[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper

my comments in blue
  .........The cosmic analog would be aether wave generators at the boundary of 
the universe creating 3D waves that cause resonances  in the aether, with Earth 
at center. 
  More or less yes?I?ve suggested for a long time that gravity was a 
interaction between aether and mass. Carrying that idea forward the only 
observable mechanism in nature capable of  both symmetry and asymmetry, have a 
pushing & squeezing effect and where for other reasons size not just mass is a 
determining factor , and for other reasons aether as a fluid,?and the fact that 
whatever it is it can?t be detected directly ???? if there were a vibration in 
a 3d fluid of Planck density  there is certainly every observable reason to 
suspect that concentric shells and large scale structures could be produced 
from a vibration fashion and it would be push objects and be entirely 
undetectable( only its effects could be perceived at our scale ??only a 
vibration(S) could account for all the variables, not saying that I have 
accounted for them, you can only do that in a model but only a vibration is 
capable of all those effects and since the aether I would argue behaves like a 
 for just some the reasons given . (Aspedn effect, recovery of Gyroscopes, the 
effect spinning has on the apparent mass of objects and others) there is no 
reason to model it as anything other then a vibration in the aether.
  I?m not settled on the point of origin of the resonance though?but for now 
this might be a trivial matter until any if actual modeling took place?..It is 
conceivable that since the earth rest on pillars according to scripture and 
hangs on nothing and dodwells curve clearly  demonstrates the universe must 
then be rotating and pivoting ( Table top gyro) around the earth that the 
center of the universe (same locations as earth) could be the point of origin 
..because the universe may  hang or fixed to the earth not the earth hanging in 
the universe? In that way the vibrations would emanate radialy in all 
directions from the center point .
  The orbits of celestial objects would be the aether wave anti-nodes, since 
gravity is maximum at the orbital distance.  Applied to the solar system the 
anti-nodes should correspond to the Titus-Bode law for planetary spacing. 
  Is this what you are proposing?  
  Not exactly ?not ignoring anti-nodes I think it is far more complicated then 
just anti-nodes?..The combination of a fluids characteristics ( its own nature/ 
Properties) with imperfections(mass) and the introduction of intense complex 
wave forms actually creates, on large scales, a overall pattern that will 
emerge. However,  min-currents and various other almost innumerable effects 
even in very very  small scales also arise .. harmonics and harmonic effects in 
a fluid environments is a very difficult thing to model ?.in fact there is  no 
way to know exactly what effects will and when  will not come about until you 
actually start  modeling. That is why it takes a Cray supercomputer to even 
approach global weather modeling?The bad news is that may even be far 
simpler... the two are similar where the atmosphere is the fluid and heat 
absorption and transfer are the waves that propagate back and forth??global 
currents and heat absorption /realese create very local weather
 storms  and energy release ball lightning, ect?
  Secondly is the fact that in harmonics objects of certain sizes/properties 
can behave similar but not exactly to others of lesser size/different 
properties due to a tuning effect.. It is because of this tuning effect that 
Titus-Bode law for planetary spacing holds?..   Remember the planets did not 
drift into there relative positions by themselves via some evolutionary process 
of eons of time as in the Physics of MS which was invented/ promoted to 
describe but rather  God first set them but it is the tuning that either keeps 
them there or prevents them from moving in the overall pattern while smaller 
less massive objects such a satellites can move between while being affected if 
they come to close. Just as on the sound board there are very small particles 
that do not ?gravitate? or conform to the overall pattern of mass on the board. 
This is just some of the asymmetry that vibrations can exhibit while creating a 
overall symmetry. It may not be a duck but it certainly looks
 and walks like one?maybe its just a  small goose..but then agian as a child I 
had to learn alot before I knew the difference.
  There is a difference yet relationship between the large scale structures and 
behavior of the smallest particles in the sound board or the 
universe..............Macro v Micro
  This assumes the MS Hubble law is valid ? distance is proportional to red 
shift and all of the red shift is due to recession.
  I understand the concern with accuracy of red shift & distance ?however, for
   all the problem with it ..it is till demonstrates concentric shells of red 
shift around the earth and concentric shells of all other objects whose 
distance is determined by same  including gamma ray burst, quasars and mega 
walls across the cosmos?All of those things are expected in a Geocentric 
universe?..So whatever the problems with distance and mapping of matter in 
universe there is no reason not to subscribe to MS maps to some if not mosly 
since they all are exactly what you might expect and even they find it baffling 
..I would argue that to the greater extent there is every reason to suspect 
that they have a useful measure of accuracy up to this point even with all 
their Unknown problems, for the simple fact that they actually demonstrate the 
very thing we hold to be true earth centrality.
Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx> wrote:
  On Behalf Of Allen Daves

  Here are some more of my thoughts for everyones consideration....It will all 
"come together" when you get to the conclusions paragraph ....I think.....:)
  1.        The aspeden motor takes less energy to spin up after stop within 1 
min then the initial energy did the first time.. The most consistent & 
demonstrable explanation is feedback 
  From aether to visible matter.
  The resistance to motion, inertia, is a property of the aether.  When the 
motor is first run, the inertia of the aether is decreased ? the aether is 
(partially) dragged along, as proposed long ago by Cauchy and Stokes.  The 
inertia is restored within 1 minute by the replacement flow of surrounding 
aether . This tells us the flow rate of aether within the motor 
  A linear test of the Aspden effect:   Each time a gun is fired HORIZONTALLY 
WITH THE SAME MUZZLE VELOCITY,each bullet will travel slightly further than the 
prior one.  
  If fired vertically, each bullet will go a little bit higher than the 
previous one. 
  Each bullet drags a little aether with it, reducing the inertia along the 
  2. I would argue the mot obvious and only demonstrable & reproducible 
mechanism capable of explaining why a spinning gyroscope in a vacuum resist 
change in orientation is for the same reason that a spinning gyroscope in a 
fluid would resist change even above and beyond its vacuum resistance ( this 
should be verifiable) namely there is a vortex created in the fluid and a 
change in orientation is actually an attempt to change the flow of the fluid 
against itself. The most consistent & demonstrable explanation is feedback
  3. A spinning projectile is actually heavier then a non spinning one ..in 
fluid dynamics this can be explained as a spinning drill bit v a non spinning 
drill bit effect?? resistance is decreased. The other possibility which is far 
harder to demonstrated is a combination of the interaction of a standing wave 
form in a dynamically active fluid?.take the sound board with sand on it 
..particles/ objects spinning in/ that medium will move differently then ones 
that do not..in part due to resistance of the medium as in the dill bit 
direction of drilling action) example; the particle size and also affected by 
the direction of rotation of the soundboard itself (aether /the universe) and 
the Frequency and intensity of the vibration of the board itself. The particles 
will still "gravitate toward each other they will behave differently then non 
spinning particles. This is a very complicated combination of fluid dynamics 
and harmonics?.similar to Global weather modeling that is why
 it is going to be difficult to "nail it down". 
  Allen, you have enamored of that film clip of sandpiles on an acoustic board, 
ever since I posted it.  But I still don?t get your application to aether 
  The board transmits in 2D the vibrations of the amplifiers at the edge. The 
sand piles up at the acoustic nodes and is swept away from the anti-nodes. 
  The cosmic analog would be aether wave generators at the boundary of the 
universe creating 3D waves that cause resonances  in the aether, with Earth at 
  The orbits of celestial objects would be the aether wave anti-nodes, since 
gravity is maximum at the orbital distance.  Applied to the solar system the 
anti-nodes should correspond to the Titus-Bode law for planetary spacing. 
  Is this what you are proposing?    
  Notwithstanding, I believe in any case and even if I am totally right or 
wrong about this that we are going to have to start with I would argue very 
logical but basic assumptions based on what we have, not what we do not have?? 
  1. Macro or broad general:
  A. Regardless of what the aether is in reality, to date all the phenomena 
that could be assumed to be ethereal in origin & or determination make perfect 
sense and are consistent with a fluid dynamic process, which individually are 
demonstrable and reproducible. I would argue there is no other D&R environment 
that could explain those phenomena?..I argue to start with what we have not 
with what we do not have. It may be the case that in the end it is something 
entirely different but we have to arrive at that from a logical path not just 
the fact it could be?.if if quacks like a duck then for now at least lets just 
call it a duck, so to speak, as time and O&E move forward we can then determine 
if it walks like a duck too?. But up to this point in time I would argue that 
all phenomena are consistent and only most consistent with a "fluid" 
environment. I suggest we must begin our model with a universal fluid and in 
terms of Fluid dynamics.. 
  B. Gravity for all the independent reasons given in many other early post, I 
would stonily argue most resembles and can only be demonstrated at this point 
as a vibration, as such should be modeled in terms of harmonics & harmonic 
  On the macro the interactions of this supposedly fluid of plank density ( any 
density proportions/ ratios are the key here not actually measurements of plank 
or aether particles) and objects of observable/ deduced size need to be able to 
describe the necessary vibrations in this medium to accommodate large scale 
structures observed in the universe ( distribution of mass on concentric shells 
separated by 420 mega parsecs I think ( or relative distance to the size of the 
bodies that form those shells)
  This assumes the MS Hubble law is valid ? distance is proportional to red 
shift and all of the red shift is due to recession.
  2. Mico 
  Once the range of ratios of size density and frequencies are determined for 
the macro structures then and only then could we begin to look at how the 
dynamics of individual bodies most of which spin in this rotating medium 
(aether) in one of those very large structures interacts ( out to the geo sat 
alt) on a scale so small as to be nearly in-perceivable to the rest of the 
universe could even start.
  We must start broad and general and work to the small and specific. Sure we 
can take some measurements of the effects of gravity and describe it but we all 
know the difference and relevance of a description of something to its 
explanation?..I believe this is why MS keeps chasing rabbits down holes that 
are in fact "bottomless pits" of ignorance??.. At one time they started with 
the most general O& E they had and moved to specifics. However, as time moved 
forward and more General o&E became available rather then backing up and out to 
the most general and working back in again they just insisted and forced the 
new general O&E data to be conformed to the specifics that they had already 
concluded with the limited general data from earlier. In short they did not 
stop back up again to see the big picture. They just keep going down the same 
tunnel vision they had at the beginning regardless of how wide the road got 
  Conclusions: In short before we can accurately module something so small in 
the universe as a geosat, perhaps the approach of looking a gravity on a small 
scale first(Newton?s apple) rather then on the maco scale first ( large scale 
structure) may be all backwards from what we should be doing. The current 
approach is the MS Strategy (Newton?s apple to Cosmos) ? We should be looking 
at the cosmos to understand Newton?s apple? It is this approach that may and I 
would argue is in fact the only real "black hole" (of real progress) that 
exist. Having said that looking at geosats is a good way of perhaps taking the 
necessary measurements for the force of gravity ( which we will need) on small 
scales that will come in handy after evaluating the various frequency, aether 
and mass combinations need to produce the large scale structure first. Then and 
only then will we be in a position, I argue, to see how those combinations 
might interact to reproduce what we observe locally on
 very very small scales such as the earth and geostats?.?.
  ??  = A Virtual Gravity Machine ??


Other related posts: