[geocentrism] Re: The Aether and Orbital Mechanics
- From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:30:04 -0400
Allen,
1) Please clarify whose statements are naïve. I hope that I have given you
no cause for insulting me.
2) Please clarify the connection between your comments and mine. You seem
to be stating the obvious re: mass, force and inertia. My background is
engineering, with a couple of years worth of college physics courses, so I
certainly understand the basics. I am talking about the forces applied by
the Aether (assuming it exists) and gravity (if it exists as a force
generated by objects other than the Earth). Dr. Jones is of the opinion
that gravity is a phenomenon of the World only, thus my question as to why
the Aether has not "pushed" or "pulled" the other planets out of Sol orbit
and into Earth orbit.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Allen Daves
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:59 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The Aether and Orbital Mechanics
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:
