[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:25:10 +1000
Its ok Neville I ensured the post went to all parties including Rob B its a
common practise i do when sharing, and I do pass back any replies.. evenif
they conflict with my own opinion lol Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Philip,
And here we run into a problem, because Robert B has not come back onto the
forum, so how can he answer? This is why I seldom allow postings from anyone
who is not currently a member. To get a dialogue going under such circumstances
is very awkward.
It's not your fault, I'm just making the observation clear to all.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:23:24 +1000
Robert. Given that you theorise that resistance to flywheel axial rotation
is due to aether density? if we can call it that, would you think the same rule
would apply to any acceleration in a straight line?
There are a couple of questions that come out of this where MS call
acceleration any change of velocity or direction of motion due to the
application of a force. .
In the case of angular motion, when a car cuts a corner, at constant speed,
I can concur that extra force/energy is applied during the turn.
In the case of a satellite, yes again force g is applied to cause the
curved motion. which may represent an input of energy.
However in the case of a flywheel, at say1500 rpm, on frictionless bearings
in a vacuum, no force is needed to keep this angular velocity in momentum.. Is
this not an inconsistancy..
I know they talk of centripetal force, which has no energy input.. Is that
why they call it a fictional force??
You can divulge your intellectual property now as I have paid for my copy.
Cant wait for it to arrive. LOL.
Now some other applications.
Remembering Aspdens theory and experiment, I tend not to complicate the
aether with Scripture. From Aspden, it seems that the inertia of mass in
rotation causes the aether in the vicinity to spiral out away from the mass.
This spiral relationship can be positive or negative.. By that I mean, the
same effect would occur if the mass was revolving in the aether, or the mass
was static and the aether was revolving around the mass. As is the case we
proposed is happening in the geocentric system.
Therefore the aether would be spiraled out from the world close to it, due
to its relative rotation to the earth.Call this an aether rotating induced
centrifuge. Is this the vortex to which you are referring? This situation
would be unique to the earth. Satisfying Genesis. With the other worlds
rotating, it would be mass rotating induced centrifuge..
I cannot see that this necessarily means that inertia would reduce to zero
at depth, but the thought certainly raises many posibilities about what may
really be happening in the core. Then what about the poles?
the aether density must be higher there.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx ; Robert Sungenis ; Robert
Bennett
Cc: Martin G. Selbrede ; Neville Jones
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Good stuff Dr. Robert. They could never explain other than by a
mathmatical concept why a body rotating at constant velocity was called
acceleration... not to my satisfaction anyway.
You just did. You could have left out the scriptual reference though..
Science has no need of that... little grin..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: sungenis@xxxxxxx ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Neville Jones ; Philip ; Martin G. Selbrede
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
R&M,
Classical physics use angular momentum and rotational inertia to
empirically describe the bike wheel exp. But MS physics has no underlying
causal mechanism that explains inertia, the resistance to a change in linear or
spinning motion, nor can MS explain how the wheel knows/senses that it is
moving (and with respect to what?).
A truly loyal Aetherian would not run from this issue, but say that the
inertial component of the aether resists the attempt to change the vortex
induced by the original spin-up of the wheel.
If the aether is causing this effect, then removing or reducing it
should remove or reduce the effect.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The definitive answer
to the location of aether is in Genesis: the firmament is sandwiched between
the waters below and above (it).
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Miller’s exps have
shown that the aether can be partially shielded by the steel and concrete in
buildings and increases with altitude, implying that the firmament boundary
with the earth’s surface is gradual, not sharp.
The question is: how much shielding is needed? How deep must the exp.
be buried to see a measurable reduction?
MS physicists use abandoned salt mines to reduce cosmic ray background;
perhaps this would be deep enough.
But Russian deep drilling for oil indicates the shaft temperature falls
after ~8 miles down. This implies that the aether has been fully absorbed at
this depth.
Nevertheless there should be a decrease in the aether and the bike
wheel’s resistance to axial motion with depth. The same would be true for any
gyro motion, or the oscillation plane of the Foucault pendulum.
Robert B
From: sungenis@xxxxxxx [mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:51 PM
To: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
…….
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at
www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.24/1115 - Release Date: 7/11/2007
9:21 AM
Other related posts:
