[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

Yes phil,
  1. I have
  2. we discussed this in the aether discussions
  3.you obviously missed what i said Newtons laws do not prove or indicate the 
preferd mechincs as you say they do
  4. Prior to Einstine..Newtons laws of motion were used to "prove" real v 
relitive motion..in fact that whole consideraton that you keep wanting me to go 
back to is what sparked Earnst Mach to formulate Mach's principle which 
specificaly outlines and holds as PROVEN that there is no difference in a GC 
and HC frame work even within Newtonian mechanics....
   
  so matter how you approach it Phill, Newtons laws do not indicate or prove 
anything...Why you instist that they do is beyond me...All this was coverd over 
100 years ago AND THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY MS THAT NEWTON'S LAWS DID NOT 
PROVE HC OVER GC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11...WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN OL BOY...!?
   
   
  
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      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:     DIV {   MARGIN: 0px  }        
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: