[geocentrism] Re: Gravity 1
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:42:55 -0400
On Behalf Of philip madsen
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:23 PM
To: geocentrism list
Subject: [geocentrism] Gravity 1
Neville I think, once asked for a concerted attempt at working on and
defining the aether.. So I have been trying to compose a start for some
time as a sideline.. Philip
Good idea. Thanks for the initiative
Universal Gravity as a function of the Aether.
A developing alternative analytical exploration, as it affects the
Universe.
All are encouraged to participate in this development, adding to or taking
away, within the prescribed guidelines.
For the purpose of this analysis, without precluding a revisit to any of
them, we will presume the following.
1. That though the universe may have any shape, we assume it to be
spherical
Cylindrically symmetric about the polar axis would be sufficient.
2. That it has finite size. It is not infinite.
3. That there is no external influence .
4. That there is an aether which can be considered analogous to a
[liquid (not a] fluid excepting that,
a. It is non-material. i.e. [has no physical properties normally
expected of matter.] contains no ordinary (koine) matter: electrons,
nucleons, etc.
b. It is incompresible in the sense that matter is compressed. This
eliminates density variations?..why a priori ?
c. It is confined within the limits of the physical dimensions of the
universe of 2. above.
But does it penetrate matter, or is it absorbed, reflected, scattered or
repelled?
d. It has density which is variable [contradicts b)] and influenced by
(i) [ the position a point lies] the location within the universe, and (ii)
proximity of matter, and (iii) permeation within matter
It is important to clear up certain seemingly apparent contradictions caused
by the terminology used in section 4 above. Such confusion is often
associated with the use of anology. We have to use certain expressions that
in normal physics would have follow on expectations, but which do not in our
case. Take our use of ?density? in 4.d. Density is usually
expected to be a factor of compressibility, but I negate that here by
condition 4.b. I am not implying that the aether has more or less of ?it? in
different specific locations. We do not know what ?it? is. I mean that the
effect it exerts is more or less dense under given circumstances. i.e. The
intensity of its ?effects? is variable, or it is influenced in its effects
by environmental factors.
Your vision of density is not (amount of aether)/volume. But what then is
your operational definition of aether density?
5. As far as is possible, the accepted or proposed theories should
conform to Scripture, and certainly not be in contradiction with it. I
insist that Scripture, and all that flows from Scripture should be allowed
within the context of this exploration. It cannot be separated from it. For
Example. At the time the Aether was rejected, science historically was
riding on a wave of anti-religion, which meant ant-spirit. So strong was the
argument for an aether, that there arose at that time a parallel science of
spiritism that also opposed mainstream religion, especially Christianity.
You see, the aether smelled too much like a spirit, that pointed to a God.
Some other way HAD to be found. That is still the mainstream philosophy.
Compliance with Scripture is then a hidden premise, not formally exposed in
the documentation?. Right?
The Aether:
Before one can investigate universal gravity, as a function of the aether,
it is vitally important to first of all establish proof that there is indeed
an effect that can be ascribed as being the aether.
# Universal gravity,is not meant in the MS frame. We propose it may have any
number of possible limitations.
Let?s be positive: aether can potentially explain the effects known as
gravity, inertia, and perhaps some brand new concepts.
Better brains than mine have baulked at this. But I have no trouble seeing
why they always fail. And fail they do. There is no aetheric wind in my
philosophy. Physical laws as applied to matter
do may
not apply to this phenomenon. We cannot presume that because wave motion is
affected by flow in a liquid, that similar expectations must apply to a
flowing or moving aether.
Nor can we exclude this.
This is the weaknes of the expectations of Michelson, Morley and others. No
one can reasonably state that their experiments proved the aether either way
But Dayton Miller?s follow-up exps. did.
Yet all of physics may well be subject to its effect, including gravity,
such that nothing even matter itself could exist without it.
The proof.
Natural physics expects that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any effect at a
distance without some sort of medium. Yet we do experience such effects.
Leaving aside the major effect of gravity in the cosmos, we have simple
magnetism, which operates in a vacuum, (the absence of all matter)
Before anyone says Lines of force emanating, forget it. Lines of force are a
fictional non material entity used to graphically represent the existence of
a force, whether it be electrical, magnetic, or even gravitational. To
detect any such lines of force as a ?wind? by physically moving through them
would be as impossible as the original MM experiment. We say that by
spinning the magnet so that its ?lines of force? cut a conductor and thereby
generate an EMF that we prove their existence. Such is no more than a
theoretical assumption used to justify the result. Move the conductor
through this field parallel to the alleged field and no voltage is
generated. The line of force is as illusive as the aether, and I say that
the existence of this ?force at a distance? is direct proof of the aether.
So is the Foucault pendulum, the gyro and other observations covered under
Mach?s Principle.
That one particle of matter gravitates to another in a vacuum is proof of an
aether. No one has ever demonstrated by practical experiment the existence
of lines of gravitational force. Someone has posed the assumption that such
exists simply because matter does gravitate, and it looks like attraction.
I propose that we examine gravity between material objects as being a force
caused by the ?pressure? or similar influence, of the aether.
That is ? LeSage theory of pushing gravity
We may include that this influence or pressure is not constant throughout
space, and that it is modified by the proxmity of matter, on the one hand,
and maybe even by its position within this universe on the other.. .
Or by its flow relative to Earth ? the GS view.
What say you.. Lets begin.
We already did ? you took the first step.
Robert
Other related posts:
