Dr. Jones, 1.Yes, your second point is what is was getting at. 2. the fact that the world does not rotae is irrelivant it does not chage or nessisitate a new set of forces. I am oversimplifying here but I think I can show this from Scripture, existing observation and experimentation and account for just about everything. However the real point is it demonstrates possibilities with out multiple source for forces due to a spatial and a fixed earth position. What spins is the aether energy is ebbs and flows within the aether, mass is moved by the function of those energy flows and the mass in them. It is not the aether itself that moves the mass. The whole universe of mass located in those flows move with the flows and the flows move with the aether. The aether is fixed to the earth. Allen "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, I think you are missing the point. And that point is our Point Number 1: IN BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY THE WORLD DOES NOT ROTATE. If the World is not rotating, then what is? How does the supposed "geostationary satellite" counter this rotating medium? That is, how is it going the other way to the medium? I must address something else that you claim. Namely, "However, if you are wrong, which I can at lest offer evidence to show, then you are setting yourselves up for a great disillusionment that may have a detrimental impact on your and others faith." - NO!! If these things exist, then the Bible will not be wrong. MY UNDERSTANDING of the workings of the geostatic cosmos would be seriously wrong. I would have to start again. It would be my understand and thesis that would go in the dustbin, not the Bible. I hope this is clear. Neville. Allen Daves wrote: This is still an assumption about the nature of "forces". Regardless of what cause it or what name you give it or what you think it is or is not if it is accounted for then you will be successful. As for NASA and as a consequence every other Space Agency, for every "success" they had dozens of failures. This is exactly what you would expect from trail by error. Your point here only highlights the fact that we know very little about the nature of forces, not that certain forces do not or cannot exist. Since there is no proof that Geo-satellites don?t exist other than philosophical assumptions, and all the evidence that does exist suggest that they are real, I would think that your approach would be to Id the nature of the "force" not outright dismiss something for which, by your own admissions you have no proof for. This is not sound reasoning. If you can prove it fine but the only evidence that does exist, suggest you are wrong. I am not trying to get you are any one to "buy into" my or someone else?s models. That is no the point. However, if you are wrong, which I can at lest offer evidence to show, then you are setting yourselves up for a great disillusionment that may have a detrimental impact on your and others faith. Now just because I provide evidence doesn?t mean you will acce.pt it or make it so, nor does the fact that you consider it impossible exclude the reality of it regardless of whether or not that reality fits your ideas. In sciences you work from "Known" to "Unknown". There is no known reason why they could not exist other than your Ideas. However, it is the reasoning of man that concluded that a earth center universe was unreasonable in the first place. There is no Scripture that states Geo satellites cannot be. Therefore all your conclusions are based on your own assumptions, not facts and actual experiments or observations. You are just outright dismissing what you can?t understand. This is Acentric logic. Again I must stress this is n ot sound reasoning Allen Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com