conditions of a rotating body will experience a net centrifugal
> force due to both motions.
>
> I repeat I'm no mathmatician, but it seems to me that whilst
> Newtons laws work to explain observed results, his reasons for
> why they work are incomplete, or even totally wrong**.. if what
> we suspect and have mentioned here, Gravity is not due to
> attraction of mass at all, but rather a force due to the
> aether/plenum ...
>
Newton never explained action at a distance - the plenum does. His law of
gravity explains the solar sytem motions well, but only empirically.
The plenum paradigm is quite different - gravity is just one component of
the plenum. Bodies respond to the local condition of the plenum, which is
relatively stable. After all, the plenum held the Moon and Sun in fixed
orbits since creation, and will continue to do so until the final days, when
'the Sun and Moon will fall from the heavens'.
heavens = firmament = plenum != aether
Pax Christi,
Robert
> Philip.
> *** There are many precedents... When everybody thought
> electricity was a fluid flowing from a positive reservoir to the
> negative or empty reservoir, their equations always worked and
> balanced. Yet they had the reality all wrong. Maybe they still do.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Bennett
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 3:22 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: [creation] Moon landings?
>
>
> Philip,
>
> >
> > Word diagram. Take a straight line out to infinity from Earth
> > central. Place an arrow pointing up above this line. Thats east,
> > and one under pointing down. thats west. This is a 24 hour
> > rotating force vector downwards toward the west. This force
> > pervades all space, and obviously it will have greater
> > momentum/speed the further from the centre you go.
> >
> > This speculative theory, and it is mere speculation, maintains
> > that all mass/matter in space is constrained to move within
> > "restricted bounds" either side of a radial from earth centre. In
> > effect the force that carries the cosmos of sun stars at such
> > apparent velocities, also must act upon any other bodies in
> > space. The force forward (the future?) to the west may be greater
> > all the way, than the force backward, (the past?) That is, it
> > will always be easier to navigate against the cosmos rotation,
> > than it is to navigate ahead of it, and this force increases
> > either way the further one is from the centre of rotation, the earth.
> >
> > The inertial navigation systems upon appollo would show what NASA
> > expects to see. Not necessarily the reality.
> >
> > Now that was my geocentric theory. But let us suppose for a
> > moment, that NASA,made a big mistake and told a bigger lie. More
> > on this to come, after I look at the course they claimed to
> have taken...
> >
> > Philip.
> >
>
> We are very close to agreement on the plenum's effect on objects (PEO,
> hence).
>
> Using a line from the earth's core out to the WAF, as you did, here's my
> detailed speculative but empirical model:
>
> 1) in deep space the objects feel the maximum PEO - period = 24 hrs - 4
> min, E to W
> 2) as we approach earth, the PEO weakens: Sun's period = 24 hrs, E to W
> 3) again moving closer, Moon's period = 24hrs + 52 mins, E to W.
> 4) but at 6 1/2 earth radii, the geostat distance, the PEO
> weakens to zero.
> 5) with decreasing distance within the geostat distance, the
> PEO increases
> FROM W TO E.
> 6) at the highest levels of the atmosphere PEO causes air
> motion W to E, as
> observed in the high-level general circulation of jet streams
> and prevailing
> westerlies. At lower levels atmospheric forces of air temp and pressure
> dominate over the weaker PEO.
>
> OK, Philip - tear it apart...
>
> Pax Christi, frater.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
