[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:02:19 +1000
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said...
What you and miss is the fact "that newton does not pretend to know why they
act the way they act. Newton does not know what the mechanical force is...he is
only explaing it..his laws are descritptions of observation "
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
And that is why I also said such has no bearing on the question..as regards
Geocentrism being explainable within his "laws are exact descritptions of
observation" .. and I also said, and will say it three times again,
"We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep running
away from it? " We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do
we keep running away from it? We have known about, and discussed this here for
years, why do we keep running away from it?
You went into a long winded nothing that failed to eplain what is observed ,
namely the world reacts against a flywheel, and therefore must be moving
according to all the known mechanical laws of science..
You seem to have missed what I also said, so I'll say again it three times..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system. In Newtonian physics
thats the proof of the HC systemIn Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC
system..
and
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping
Robert with GWW can do that.
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping
Robert with GWW can do that.
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping
Robert with GWW can do that.
And you and me and all are not going to do that by talking about illusions
caused by our inability to visualise why a camera will not detect which system
is actually moving.. Nor will we do that by repeating over and over that
Newton is wrong, unless you can prove he is wrong and supply an acceptable
alternative theory..
I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
Now please go back and DO the flywheel experiment for an hour.. not think
about it ... do it..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Phil,
What you and miss is the fact that newton does not pretend to know why they
act the way they act. Newton does not know what the mechanical force is...he is
only explaing it..his laws are descritptions of observation NOT WHY THINGS WORK
that way. Thus Newtons "laws" can be used to describe geocentric WHY THINGS
WORK as well and HC. Newton Proves nothing and Newton made no pretese to that
affect... I seriously doubt Regner is willing to die on that hill, but if he is
bing it on!........ Newton proves no mechanical how or why things work the way
they do.....his work isonly descriptions so Newton canot be used to prove any
mechanical construct..In fact newton "laws" do not contridict GC ...This fact
is true regaurdless of newtons own personal preferences, his personal
preferences do not get any more weight simply becuse he decribes the "laws" you
refer to ..He admited he did not know what gravity was..his personal thoughts
attached to his descriptions proves nothing!..Only his descriptions of what was
happining are "farily" valid not his personly thoughts on why his descritpions
work...??? You are confusing Newtons work ( "laws") which are nothing more then
descriptions of what is observed but you are confusing that with his comentary
on is own work and those laws... the laws are dmonstratable the reasons the
work that way were never shown to be so and further have been shown to be
problimatic.......
1. the only direct measurment of Gravity showed it to be pusing not pulling
2. his inverse square law only holds true at very close astro distances
3. His laws cannot explain large scale structure of the universe or even
galexy formation/ persistance...
No Newton proves nothing excpet that newton had a lot of wrong ideas for why
his descriptions worked.....!
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Repeat for Jack and Allen;
Regner asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning
bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.
Newtons laws are demonstrable and satisfactory for dealing with motion, if
not the reason why, at least the properties as experienced.
Hold the axel firmly with wheel edge in front of your nose whilst the
wheel is spinning rapidly. Now try to rotate your body.
A spinning flywheel is stable and resists angular rotation around its axis
of rotation . You can test this principle as Regner suggested. .
The bicycle depends on this principle to work.
A bicycle wheel that is suspended vertically and powered to rotate
continuously, with the axel pointing east- west. in a frame having no
resistance to rotation in any direction , (set in gymbol bearings) will
maintain it orientation vertically for ever, except , because the earth is
rotating one revolution per day, this frame will not turn with the motion of
the earth.
Consequently if you are looking at this wheel edge on from the North, you
will see the frame with the wheel turn slowly clockwise , making one complete
turn per day. If it was vertical on 12 oclock at noon, it will be pointing at
1 an hour later, and so on.
If the world was not rotating with any angular movement, this flywheel
would remain in the vertical orientation .
We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep
running away from it? Long range ballistic missile computers using inertial
guidance systems must program in this rotation to stay on course..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
uh yea ..im at a loss here to phil........how does that prove HC again..?
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK Philip,
What's the relevance, please explain?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Regner concedes?
If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of
geocentrism Jack asked Paul?
Jack, Regner never will concede such a thing..
He asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning
bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.
I told you all this yesterday..
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm
hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
Philip..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date:
4/11/2007 11:05 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 4/11/2007
11:05 AM
Other related posts: