[geocentrism] Re: The Aether and Orbital Mechanics
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Some of the statements here are naïve but just think about it. A object is at
rest because no "force" is applied. When a "force" is applied to cause motion
the "force" is not continually acting upon it. A "force" only applied once;
however, it will stay in motion because there is no "force" to acting upon it.
It seems the common denominator for any change to its state is "force" where
inertia is just the natural state of the mass absent of any force. Much in the
same way that we take light and darkness. Darkness is not "something" but
rather the absence of something, Light. We still refer to it as a noun though
technically it is nothing, jut the natural state absent of electromagnetic
energy, or visible light. Everyone including Mach and company were trying to
determine what "cased" inertia. There would be no "cause" if it was just the
natural state absent of force?
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Perhaps inertia is not a force at
all but rather the absence of force, literally nothing. Maybe inertia is the
natural state of any mass absent of any force. As such, we could not describe
it in terms of "somthing" or a function of mass or some mysterious "force"
because it would just be the absence of anything else. It is only the mass and
energy of the universe that gives context to movement anyway. However,
depending on "something" being either energy or mass might determine which
mechanism will principally play apart when it comes into "contact "of something
else. Aether would be the medium for energy ; mass the medium for mechanical
movement with a interdependent function between Energy, mass & perhaps even the
aether? The various manifestations of this function we would call a "force"
depending on the composition of this function with those three "qualities"
Aether, mass, energy.
Allen
stny.rr.com> wrote:I misspoke. Please disregard the words "and beyond" in the
first paragraph,
although I suppose it does not matter much that the aether works on the
rocket during its entire flight.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Davidson
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:01 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] The Aether and Orbital Mechanics
"Every body continues in its state of rest or motion in a DIRECTION GOVERNED
BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE AETHER except in so far as it is compelled by forces
to change that state."
If I understand correctly, the above statement implies that the motion of an
object in space is to tend toward an orbit about the earth. This may be due
to a) frame dragging or b) a "push" by some physical property of the aether
as it rotates about the earth. So, if a rocket were sent far into space and
then decelerated to a point where its onboard sensors indicated a velocity
of "0", we would expect it to begin accelerating into a circular orbit about
the earth such that its period eventually synchronizes with the Aether,
which we assume to be one earth day. How long would that take? This
thought experiment neglects for the moment that the aether may be "dragging"
or "pushing" on the rocket during its entire flight up to and beyond the
moment it "stopped".
This leads me to question why, after thousands of years, the other planets
are still orbiting the Sun and have not been "dragged" or "pushed" into
orbit around earth. The natural conclusion would be that the Sun exerts
sufficient force on those other bodies to keep them in orbit about itself.
That is fine if you believe that gravity (or whatever the controlling force)
depends upon mass or some other property of the Sun, or at least is not
confined to some unique property of earth.
Comments?
Bob
Other related posts:
