[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary Universe
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 02:21:20 +1000
The density of the Moon has been assumed to be that required by Newton's
universal gravitation formula, with the latter then being proclaimed as truth
(ie, the circular reasoning that I find so crazy). c) The gravity forces
throughout the universe, by inference, would be so complex that the ordered
cosmos we observe would be impossible. d) I believe that the Moon going around
a path that is fixed in the fabric of space (not One Stone's "space-time") is
the only way of achieving the clockwork precision of the heavens.
I hope that this answers your question.
Neville.
Thanks, yes. It does. Of course it could be objected that the g of the moon a
la density is confirmed by the predicted orbits working quite as expected by
objects of known density being sent to orbit the moon. How would you explain
this ?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary
Universe
Philip,
Thank you for your comments.
I use pdf for many reasons. It produces a small file, most people have
Acrobat Reader, it is widely-used for publication of scientific material, and I
use LaTeX (which I find immensely superior to Scientific Word). I appreciate
that, without the full Adobe package, pdf files cannot be manipulated, but I
find that a virtue.
As regards the Moon, my view is basically this: a) The supposed gravitational
relationship between the World and the Moon does not work (there is a
correlation between tides and the Moon, for instance, but this is not caused by
gravity); b) The density of the Moon has been assumed to be that required by
Newton's universal gravitation formula, with the latter then being proclaimed
as truth (ie, the circular reasoning that I find so crazy). c) The gravity
forces throughout the universe, by inference, would be so complex that the
ordered cosmos we observe would be impossible. d) I believe that the Moon going
around a path that is fixed in the fabric of space (not One Stone's
"space-time") is the only way of achieving the clockwork precision of the
heavens.
I hope that this answers your question.
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:45:27 +1000
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary
Universe
Neville, i will try to comment without any copy from your text..
My question is this.. If you change the formulation to bring gravity away
from the constant established, in order for there to be no gravitational pull
at the height of the geostat satellite, then how do you account for the
formulation still working in accord with the orbit of the moon. ? which we
must assume is still attached to the world , and in the geocentric model
rotating at a 24 hour orbit, and far greater centrifugal force than that
attributed in the 28 day ascentric orbit. at least as it seems to me..
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevent accessing dangerous websites - Protect your computer with Free Web
Security Guard!
More information at www.inbox.com/wsg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 4/06/2007 6:43
PM
Other related posts:
