[geocentrism] Re: Grew

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT)

"pseudo Mumbo Jumbo"!?... What in the world are you talking about?  Harmonics 
is a well established and not much disputed science MS or otherwise ....As for 
H2O vibrations that bit is not part of the science of harmonics. That is part 
of the various branches of sciencetology and modernistic ngostisic religious 
movements such as "The secret"....... How did you bring that up and what does 
that have to do with anything I mentioned?
   
  
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      vibrational harmonic effects themselvs between masses, (not just the 
difstance between the center of masses)....ref the sound board or diferent size 
rocks in a vibrating jar   ? We could call it Aetheral Vibrational 
Gravitational Model  AVGM..anyone...  or maybe FVGM?.. 
   
  That is pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo..  some people even talk about the 
harmonic vibration in H20 when trying to electrolyse it for free energy..  Are 
you into that stuff? 
   
  Philip.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:01 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Grew
  

  No, in New/Ein gravity, shape is only relevant for calculating the center of 
mass not the strength/rate of gravity itself between masses (save the slight 
difference due to shape from that center)??. Where shape and size/volume is 
most definitely directly a major factor in the strength/rate/type of 
vibrational harmonic effects themselvs between masses, (not just the difstance 
between the center of masses)....ref the sound board or diferent size rocks in 
a vibrating jar
  ? We could call it Aetheral Vibrational Gravitational Model  AVGM..anyone...  
or maybe FVGM?.. Firmament Vibrational Gravitational Model  for us Bible 
folk..?  :)


philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:           Allen the 
Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity is calculated upon the centre of gravity, which 
does and has to take into consideration those factors of shape volume etc. .. 
or so I believed. 
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:50 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Grew
  

  In Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity the strength or pull of gravity is based 
solely on the mass of the object where I would argue for VG theory ... In VG 
theory gravity is a function of the mass as well as shape/ volume of the 
object(s) in question like the sand on the sound boards shape/volume is just as 
important as mass/density.... if the earth were 1/3 the size it is now the 
gravitational effects would not be that much different since the relative 
distance to the center of mass would be nearly the same when accounting for the 
increase in density that a earth 1/3 the size would have. Although water does 
not compress generally, the density of tap water is less than the density of 
sea water, the density of the earths crustal core with a hydration of say .007% 
would be far more dense then the water itself. In this way if the earth 
stretched due to a sudden catastrophic release of say ~1/7 of that water 
(popcorn effect) the density would decrease while the volume would
 increase this would account for the apparent increase in gravity 
(http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html) although the total mass 
of the earth would have stayed the same. Floating on the flood waters the 
effects for Noah would be nothing more then a ride on a conventional elevator. 
It has been calculated that the heat distribution of rain water itself is not 
sufficient for the task as well as the fact that scripture go to a lot of 
emphasis about the fountains of the great deep. If the catastrophic release 
were a nonlinear curve of water release ( Genisis 7:11 in that day all the 
fountains of the great deep broken up) then it is quite reasonable to suspect 
that the earth was flooded primarily due to the volume of water release greater 
than the expansion rate until such time as the water release came began to stop 
then the expansion overtook the water volume and the flood waters subsided into 
the now ocean basins. The weight of the water over the cracks at
 some point would keep the water from spewing out into space and given the 
gravitational effects for the earth at 1/3 size the necessary force for 
escaping the gravitational pull would be greater since the differences in 
gravity would not be a strict linear curve in a VG enviroment..... I cannot 
ignore the fact that the contents only fit together on a smaller globe and the 
geology is one of stretching not subduction unless you assume it first and 
ignore everything else,......in fact there is no engine for subduction except 
the overall "gravitational? effects of HC cosmology.. Umm.... Where a popcorned 
  (Relatively slowly primarily say over 1 year) earth would explain how and why 
so many fossils are found on land and were not simply all wiped away in to the 
ocean basins themselves particularly since if the flood took place on the earth 
at its current size ..well do the math the present surface of the earth is 80% 
water the erosion of all of the land masses would have dissolved almost 
entirely into the oceans themselves unless the land mass was much greater in 
the past but that poses a whole new set of problems in any explanation as well 
as the fact that the continents do mach up together, one simple must ignore the 
patterns....... other such evidence such a palladium halos, the fossile record 
(size of animals and insects note there were giants in those days Genisis 
6:4...ummm ...decrease in gravity would have that affect on a normal 6-7 foot 
tall man today & dinos too, maybe even affect longevity ?) testify to the 
quickness & totality of the event as well as the
 narratives of the food story which demand a sudden catastrophic event rather 
then any mild gradualistic event which also must take into account the 
recessional effects of the water which would be quite different if the water 
flowed in to a basin that opened at a rate almost consistent with the volume of 
water created rather then a volume of water over the whole earth that recesses 
into a gaping basin the erosion factors/ effects are entirely different. That 
would be the effect if the size of the earth were the same and the water that 
covered the whole earth is now all contained in the oceans..unless of course 
you are to argue that some of the water that was then does not now exist here 
on earth......Quite simply there is no other mechanical explanation that can 
account for all the necessary variables that this model can intrinsically and 
with what is observed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
   
   


Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     The earths crust is .05% or 
.005% (I cant remember which) water right now. A realese of only 2/5ths of what 
is curently contained in the rocks would accout for all of todays oceans ......
  
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
   
  You have to see this the more i think about it the more sense it makes from a 
biblical stand point the whole quickness of the water level rise and fall in 
the flood thing as well as gravity oxegen density dinos and ???..I dont belive 
what I see this.."yoohoo"... actualy figured it out minus a few details like 
the age of the earth.......look at the strech marks..I cant belive what 
thoughts I have had over the last several hours.....!
http://www.nealadams.com/challenge.html
   
   
  
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
  I ran across this by accident, I have never heard of this ,  I?m certainly 
not endorsing this,  but in terms of perportions, ratios and such there are 
some interesting underlying ideas. Granted they may led nowhere but his basic 
idea bings to mind the biblical flood/water issues..I have seen Walter Brown?s 
model and others which have many strengths but still problems, however the 
basic idea here as far fetched and crazy as it may seem strikes me very 
curiously....at first I thought this was a joke and did not think much about 
it.....this guy is a entertainer not a professional scientist but after reading 
much of the supporting pages and arguments and issues, it occurred to me that 
by hook or by crook these wacked out ideas/theories may be worth the effort & 
time to tear apart............ 
   
  http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
  http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/newest.html
  
  
  
  http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
  http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html
  
  
  
  http://www.nealadams.com/PhysicsOfGrow.html




    
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 7/04/2007 10:57 
PM


    
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 7/04/2007 10:57 
PM

Other related posts: