[geocentrism] Re: Nature of the universe? & geostationary satellites
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Dr. Jones:
"The "accepted" amount of refraction is based upon the assumed distance to
these objects" . Lets Assume for the sake of argument that your position is
correct. If this is the case then all of the methods that have been used to
develop the current distances as well various space agencies over periods of
years, using satellites and trips to the moon manned or unmanned are all lies.
I freely admit all these things could be lies. However, the burden of proof
rests not on the various countries and space agencies but on you/us. Then and
only then could we put forward a proof that the accepted amount of refraction
is incorrect You would have to prove that it is all a lie, not just state that
you don?t accept it, based on your/our own assumptions. If you take that
approach the circular reasoning is entirely yours/ours. We would be stating
that the refraction is based on incorrect assumptions of the distance and
therefore the conclusions are incorrect, however this is base on our assu
mption
that the distances are incorrect, and that has not been proven. This is still
circular logic We must prove not just state that we think or we don?t agree
with the data in hand. It is reasonable data, and they have practical fruits to
show for their labors, we can?t produce anything to show any of it to be a lie,
not from scripture or science. I am all for exposing the lies, but we cannot do
it based on our own assumptions, that is no different then those who really are
spreading the lies, intentionally or not. Therefore, the distances must be
addressed as they stand now, and considered valid. They are plausible both in
terms of scripture, scientific data and methodologies, as reasonable until
"proven", not just stated, otherwise.
Phillip:
Electrostatic spin original news release
http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=548
Dr. Harold Aspden Who?s Theories of the Either predicted this phenomena years
ago.
MM & MG as well as Sagnac and Truton noble demonstrate the Physical effects of
the Ether on EM energy.
As well as the work performed by Fresnell on aether properties.
You may or may not be right about Moon?s conclusions. As for free space having
properties, the exact nature of those properties are not agreed upon by
everyone however, to say that "free space" has properties and structure is not
a question great contention even within the " physics" community. I know that
proves nothing, but substituting someone else?s conclusions based on your own
assumptions, is not any better either. Simply, describing something or
someone?s popularity, proves nothing. In any case your remarks, still leaves
you with a "free space" that demonstrates structure and properties, regardless
exactly how you describe it or what you call it. This does not takes away from
the aether or the fact it has properties & or its relationship to the firmament
and us.
I am sure you have heard of Ed Hatches work as well. He wrote one of "the
book"s on Satellite navigation. He states plainly Einstein was a liar, the
aether is very real. It is used in virtually every GPS receiver, AKA the "Hatch
Filter." this was a technique developed for removing much of the noise caused
by electromagnetic reflections in it. http://www.egtphysics.net/
The overall point I have tried to demonstrate is that the preponderance of
evidence, not necessarily any one item, experiment or one persons work or
standing that I cite, scriptural as well as scientific , without arbitrarily
selecting data or interpretation, supports, I believe the, overall frame work
I out lined, and it is reasonable and consistent with reasonable data and
experiments.
A: All heavenly bodies are in the firmament, which is NOT the aether itself,
although we use it synonymously.
B: Mechanics are built into the Universe
C: "Our" Universe is constructed using repeating patterns and differing
manifestations of the same basic principles which are all observable here on
earth.
D: water above and below the firmament
E: The Universe is immeasurably large and appears very old.
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.
G: Force Deductions:
----- 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.
=== message truncated ===
Other related posts:
