[geocentrism] Re: The aether.geocehtrism
- From: Alan Griffin <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:15:27 +0100
On 15 Aug, Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just as light travels down those fibre optic cables, by multiple
> reflection from the inside of the tube, so likewise I can hypothesise
> that the medium of the aether is an effect produced by the fourth
> dimension I mentioned earlier. It radiation cannot penetrate time and is
> thus "bounced" figuratively between the "layers" and kept in three
> dimensional space.
> I said hypothesise , so It is safe for me to conjecture about it. I am
> not certain if there is any proof, (though I thought Einstein suggested
> it a mathmatical possibility) of this fourth dimensin in any case. If it
> is true, then you have your medium, and its effect is caused by the
> barriers of time either side of the present. And it of course is a
> different animal to the conventional physical medium, if you liken it to
> say the fibre optic cable in a vacuum, as I mentioned above. (purely to
> give it some graphical representation.)
> As regards your query , why is an aether necessary, I meant it necessary
> for my idea of geocentrism. I cannot see how the rim (of the stars)
> could ever exceed the speed of light, but if the universe we perceive is
> but three dimensions of a much more complex "object" which is rotating,
> then this becomes possible based on the principles of my analogy of the
> atoms in a spinning turntable.
Of course the stars can't exceed the speed of light, but according
to your theory of their rotating every 24 hours every star is exceeding
the speed of light.
The nearest star is 4 light years away, so the cirumference of its
orbit is 2 x pi x 4 = 24 light years. So the star travels 24 light years
in 24 hours. Light travels 24 light years in 24 years, so the star would
be going much faster than light!
And then you invent an aether with weird properties connected to
time, which can never be tested. Your spinning turntable is NOT an analogy
for the solar system. What is the point, when there are straightforward
rules for the universe which explain everything so far observed and which
99.999999999999% of people, including all scientists agree with? Do you
think you are more intelligent than all the recent great scientists?
Alan
Other related posts:
