[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:22:10 +1000
This is the aether. A condition of space which effects ["affects" I think you
mean?] everything material, and aetherical.. (fields) Hmm perhaps you are
correct. bad phrasing. I meant to say that the aether is an effect felt as
inertia in mass/material, and fields of force in "space" . I think it
misleading to use the standard definition of ether, as a "medium that pervades
all space" simply because people make it analogous to a fluid, with fluid
properties. It isn't. It is an unknown "state" or "condition" that
exists/pervades ALL space, even that between the particles of the atom. It is
contiguous, hence it can demonstrate wave motion in EMR. Which also means of
course that it is in some way, compressible and elastic, and thus capable of
storing energy.
It is the effect of the aether which gives mass its property of inertia. It is
the effect of the aether which gives mass its property of gravity, (coming
together) and it is the effect of the aether which causes the property of an
electrostatic and magnetic fields fields due to charge and charge flow..... and
so on .
Hope that helps. I really should stop trying to simplify my sentences... lol.
The secondary discs are distortions of the aether caused by the presence of the
central mass, which actually is the cause of the gravitiic and orbital laws.
I'll need more detail here before I can agree.
Never would I ask that you accept my hypotheses as being true. Sufficient that
you can see or acceot it to be a possibility without the need for omnipotent
co-ercion. I do not think that God needs to break any natural physical laws to
keep everthing in order supernaturally. This is not to say that He doesn't.
Maybe the aether is His presence. But I don't believe this to be so.
I truely believe in four dimensional space.
From here we get out of the G v H debate, and put it back in the realms of pure
science. The aether is still a valid concept debated in science, if for no
other reason than that certain phenomena involving wave theory of EMR cannot be
explained without recourse to it. But not, so far as I'm aware, within
Newtonian physics as it relates to the motions of the bodies within the solar
system. I'll have to look that up..Perhaps I am a genius... lol.
Keep this on the back burner till you have digested our absolute probables...
and I'll get you some aether. "...our..."? Are you stating categorically that
Neville Jones, Geradus Bouw, Marshall Hall and probably others are 99.998% in
agreement?
Sorry.. "our" means "yours and mine" big debate on absolutes and probabilities.
but on your query.. We don't claim our science as 99% certain. We do claim as
99% certain that there has to be a way to obtain/explain a geocentric universe
naturally without resorting to omnipotent co-ercion. We can have diverse
hypotheses to examine.. Nothing wrong or unscientific with that.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
Philip M
Comments to your post of Sun Mar 18 03:18:12 2007 in my usual teal.
=======================================
Other related posts:
