[geocentrism] Re: Nature of the universe? & geostationary satellites
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:28:02 +1000
Allen, I do not pretend to understand your terms of electrostatic spin , or
even your idea of the impedance of Space. .. You seem to have been influenced
perhaps by Dr. Robert J. Moon.
Does this article explain what you are saying on the structure of the universe?
It does seem to have some close proximation. I left out the diagrams obviously.
As a practical radio theorist I have a more realistic practical explanation for
the electrical impedance(not resistance) of space, which has nothing to do
with the speculated structure of it. A very close similarity which may give you
(or even me) a clue, is the input impedance of a coaxial line, which is
constant irrespective of its length, or its electrical ohmic resistance. Space
has no resistance. Impedance is the vector resultant of reactance at right
angles to resistance. If the resistance component is infinity , the reactive
component which is wattless can have no losses.
Philip
The ABC of Cosmic Humbuggery
(From Fall 2003 21st Century)
Laurence Hecht
Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow were the whimsically conceived trio of authors of
a 1948 letter to The Physical Review, which reshaped modern thinking on the
origin of the elements, and also played an important part in the formulation of
the grand conjecture known as The Big Bang. The famous 1948 letter is a work of
scientific flim-flammery.
Aside from a lack of epistemological rigor typical of nearly all modern
cosmology, Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow's piece had the added feature of being a
direct attack on the leading school of experimental physical chemistry
associated with William Draper Harkins, Walter and Ida Noddack, and others.
Because it might not be recognized as such today, it is worthwhile to review
that aspect of the matter, and hope that in doing so we may cast some needed
light into one of the deep, dark holes of the cosmological mythmakers.
I came upon the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow piece in the course of pursuing the
trail of the nuclear hypothesis developed by my dear friend and former
collaborator, University of Chicago physical chemist and physicist Dr. Robert
J. Moon. Moon was the brilliant student of that same Harkins who, for several
decades, beginning about the time of World War I, took the point against the
reductionist school of atomic and nuclear physics led by Rutherford and Bohr.
We shall return to that healthy tradition shortly. We first briefly review the
story of the overpriced letter.
In early 1948, George Gamow, the well-known physicist and writer then at George
Washington University, and R.A. Alpher launched their attack on Harkins, et
al., in the form of a new theory of the origin of the chemical elements. Gamow,
ever the merry prankster, asked Hans Bethe to join in endorsing the effort,
which was published as a letter to The Physical Review in April 1948.1 Bethe
(who as recently as 1990, told 21st Century Associate Editor Charles B. Stevens
that "the only thing worse than cold fusion is Harkins") was glad to join in,
giving the paper's authorship its alphabeticality. We shall thus, henceforth,
refer to it as ABC Humbug.
The harmless part of ABC Humbug is the authors' conjecture that the heavy
elements, whose origin could not be explained by natural fusion of lighter
ones, might have arisen by neutron-capture transmutations occurring from
exposure to a neutron flux. The flim-flammery begins when the authors attempt
to prove the conjecture by trying to correlate the curve of the abundance of
the elements to neutron capture cross-sections, which were concocted out of
thin air.
The gist of the argument was that one could explain the abundancy curve by
showing that those atomic species of higher capture cross-section would, upon
neutron-capture, become unstable. Then, by such processes as beta decay
(emission of an electron), the neutron would be transformed into a nuclear
proton, creating a new species of higher atomic number. But a close reading of
ABC Humbug and a supporting article by Alpher2 demonstrates that the capture
cross-sections for high-energy neutrons were merely guessed at; in fact, their
determination remains a difficult matter, especially as cross-sections may vary
greatly according to energy levels. The entire idea of determining abundance by
capture cross-sections was pure conjecture, for the high-energy capture cross
sections were not known. They were only estimated by extrapolation from the 1/v
law, which was only true in a limited range. Alpher was not even shy about
admitting such defects. Indeed, the capture cross-section concept itself is
only a working hypothesis, lacking any clear understanding of nuclear structure.
The paper had an effect much beyond its worth. As a piece of science it was
probably not worthy of a passing grade. There is not even a sliver of a firm
foundation for the assertion that transmutation by neutron capture is the basis
for the origin of the heavy elements. All is conjecture.
William Draper Harkins (1873-1951, left) and his brilliant student Robert J.
Moon, Jr. (1911-1989) carried on the tradition of experimental physical
chemistry pioneered by Lavoisier and Mendeleev. Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow's
humbuggery was an attack from the direction of the Rutherford-Bohr school of
reductionist physics.
From this piece of fantasy, we are supposed to conclude that the elements
originated somewhere afar off from our solar system, in the presence of a
neutron source, which later came to be identified with a neutron star. ABC
Humbug tells us it all began with a highly compressed neutron gas, which
started decaying into protons and electrons when the conjectured gas pressure
fell, as a result of the conjectured universal expansion.
This was Gamow's version of the Big Bang, the predecessor of the modern
accepted brand. One of its worst byproducts was the placing into general
circulation of the really unproven assumption that the composition of matter in
the universe as a whole is now known. It would surprise most people today to
learn that at the time of ABC Humbug, and for some years after, almost all
astronomers thought that the core of the Sun, and of most stars, was iron.
Although the truth of this matter seems unknowable at this time-for we cannot
get to the core of our Earth, not to speak of stars-there is not really sound
proof otherwise. The accepted view of solar composition rests on a peculiar
construct known as the neutrino, conceived in 1930 by the Robert Fludd-admiring
mystic Wolfgang Pauli. In million-gallon vats of carbon tetrachloride, buried
deep underground, a minute number of phenomena supposed to correspond to this
little reaction-particle are observed. Is it the neutrino, or are we merely
being taken to the cleaners?
The Harkins School
ABC Humbug was an assault on that very productive tradition of physical
chemistry associated with Harkins and his student Moon. Its high-flying fancy
typifies the methodological sloppiness of much that came later, a point which
becomes clearest by contrasting it to the hardworking approach of the physical
chemists.
Recognizing that the elements in the crust of the Earth, the only ones
accessible to mining technology, might provide only a skewed picture of the
total distribution in the solar system, Harkins set out to examine the
composition of meteorites. These objects, presumed to have originated in the
asteroid belt, might, it was thought, provide a more representative sample of
the elemental composition of matter in the solar system, especially if they
represented exploded fragments of a larger body.
Harkins and his collaborators carried out painstaking analyses of samples from
more than 300 iron and stony meteorites. The results, published beginning in
1916, showed that only a very small number of the 92 elements made up the great
bulk of their matter. In an analysis of 350 stone and 10 iron meteorites,
oxygen, silicon, iron, and magnesium made up more than 90 percent of the atomic
composition. The first three of these elements alone made up over 80 percent.
The distribution was not so different in the Earth's crust. What should favor
these few elements over the others?
Another notable feature of the abundance tables developed by Harkins and
others, was what came to be known as the odd-even rule. While there is a
general tendency for the abundance to decline as one moves up the periodic
table, the abundance of the even-numbered elements nearly always exceeds that
of the nearby odd ones. These and other facts led to the hypothesis of a
correspondence between abundancy and nuclear stability. It was generally
supposed that the nuclear structure, once understood, would explain the reason
for the favored elements.
Another line of Harkins's researches led in the direction of nuclear fusion. In
writings as early as 1915, he noted the discrepancy between the sum of the
weights of four hydrogen atoms, or of two protons and two neutrons (Harkins had
conceived the neutron more than a decade before Chadwick, who is credited with
its discovery), and the measured atomic weight of the second element, helium.
The conversion of that missing mass to energy, according to the famous equation
derived by Einstein, would lead to enormous release of energy. The existence of
the spectral lines for hydrogen and helium in the Sun and stars suggested that
it was fusion that powered the stars. However, the same reasoning showed that
the production by fusion of elements much beyond iron would not lead to energy
release, for the mass defect in such combinations dwindled and disappeared for
combinations of the heavier elements.
If one were to take the simplistic view that the production of the elements
must have occurred by the fusion of pre-existing lighter elements, themselves
perhaps originating from the fusion of pre-existing hydroËgen, this fact would
present a problem. But only for such a simplistic view. The idea that the
existing state of the world can be explained by assembly of presumed
pre-existing parts, as in Aristotle's hyle or protyles, is one of the
characteristic features of reductionism.
Moon's Concept
Harkins's student, Dr. Robert J. Moon, was one of a number of leading
non-conventional scientific thinkers who used to gather periodically for
seminars with Lyndon H. LaRouche in the 1983-1989 period. In the summer of
1986, Moon conceived a new model of the atomic nucleus which drew upon his
lifelong work in nuclear physics and chemistry, as seasoned by the influence of
LaRouche's seminal mind and Johannes Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum.
The most proximate influence on Moon's thinking was the then-recent experiment
of Klaus von Klitzing, showing a stepwise set of plateaus in the Hall
resistance of a thin, super-cooled semiconducting layer. Moon saw that in von
Klitzing's apparatus, the electrons were limited to a plane, and thus, after
five steps, the plateaus become less distinct, but that in three dimensions
this might not be so. From such thoughts, Moon adduced that the stepwise
reduction from the maximum Hall resistance (25,812 ohms) down to the impedance
of free space (376 ohms), could be looked at as caused by the formation of
electron pairs. To explain the ratio of the maximum over minimum resistance,
which coincides with one-half the inverse of the fine structure constant, or
137, Moon envisioned putting together 68 electron pairs plus one single
electron, in three-dimensional space.
This now touched on a paradox in the theory of electricity which had intrigued
Moon for his whole life, from early childhood experiments. to his building of
the cyclotron which supplied the first atomic pile, to his design and
construction of the first scanning X-ray microscope. Namely, if free space is a
vacuum, how is it possible that it exhibits impedance, which is a kind of
resistance to the passage of waves that does not dissipate energy? His answer
was that there is no vacuum, and that what is called free space has a
structure. Thus space must be quantized.3 When these thoughts were put together
in his mind with the paradox of nuclear stability, which had been raised by
Harkins's work on the meteorites, the Moon model of the nucleus was born.
The structure for the quantization of space turned out to be an assemblage of
four of the five Platonic solids nested within one another, the sum of whose
vertices equal 46. Two such assemblages together form the 92 elements of the
periodic table. Three of them placed together, with one position lost at the
juncture, form the places for 137 electrons as they may be found in free space.
The building up of the nested solids corresponds to the building-up (aufbau)
principle of the periodic table. The first solid is the cube, whose eight
vertices correspond to the eight protons of the oxygen nucleus. This is the
most stable nucleus as attested by the abundancy of oxygen, which makes up
about 53 percent of the atoms in the meteorite samples. The cube may be thought
of as fitting within a sphere, around which is circumscribed an octahedron,
whose six additional vertices take us to the next most stable element, silicon
(atomic number 14), which comprises about 16 percent of all the atoms in the
meteorites. An icosahedron is circumscribed upon the sphere which surrounds the
octahedron. Its 12 additional vertices take us to iron (atomic number 26),
which is the next in abundancy, making up another 12 percent of the atoms in
the meteorite samples.
There, in the broadest outline, is the strong hypothesis of Moon, concerning
the nuclear structure. An elaboration of the correspondences to the chemical
properties of the elements may be found elsewhere.4 Moon did not speculate, to
my knowledge, on the origin of the elements, except to point out that the
steady flux of protons known as cosmic rays, taken together with his concept of
space quantization, give good grounds for supposing the creation of the
elements within the solar system.
Moon's model finds little audience today, while humbuggery of the most
speculative sort dominates our scientific literature and teaching. Such must be
the way of a world where men's minds remain in such confusion. Yet, we have
good reason to hope that we may soon change it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. R.A. Alpher, H. Bethe, G. Gamow, "The Origin of Chemical Elements," Physical
Review, Vol. 73, No. 7, p. 803 (April 1, 1948).
2. R.A. Alpher "A Neutron-Capture Theory of the Formation and Relative
Abundance of the Elements," Physical Review, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 1577 ff. (Dec.
1, 1948).
3. R.J. Moon, "'Spa'Space Must Be Quantized'" 21st Century Science, May-June
1988, pp. 26-27.
4. Laurence Hecht, "The Geometric Basis for the Periodicity of the Elements,"
21st Century Science, May-June 1988, pp. 18-30; "Advances in Developing the
Moon Nuclear Model," 21st Century, Fall 2000, p. 5.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 7:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Nature of the universe? & geostationary satellites
Dr. Jones,
I will attempt to start at the beginning working from the plain text to the
deduced; simple to more complex. The purpose here is not to ID the exact
function of every particle, but rather start from scratch, a build upward a
framework on which to develop an overall understanding of the nature of the
universe.. This will involve restating some naïve concepts and principles,
however I believe it is necessary in order to start completely afresh. There
are 7 specific areas addressed: A-F with a overall summary at the end. I have
tried to build simple to more complex adding on with each additional area.
A: All heavenly bodies are in the firmament, which is NOT the aether itself,
although we use it synonymously.
Scriptural evidence:
Genesis 1:4. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and
seasons, and for days and years;
6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let
it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8. And
God called the firmament Heaven.9. And God said, Let the waters under the
Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it
was so. 10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of
the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
15. "and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light
on the earth''; and it was so.
16. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17. God set them in
the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Scientific evidence:
"Free" space has 376 Ohms of resistance. Note: This holds true above the
atmosphere and even at & below sea level. It has other physical properties as
well. I.e. permeation. It is not possible measure or ascertain properties of
something that does not exist.
MM, MG & sagnac clearly demonstrate the aether and differences in reference
frames against the aether.
Electrostatic spin demonstrates the function of energy and mass as well as
physical spin force due to the function of mass & energy, this too implies a
aether. It is and can be felt mechanically.
Trouton/Noble experiment
Table top gyroscopic Trepidation clearly demonstrates that the firmament must
be attached to either the earth or at the same location of the earth in such a
way as to allow for this type motion of heaven.
All of these considerations are evidence that the Aether must be or part of
the mechanism that Connects heaven and earth.
A Conclusions:
The exact nature of the aether is unknown, however it can be detected.
Further, it can be deduced that the aether is the mechanism or is or part of
the mechanism, which fixes the Firmament to the earth. God declares the waters
are separated by the firmament, the Stars are in the firmament, and there is
water above and below. The waters below are called the "seas" see v10 ;
Therefore the firmament does not constitute the outer edge of the universe nor
does it penetrate the earth & or seas. the "Seas" are under, not in, the
firmament. See v 6-10 However, the aether exist external of the atmosphere and
does reach and penetrate the earth. MM & MG show this clearly even below sea
level. It is also shown that the aether has a direct effect on energy and at
least indirectly as a function on mass.
B: Mechanics are built into the Universe.
Scriptural evidence:
Jerimiah 31:35. Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day,
and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which
divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:
Jerimiah 33:25. Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and
night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;..
Job38:31. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the
bands of Orion? 32. Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst
thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 33. Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven?
canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
Note: Since then God has loosed the Band of Orion. God is indicating that the
universe has laws, that are intrinsic to it.
Hebrews 11:3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God,
Ecclesiastes1: 6. The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the
north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its "circuit".
C: "Our" Universe is constructed using repeating patterns and differing
manifestations of the same basic principles which are all observable here on
earth.
Scriptural evidence:
Ecclesiastes1: 5. The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to
the place where it arose. 6. The wind goes toward the south, and turns around
to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its
circuit. 7. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the
place from which the rivers come, there they return again. 8. All things are
full of labor; man cannot express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor
the ear filled with hearing. 9. That which has been is what will be, that which
is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. 10. Is
there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is new''? It has already
been in ancient times before us.
Other descriptions used by God, utilize familiar language to describe things.
This would not necessarily mean anything except the One who is describing
everything is also the One who created it!
Ephesians 2: 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21. In whom all
the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Hebrews 11:3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear.
Ephesians 5:23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.
Basically every parable Jesus ever told.
Scientific evidence:
The Repeating geometric patterns, proportions & principles that seem show up
in virtually everything. Everything has order. The order we observe seem to
follow observable hierarchy. Also note that if this is not the case then there
is no possible frame of reference from which to develop meaningful knowledge
from and thus proof would never be possible. Hebrews 11:3. Through faith we
understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which
are seen were not made of things which do appear
This thought process also suggest that at some point our capacity to learn
will breakdown entirely as God has already told us that we will not be able to
learn or know every thing. At first, this might seem counter to my point here.
It is not however, as the point here is merely stating that any and everything
within our capacity to know and or learn would be based on this principle of
hierarchy and repetitive simplicity. This is what I meant by "our" universe,
beyond which we can only see in glass darkly lit. 1Chorinthians 13:12. For now
we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but
then shall I know even as also I am known.
D: water above and below the firmament
Scriptural evidence:
Genesis 1: 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And
the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4. And God saw the
light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. .
6. ... Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8. And
God called the firmament Heaven. 9. .. Let the waters under the Heaven be
gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.....
14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and
for days, and years: 15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16. And God made two great
lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night: he made the stars also. 17. And God set them in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth, 18. And to rule over the day and over the
night, and to divide the light from the darkness:
Job 26: He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night
come to an end.
Job 37:18. Hast thou with him "spread out the sky", which is strong, and as a
molten looking glass?
This "looking glass" is also describe as the "Face of the sky".
Matthew 16:3. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the
"sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the "face of the sky".
Luke 12:56. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the "face of the sky"a and of the
earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
The face is synonymous with the Atmosphere.
Hebrews 11:12. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead,
so many as the "stars of the sky" in multitude,. Note: "stars of the sky" not
stars in the sky because the stars are set in heaven or the firmament.
Deuteronomy 33:26. There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who "rideth
upon the heaven in thy help", and "in his excellency on the sky".
There should be no question that there is water above and below the
firmament. However there is no indication anywhere that there is any other
relationship to include interaction or detection of the waters above the
firmament. The only possible exception to this could be the "dirty snowballs"
that pass from time to time. Although Dr. Walt Browns hydro-plate model of
their origin would make more sense in terms of the access and distance to that
water above. See also size of universe section E. Also the distinction between
the firmament and the face of the sky is apparent here. The waters above are
not even located in the firmament, they are further out, they are above the
firmament, which is above "the face".
Reasonable data shows the heavens intrinsic "visible color" or lack thereof
external of the atmosphere, is pitch black, not any shade of blue. It is only
here on earth that the Blue is visible either on bright night or day light
hours. From mars it take the color of that atmospheres conditions. In any case,
visible "color" is associated with atmospheric conditions and lighting effects
of the great light and lesser lights. These verses also ascribes "color" to the
conditions of the "Molten looking glass" or "face of the sky" and make the
distinction between the "face" and where the stars are located.
Scientific considerations:
The color of the atmosphere is due to its inherent makeup and mix of gases
reacting to the lighting effect (hence the term "molten glass" the atmosphere
is a fluid) of the sun and to a lesser degree the moon and stars at night.
There is no reason to believe nor is there anything to show why or how the
water above the firmament could have anything to do with anything we observe
here on earth. As the color changes with the lighting effects as well as
atmospheric condition, to suggest the color has anything to do with the water
above the firmament is to ignore the obvious and verifiable for the obscure and
un-provable. As a point of interest, any such model would also have to explain
a universe that with the suns'rays, would light up the interior "wall", but
only in one "hemisphere" of the universe at a time. Simultaneously, the sun
must light up a full moon or even in the case of a dark, while not lighting up
any of the surrounding interior "wall". In any case, all data, eviden
ce, and
in my opinion sound reasoning, external of pure speculation and wishful
thinking, indicate this is not possible, or even plausible. As the scriptures
do not demand this and they do indicate otherwise, and reasonable scientific
data does not support this, this theory must be considered untenable. There is
one other interesting aspect of water discussed in the forces section at the
end of this draft.
E: The Universe is immeasurably large and appears very old.
Scriptural evidence:
2Peter3:5. For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the
"heavens were of old", and the earth standing out of water and in the water,.
Jeremiah 31: Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the
foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the
seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord. But that will never
happen
Deuteronomy31: 6.. for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he
will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Isaiah 40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a
curtain, and "spreadeth" them out as a tent to dwell in:
It is not clear if the heavens are still spreading or no longer. The tense
used is active-past, present, future, the same use in the term "sitteth" in
v22. In any case the term "stretcheth" is an intensive (denominative) which
implies "extreme" force.
The point is measured distances are not a issue nor are they the problem in
relation to Scripture. God is telling us that it is impossible to measure them.
The contexts is the Greatness and awe of God and his power not the smallness of
anything. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands
of Orion? They are not just plastered on a the inside of the universal "wall",
equal distance from earth. Job38: 32. Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his
season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
They must appear old because he said he made them that way. But that is not
deceitful because he plainly told you exactly what he did! This is no
difference then if I make a antique "looking " piece of furniture and tell you
that I made it look that way. It would only be a lie if I made it look one way
and then pass it off to you as something that it is not. It would be a lie if
God stated that he made them "of old" but made them something else instead.
1Chorinthians 1: 19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20. Where is
the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not
God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21. For after that in the wisdom of
God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of
preaching to save them that believe.
The key is "them that believe" and take God for exactly what he said, there
are no problems only salvation.
Scientific evidence:
Triangulation of distance to the moon and sun and even out as far as ~300
light years+ 10% using any two fixed points on earth, with the earth's diameter
as the maximum possible base line. The universe must therefore be large enough
at least to accommodate these distances. There is no scripture or verifiable
data to justify ignoring all these accepted distances & proportions to the sun
moon even further out, stated by conventional cosmologist.
Red shift is useful although it will yield varying results based on various
assumptions. In any case it would be difficult to suggest a universe small
enough to actually reach the edge of even at the speed of light for the ~6000
years that everything has existed. Scripture implies this as well. Further if
distances can be triangulated out to 300 light years in one direction within
the earth at the center then it is reasonable that those distances exist for
the opposite direction. This alone demands the universe must be no less than
~600 light years in diameter. In addition it take light 4 minuets to reach the
earth. The velocity and intensity of solar flares in relation to the visible
time to the impact time are indicators of the distance as well. The only way to
construct a smaller universe is to discount all methods and measurements to
date. There is no impetuous for this, and as such is unreasonable. Since there
is nothing any older than ~6000 year there is no frame of ref
erence
as to what would "actually" constitutes being old. i.e. 14.5 billion years
old. Thus any measurements of distances out to millions or even billions of
light-years are meaningless in terms of age. These distances which are based on
reasonable data and techniques, do not in any way conflict with scripture or
trivialize God in any way. Further reasonable data show that the heavenly
bodies that make up the Mazzaroth are at quite different distances and not just
plastered on the "wall".
E Conclusions:
Everything including the light originated from God and the heavens were of
old. It is reasonable that, so to the light of the heavens. There is nothing
deceitful in that, He plainly tells you what he did! It would only "seem"
deceitful to those who would like to accuse God. But that is their problem not
God's unfaithfulness to his word. In fact that is word, to the letter. As he
states he made them "of old", suggest then that they must appear old so as to
be true to what he said he did.
Titus1:2. .. which "God, that cannot lie".
Otherwise, what does it mean to be "of old" This is rhetorical as it needs no
further explanation for those who will accept God's plain word. There is no
reason to believe that the distances to the sun moon and even billions of light
years could not or are not reasonable & or accurate mostly.
NOTE ON THE SPEED OF LIGHT: The speed of light in a large /small universe is
meaningless as EM light is located within the universe and velocity only has
physical meaning within the universe. So velocity of the universe is
meaningless except in terms of its orbit around the only fixed object "beneath
it", affixed to. Everything else is fixed into the universe and velocity still
only has meaning inside, relative to other objects inside. If the universe as a
whole is spinning around the earth the light & mass are being carried around
with it as well. The velocity of far distant objects would only be as red
shifted with respect to the earth, as all other bodies are travailing with the
heavens themselves. This is true because the earth is the only fixed body in
relation to the universe. This is consistent with concentric shells of red
shift. It would be nice to view the red shifts from bodies located in the
heavens. This suggest that they might not demonstrate the same degree, if
any
"red shift".
The most interesting thing to I think, is the fact that at the given
distances of the sun and moon and proportions , God is essentially providing a
frame work in which people can chose to believe the a-centric paradigm or his
Geo-static descriptions of it. On the surface both describe the same
mathematical coordinate system. However the a-centric description calls God a
liar and is intended to trivialize God in the hearts of men. There is nothing
deceptive in this. Without Choice there is no free will. God put the tree of
knowledge of good and evil in the garden on purpose. Further God will literally
help any one who wants to believe a lie. Don't believe it?
1Kings 22:19. And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw
the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on
his right hand and on his left. 20. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and
another said on that manner.
21. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I
will persuade him. 22. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I
will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
This event is recorded again in
2Chronicels 18:18. Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw
the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his
right hand and on his left. 19. And the Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab king
of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying
after this manner, and another saying after that manner. 20. Then there came
out a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him. And the
Lord said unto him, Wherewith? 21. And he said, I will go out, and be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice
him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.
22. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of
these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.
This is exactly what Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus warns the church of
the Thessalonians about!!!
2Thessalonians 2:10. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved. 11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: 12. That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
It is this that also provides the Godless Atheistic evolutionist with what
they want the appearance of endless Time.
I say appearance because although God plainly states that he made them of
old, they chose to ignore Gods reality and word for the "grand delusion". God
is giving everyone exactly what they need to make a decision between his
descriptions or their own. Note that if the sun moon distances and proportions
were any different Dr. Jones could have shown the differences. It is those
distances and proportions that allow this choice, and for many indeed a strong
delusion!
F: The universe is spinning around a motionless earth. It is fixed to the
earth & or the same or near point as the earth The axis of the point of
connection to the earth seems to be the empty place.
Scriptural evidence:
Job 26: 7. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the
earth upon nothing.
Ecclesiastes1: 5. The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to
the place where it arose.
I will not list them all here.
Scientific evidence: Dodwell's logarithmic sin curve of a tabletop gyroscope.
The MM &MG experiment of the earth's relationship to the aether and other
bodies within it. We don't know what the nature of the terminal end is, or how
it fastens itself to the earth. Except to say that whatever it is it allows the
universe to behave like a tabletop gyroscope. This also implies that some kind
of a plenum/aether/mechanism has direct continuity with the earth & fixes the
heaven to the earth.
G: Force Deductions:
I will start with Inertia.
Genesis 1:3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4. And
God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the
darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. .
God said let there be light, it does not say that about darkness. He divided
the light from the darkness but he also qualifies that with the sun moon and
stars. 14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night;...
Although we use the term darkness as a noun, it is literally nothing. Not
something but rater the absence of something, in this case light, which God did
create. Darkness could also be akin to the absences of God.
Force is work. Force is required to move, stop or change direction of
anything.
Inertia is not something, it is the absence of force.
A Object will remain in whatever its current state is until acted upon by a
"force". This is true because only a force chan do anything! But a force only
applied once will change the state of something once, it will not deviate from
that new state until a new force is applied. Inertia is not anything, it is not
caused by anything, it is the absence of the only thing that can make changes,
namely force; No force. no change; No light then darkness. This leaves the
question what is force?
I hope to demonstrate that a "forces" are not separate entities to
themselves, but rather the manifestation of a function between the aether,
energy and mass, in a hierarchical function/relationship. The aether makes the
primary determination for energy vectors, energy is the primary determination
for mass vectors. It is this function of mass and energy that determines force
vectors and properties.
The hierarchy:
FIRMAMENT
I
AETHER
I
ENERGY there are different forms/configurations of energy just as there are
different configurations of mass
I
MASS
I
Energy and mass function to produce: FORCE
Although there is water above and below there is no scriptural, observational
or experimental impetus to suggest that water has anything to do with force and
or mechanics at this time. However, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. It
is interesting to note that hydrogen is the most basic and abundant element
known, and its name and location are given in scripture, namely water. This
manifestation/ configuration of hydrogen is also the most important for life. I
am sure this is significant but for now, it is beyond the scope of this draft.
The only usable manifestations in our universe are mass and energy. There is
no force or motions external of these two components working symbiotically.
Energy and mass, without either one, no force is observed. Now that sounds
naive but it strongly suggests that forces are a Function of mass and energy
not a linear result of either one by itself. Energy is the "capacity" to do
work but work is never observed absent of mass. Two fundamental components,
energy and mass . What are the control mechanisms for mass and energy?
All mass is in some kind of continuity of the aether. This is true even of
the earth as it is attached somehow attached to the earth or the center of the
earth. The aether is shown to have direct effects on different types energy for
sure, but there is nothing that has shown it to directly affect mass. Mass
however is directly affected in the presence's of energy and energy is affected
by the presents of mass. This is further indication, as they only produce
"phenomena" in the presence of each other. Magnetized metal over a wire will
induce a current. The opposite is true as well. A current in a wire over a wire
will induce magnetization. Laser in a fiber optic cable will induce heat in the
cable and the light traveling through it can detect pressure applied to a fiber
optic cable. Naïve or not, this is vital in understanding what causes the force
that affects geo-synchronous satellites. Force is a non linear function of mass
and energy. The Force is not a result of any linea
r
relationship. i.e. mass attracted by mass. It must be a non linear function
of the mass and energy at that location or distance in relation to the other
masses in space. Because force could not be force if there is no mass at that
location.
At a different location there would be a different set of mass and energy
parameters, which would affect the phenomena observed in proportion to the
function of the energy and mass. This proportion would equally affect other
satellites orbiting other bodies because they are a function of the energy and
mass at their locations. It is still the same two elements mass and energy
involved. The same factors would determine the proper location so as to achieve
equilibrium of these functions. The mass of a satellite at any given distance
away from other mass will behave identically whether or not the body is
spinning or not. This is true because in a spinning body a satellite starts
from the same spin velocity relative to the aether. In the case of earth where
the earth itself is not spinning the same relative velocity to the aether still
exist. This is exactly what was shown by the MM and MG experiments. Although
the earth is not spinning the aether is, and that velocity is identic
al to
what the assumed velocity of the earth's spin would be. Energy is shown to
be directly affected by the aether. Therefore, the aether must be carry energy
around with it. This energy would have in addition to the overall spin of the
aether, currents and eddies within those currents. Since all mass have there
own harmonics mass are kept in there respective currents and eddies, overall,
due the fact that a particular mass is TUNED to a particular set of currents
and eddies. I say "overall" because there are and would be some interference/
perturbations, which is why such things as wobble are observed. This is perhaps
due to interference with other masses in other currents & eddies. Some of the
factors that determine this Tuning would be size, density/intensity and
ingredients of the mass. These two factors, at least, are some of the same
factors that determine how a mass interacts with different types of energy and
in turn, how energy is affected by it. That relationship betwee
n the
properties of this energy and the properties of a mass will determine the
strength of any forces produced. Spin dose not produces force, but a mass with
a relative spin velocity to the aether's energy will produce spin forces. It
is, however, the function of mass and energy in the eather not the mass and or
the ether itself.
F Conclusions:
A geo-synchronous satellite stays in its position, hovering over the same
spot of a body, either due to inertia, the absents of any force, or more likely
the degree to which the mass and energy in the aether at that distance from a
given body produce force, and compensated for, so as to achieve force
equilibrium. For example: A compensating force must be applied to a mass
(satellite) throughout the masses trajectory, or until it has reach its
target/destination or until all of the forces functions have reached
equilibrium. This is assuming that it is inside the influences of the "force"
function created by another mass. It is only by trail and error that we know
what kind/amount of energy we must apply so as to create the correct force
function and what the margin of error for equilibrium at a given distance.
Since size is closely associated with Mass, it could be just as reasonable to
associate size or displacement as a key factor as well or instead of. This also
suggests fi
nite
effects for gravitation, however it would be consistent with push models,
akin somewhat to surface tension and shadowing. In general terms I consider,
those models of gravity to show more promise in accounting for all the
observations.
If either of the two main, energy, & or mass/displacement at a given location
then neither can there be very much "force" generated at that location either.
In a spinning body from which a satellite is launched the "force" created by
the mass of the spinning body and the energy in the aether is applied to the
satellite before it even departs. The amount of the "force" on the satellite
would be dependent upon the satellites mass ability to complete a energy/mass
function. However, it is still a non-linear function of the mass and energy.
The energy present for the large body is present for the satellite as well.
This variable will not change until the satellite moves into its "own
space"(absent of the force function of the parent body). However, the "force"
is already applied. Therefore, unless & or until another "force" is applied it,
will remain in whatever state it is in. It is this function of energy and mass
where the aether determines energy vectors and energy determines
mass
vectors via the force created as a function of both. Since mass and energy
can be expressed as equivalent is plausible that one is just a higher
structured manifestation of the other. Which could suggest that the aether is
just a different structured manifestation of energy. Energy makes up the
primary portion of the function of mass and energy, so that energy essentially
becomes the tie that binds the mass (earth and other bodies) to the aether and
then to the firmament, and provides the necessary environment for interaction.
If the ball strikes another ball then "force" is generated but to which object?
It may stop one object while simultaneously put another object into motion.
Answer: It is irrelevant, because "force" is a function of the masses and the
Energy in the aether; not either or both of the masses or energy themselves. A
body absent of any force will continue in its present state indefinitely or
until acted upon by a force. It will not stop or go or change direc
tion. It
cannot because a force is required to do that.
Summary:
All mass is fixed to the firmament via the aether. Since both are essentially
attached to each other, then one only need pick one to be the absolute frame of
reference, the firmament or some other body that is attached to the firmament.
Trepidation observation indicates that the earth is the absolute frame of
reference. Therefore the firmament and all bother bodies attached to it are
spinning around the earth. Since they are attached to the firmament via the
aether they will sill move within the firmament, as they would have if any
other frame had been chosen. This would be the case because the aether is
determining energy vectors, akin to currents and eddies within currents. That
energy is functioning with the mass located in their respective spatial
locations to produce observed movements. As the masses are fixed via the aether
and aether is determining energy vectors and energy vectors function to
determine mass vectors, the spin of the firmament and or aether has no effec
t on the
speed of anything in it. This is true because everything is being carried
around by them, except the absolute frame. Speed is a result of force and force
is a non linear function of mass and energy; mass and energy & the firmament
are all fixed or tied together via the aether.
I am not able to draw diagrams so I hope the word pictures are enough. This
is not complete or error free but the given the time I have, it will have to do
for now.
Allen
Nature of the universe? Supposed geostationary
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I will write up a more
detailed, consolidation report on this and post it in the next day or so,. by
the end of the week.
This is going to take me a little while.
"Dr. Neville Jones" wrote:Allen Daves wrote:
I am oversimplifying here but I think I can show this from Scripture, ...
Please do.
Also, what force acts on a "geostationary satellite" that is positioned above
a stationary World?
Neville.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
