[geocentrism] Re: New paper

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:51:40 -0800

Dear Robert - Many thanks for your comments, suggestions and encouragement. I hope to get back to you in due course (and, by the way, please excuse my lack of response to the Peleg comments you made quite some time ago; I have not been deliberately ignoring you).

Dear All - I have been working on the paper today and have uploaded a slightly extended version of it, which I hope makes clear a subtle distinction between Newton's work and what I am tentatively suggesting. There are minor changes throughout and so I would recommend a full reprint, rather than trying to copy and paste. I hope to make changes/corrections as per Robert's comments as appropriate, but that will not be for a few days, God willing.

Dear Paul - The Site Map is now up to date (albeit with a minor graphical error in the layout of the page).

Regards,

Neville.


-----Original Message-----
From: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:05:49 -0400
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: New paper

        

Thanks for your contribution to the advance of GS, Neville  – the Artemis analysis seems to uncover more chinks in Newton’s armor.

 

From:   Geosynchronous satellites in a geostationary universe

 

....such instability in terms of altitude is not observed; there being only a slight drift in longitude.

 

Indicative of null gravity/aether - not just a minimal value.

 

Furthermore, the planets, asteroids, etc., which in the geostationary model orbit the World, would display marked

variations in the perturbation effects that the mass of the rest of the universe would have upon their orbits (consider

the apogee and perigee of Mars, for example).

 

A small g field would be subject to local perturbations just from the Sun and Moon position changes.  EG: The sun's gravity on the geostat sat varies by about 3% in 12 hours - the difference between the Sun and sat being on the same side and then on opposite sides of the earth. This would lead to obvious deviations from the geostat altitude over time.

 

It is a failing of the heliocentric model that the mass of the rest of the universe is not factored in to barycentre calculations.

 

Amen. Objects don’t orbit each other, but only orbit center-of-masses in the Newtonian barycentric system, yet the planets orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth !!

The motion of objects – their speed and centripetal forces, eg – is arbitrarily determined by the choice of system objects that is isolated from the rest of the universe! 

 

For geocentrists to rely upon this unknown magnitude and distribution of mass to provide their geocentric model with an incredible explanation of geosynchronous satellites is less excuseable though, because in the former case it gives rise to necessary mathematical approximation, whereas in the latter case it is nothing more than a convenient, saving grace.

 

            Agreed. GS is untenable within Newton's mechanics, but requires aether, as Scripture supports.

 

If Newtonian physics is correct with Eq. 2, then the geosynchronous satellite parking orbit calculations are trivial,

and the geostationary model of the universe cannot be maintained.

 

            So let's drop trying to match Newton's gravity with GS and focus on aethereal mechanics.

 

...it is to fundamental principles that the geocentrists should look.

 

            Besides Biblical guidance we should pick up the scientific search for the aether that was derailed by big Al in 1905.

 

Unless the geostationary model is simply to be discarded, therefore, its characteristics must be examined in detail,

with a view to detecting necessary departures from the mainstream physics of the acentric model of the universe,

and one way in which this might be achieved is via a new formula for the strength of the World's gravitational field,

with the proviso that the alternative function agrees with Newton's at least up to low earth orbit (LEO) satellite

operating altitudes.

 

Why not replace the term ‘gravity field’ w/aether?  We know that the far firmament rotates westward and the near firmament eastward, so the boundary must be stagnant - at the geostat distance (as discussed in past posts).

Much as we would map an EM field, we need a spatial map of the aether properties in the GS ref frame near the Earth and make predictions that are experimentally separable from Newton.

 

... the radio-frequency ion propulsion system did a remarkable job in raising such a mass almost 4,800 km against the force of gravity with a nominal thrust of just 0.015 N. ..... This tends to imply that there could have been no gravitational force acting on the satellite from an altitude of at most 31,000 km.

Secondly, we note that its increase in altitude was a constant 14 km per day, but that the thrust was also constant.

This further points to there being zero gravitational field strength at 31,000 km,  ==> the law of inertia, being wrong

insofar as it refers to moving objects.

....there can only have been zero acceleration during the 343 days of continuous firing of the 15 mN ion thruster,

Fourthly, Newton's second law of motion has to be flawed in some way, since the ion thruster on ARTEMIS

produced force and resultant velocity, but no acceleration.

 

From the Artemis site: With a thrust of just 0.015 N, RITA raised the orbit of Artemis by just 15 km per day until operational geostationary orbit was achieved

I believe the 15 km/day refers to an average speed , not continuous.  To increase altitude from 31 Mm requires an acceleration , just as stopping at 36 Mm requires a deceleration. (See the yellow zone in image below). 

I interpret the description as pointing RITA earthward for the first half ~ 170 days, and reversing the thrust of .015 N for the last half of the trip.  The average would be the speed at about 85 days into the trip.

I would certainly verify this with an inquiry.

 

 

....impetus, which is the tendency of the body to move only during the time that force is

applied to it.

           

On this side of the pond, impetus is the product of a force and its application time.

 

Actual movement of celestial bodies such as the Sun, Moon and stars then becomes the resultant combination of

three components: rotation about an axis, traversal along or around a path, and the rotation of the aether (in which

the object's path is set) about the World

 

            The observed speed of cb’s is then the speed of the cb in the aether plus the aether’s speed with respect to Earth(GS frame).

The max rotation(angular) speed of the aether is 2*pi/the sidereal day

            Stars and gas planets would also have differential rotation for latitudes.

 

Though many defenders of a heliocentric `solar system' will attack the paper because of this absence of detail

regarding the aether, it should be borne in mind that the word, `gravity', elated as it is amongst the general public,

is still, after all this time, incapable of explaining the stability of the celestial sphere and is itself devoid of causation

     

Also:

existence of aether was believed by every pre-Einstein physicist.

detection of aether was the purpose of the MM exp

neglect of aether exps by MS for a century represents lost opportunities to advance objective science.

     

(Einstein's General Relativity-based warping of Minkowski's space-time excluded).

 

I say included.   Space-time is an empty concept, devoid of physical meaning. How do you measure it - with a ruler-clock?

Space-time curvature is the warping of nihil.

 

The explanation of geosynchronous satellite mechanics within a geostationary universe is thus a problem which

necessitates modification and refinement of the inertia-centred work of Isaac Newton, to reintroduce the concept of

impetus advocated by Socrates and Plato.  

           

Rather, extend the concept of aether espoused by 19th century physicists.

 

The decaying away to zero of the World's gravitational field strength with altitude means that the geostationary

cosmological model proposed in this paper predicts that satellites could be placed in any stationary position above

the World, above the furthest reaches of the field, being subject then only to the forces of solar radiation pressure.

 

Within the zero aether zone at the geostat distance,  satellites have no motion in GS. Above or below, north or south of that zone, satellites are subject to the near and far firmament rotation.

 

.... claims made by the American government agency, NASA, regarding space probes,

gravity slingshots, comet rendezvous and so on, would be fraudulent,

 

ESA has partnered with NASA previously; can ESA – or any space agency - be trusted, as an ally of NASA? Is the Artemis data just a computer simulation?  

Why is ESA exempted from these charges  -  continental chauvinism?  

EG:  From http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_ARTEMISAdvancedRelayandTechnologyMissionSatellite.html

“The S/C launch mass is 3100 kg (550 kg payload, 1538 kg propellant).”  ???

 

 

Robert

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2007