[geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:16:27 +1000
Allen Newtons laws work close enough fine for me.. no speculation needed .. no
theories either.. Its straight experimental evidence.. What you measure is
what you got..
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 10:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Phil, my "speculitive theroies" are not as speculitive as the ones MS keeps
appealing to....mine are consistnet with logic observations and experiance
.....not in spite of it......Therefore if you are not intersted in speculitive
theories then why use MS's to argue against GU or my grav theories which are
far less "speculitive" then the ones you are ; "I'm quite happy with the normal
kind " ...??
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 4:37:40 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
I think you are missing in my comments is a fundimental differnce in not just
how it works but the source of Gravity itself. In AVGM The wave is resposible
for gravity but the wave doese not originate from mass allen
Thank you Allen.. but I was not interested in your speculative theories that
have as much if not less support for them as Einsrein has.. Even my aether
theory is only speculation.. Your source of gravity has no bearing on the
practical realities Paul was discussing..
However I am greatful for your statement ,
"Although it is posible to mathematicaly model a pushing gravity wave in the
same way that MS models Gravity. "
That is as far as I wanted it to go.. Experimental reality without any room
for speculation .. And I was not pushing a pushing gravity.. I'm quite happy
with the normal kind called molecular attraction, which works out just fine
experimentally for all our near earth near moon near sun experiments..
ta ta,
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:05 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Ok no kick, I understand what you are saying. Although it is posible to
mathematicaly model a pushing gravity wave in the same way that MS models
Gravity. However:
1.That would still be a inconsistent model with the observations since it
would just be MS with a differt "packaging".
2.But, most importainly what I think you are missing in my comments is a
fundimental differnce in not just how it works but the source of Gravity
itself. In AVGM The wave is resposible for gravity but the wave doese not
originate from mass or due to the mass in the universe as with the case of MS
with it's graviton.......In MS it is mass/ graviton that is the cause of
gravity where in mine (AVGM) mass is not the cause of gravity or the wave/
graviton, mass is just but one variable gravity. In avgm Mass is not the cause
it is only a player "on the feild" ( wave propragation in a medium that has
"imperfections"[mass] in it) there is a big fundimental difference between
thoes two.... Just as in the sound board where sand particles appear to coeless
into patterns and "gravitate toward each other even though the mass particles
themselfs are not emitting a graviton or any thing else the souce of the
"gravitation" or attraction on the sound board is a function of the medium the
frequency of the vibration and the particles on the board but the particals on
the board are not the source for the patterns......I hope now you can see what
I am trying to get at........
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 12:36:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Before I get kicked I realise my explanation was simplistic..WAVE
propagation is a complex subject . There are many misconception on the nature
of the tides particularly on the internet. I think the following gives a
fairly good detail if you can cope with this rule , ITS DYNAMICALLY THE SAME
FOR GEOCENTRISM OR HELIOCENTRISM even if different theoretical reasons need to
be invoked. You can use the links directly from here if you want more detail.
Tide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tides are the rising and falling of Earth's ocean surface caused by the
tidal forces of the Moon and the Sun acting on the oceans. Tidal phenomena can
occur in any object that is subjected to a gravitational field that varies in
time and space, such as the Earth's land masses. (see Other tides).
Tides noticeably affect the depth of marine and estuarine water bodies and
produce oscillating currents known as tidal streams, making prediction of tides
very important for coastal navigation (see Tides and navigation). The strip of
seashore that is submerged at high water and exposed at low water, the
intertidal zone or foreshore, is an important ecological product of ocean tides
(see Intertidal ecology).
The changing tide produced at a given location is the result of the
changing positions of the Moon and Sun relative to the Earth coupled with the
effects of Earth rotation and the local shape of the sea floor.[1] Sea level
measured by coastal tide gauges may also be strongly affected by wind.
Contents
[hide]
a.. 1 Introduction and tidal terminology
a.. 1.1 Tidal range variation: springs and neaps
b.. 1.2 Tidal phase and amplitude
b.. 2 Tidal physics
a.. 2.1 Tidal forces
b.. 2.2 Laplace tidal equation
c.. 2.3 Tidal amplitude and cycle time
d.. 2.4 Tidal dissipation
c.. 3 Tidal observation and prediction
a.. 3.1 Timing
b.. 3.2 Tidal analysis
c.. 3.3 Tidal Current
d.. 3.4 Tidal Power Generation
d.. 4 Tides and navigation
e.. 5 Biological aspects
a.. 5.1 Intertidal ecology
b.. 5.2 Biological rhythms and the tides
f.. 6 Other tides
g.. 7 Misapplications
h.. 8 See also
i.. 9 External links
a.. 9.1 Tide predictions
j.. 10 References and notes
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:51 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Allen the fact it took you 1000 plus words to convince us my simple
explanation was wrong, shows how weak the ground is under your feet.
Logic states in your very first , your own answer. But you cannot see
it. Hence I am disenclined to read the rest. But I will as it is my happy
hour.
1. If gravity in your model pushes then how on earth can the tides lag
behind the moon ..if gravity pushes the tides the moon would push the tides not
lag them behind!?
I said semantics does not matter.. Action is the same in either system
theory.
First and foremost The moon does not pull the tides nor does it or
anything else push it.. Hmm perhaps my "squeesze" was a bad choice. Water
seeks its own level according to its head pressure at various parts, causing
currents.. The head pressure is relative to gravity.. Level is also a bad
choice, coz on a curved sphere of equal gravity the water level is a curve.
The lag of the water lift is for the same reason in mine or conventional
gravity. There may be timedelay due to aether , speed of light limits what
ever, but such is a negligible few seconds. The delay is purely fluid dynamics.
in the direction of rotation, whether its earth rotation shifting away from
under the water, or rotation across the sky.. The effect shifts rather
quickly, The water wave has to catch up. And don't be confused.. The wave,
action of the tide around the globe moves at a max of 1000 mph . The water
does not move around the globe at all.. Tidal curents are caused by
depressions in the globes topological construction, such as channels estuaries,
land masses rivers etc..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:56 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Phil,
How can this be so hard?.. I’m not arguing what you state in
1. If gravity in your model pushes then how on earth can the tides lag
behind the moon ..if gravity pushes the tides the moon would push the tides not
lag them behind!?
2.However, If gravity pull everything at the same time ( your
attempted GTR explanation for why we can not detect the accelerations of grav
in free fall) then it pulls the earth at the same time to the same degree...If
it does not then you can't claim the acceleration is not detected..for crying
out loud go to the beach and watch it...but then if you say that is the
observable acceleration of earth in a free fall around the sun& moon then you
cant claim the reason we cannot detect the earths acceleration around the sun
because gravity is pulling everything all at the same time......!?
You don't see that it is the GTR 's acceleration explanations that lost
this whole argument before it began not me. You don't seem to fully
understanding the GTR dynamics in the first place. However, neither I nor my
"gravity" theory has any problems or inconsistencies with the tides and
accelerations in a free fall.. GTR does...so which one is closer to the
truth...?!........If inertial accelerations cannot be detected in free fall
then how can the earths oceans demonstrate a physical and observable
acceleration of the earth/ moon/ sun/ in free fall around one another’s
gravitational field? There is no difference between the earth/ oceans and your
accelerometers........... Both are simply mass suspended elastically(
spring/hydrostatic force)!....Phill you missing the obvious ...... There is a
difference the text book answers found in GTR and the practical applications
in the real world.
Yes we see tides they are real "in carnate"....the MS explanations for
what causes them is not only just imagined but inconsistent with GTR's / your
explanations for accelerations in a free fall ....You don’t seem to grasp the
difference between reality (tides) and imagination (GTR accelerations)..?
Reality and GTR are not compatible ....!?
How gravity works does make a great deal of difference. Yes you still
call it gravity but a push gravity does not function the same way a pull
gravity is assumed.....It could, but observations such as the tides and the
Allais effect demonstrate that it most certainly does not work the way MS
gravity in a grav free fall claims or attempts to explain how things work. It
is much more then just a "semantic theory". It gets to the very core of how
things could or would work, which are not the same in the two theories! GTR
cannot be the explanation for how things work...at least if logic and
observations "have anything to do with the conclusions"....??? Tides
demonstrate usfull information about gravity it is just not consistent with
GTR's assertions!
3. The Allais effect demonstrates that the position of the moon with
the sun do have a direct, (not just assumed delay… this is to say the tides and
the moon/ sun do not correspond exactly and it is not even consistent)
association with the tides. Further, That direct relationship shows that
gravity pushes.......well how can gravity push but cause the tides to lag
behind rather then push ahead???????!!!!!
The Answer is simple:
A. Gravity does not work in any shape form or fashion as MS portrays it
certainly not within GTR.
B. The relationship between the moon/sun and tides is therefore related
but only indirectly not directly. If it were direct then the push gravity of
the moon would cause the tides to advance the moon/suns positions not
lag....that is not the case...
C. There is only one known possible "physical cause" and mechanical
action that is capable of creating such a phenomena based on the locations of
other objects within a given matrix.....and for other just as if not more
powerful reasons that (i will not get into here)
The solution: The physical cause of gravity is a vibration in a
"Homogeneous", "smooth" matrix (aether) with "non-indigenous" substances
(ordinary matter) scattered throughout it.... The speed of light is only a
limit for EMR because EMR are ultra high frequencies in a dense medium.....thus
restricted just as in the case of various frequencies of light moving at
differnet speeds through glass, air, water........Gravity is a very low
frequency that traverses a very dense medium, the whole universe in somthing
like -10^44 sec that is why it cannot be detected directly only its effects can
be measured... instrumentations and the affects of aether waves on matter
directly are only capable of demonstrating a effect at light speed at best but
the force/wave itself prorogates faster then is possible to measure... our
ability to measure it is limited to the speed of light...but there are other
ways to ascertain it's "properties".....they are just very difficult....
Viva "AVGM" (Aetheral Vibrational Gravitational Model).. (:-D)
That is the very very short version.....
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 7:30:57 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Phil, There can be no "differeing gravity foces." to accelerate the
water upward if gravity pulls on everthing on the accelerometer ......Allen
Allen, when the moon is dead centre over head the net or resultant of
the two gravitational forces 180 degrees out of phase is less at that point
than it is at any other phase angle either side of top dead centre. That is
what I meant by differing gravity, or varying gravity.. Water seeks a common
level due to gravity.. It will flow from where there is no moon overhead to
that area beneath the moon.
This is proven no matter which semantic theory you want to apply to
gravity.
I say the gravity is aetheric push not molecular pull. But I still call
it gravity. Its a very grave subject. a matter of grave concern. I gravitate
to my theory. Therefore if the aether over here squeezes all the water to over
there under the moon, because the moon interfered with and caused a lower
aether pressure or less gravity under the moon, then it is still all the same
thing.. The moon caused the tides by being where it is..
And don't try bringing this into it, "if gravity pulls on everthing on
the accelerometer "
You lost that argument well and truely before you started it..
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Phil, There can be no "differeing gravity foces." to accelerate the
water upward if gravity pulls on everthing on the accelerometer (earth) at the
same time in the same way such that it prevents a detectable acceleration in
free fall....... !?
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 4:08:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Thank you Peter.. You saved me from wondering how to explain the
simple phenomena to them.. Because the water is fluid tidal flows can move
under the differeing gravity foces.
When the moon is overhead we weigh less because we are subject to two
forces one up one down and the vector difference is positive down..
Of course there will be a point somewhere between the bodies closer
to the moon where the vector forces in each direction will be equal and a mass
will have no weight. Go closer to the moon and it will fall to the moon go
closer to the earth and it will fall back to earth.. I would imagine this
neutral position would be easier to maintain than the similar experience on a
piece of iron between two magnets.. But even there, we can have a neutral
position of zero force.. not zero magnetism.. to say zero gravity is a
misnomer.. we mean zero force of gravity due to balancing forces.
Its just a big hill actually.. If we had a real road to the moon, it
would be uphill three quarters of the way, and down hill the rest of the way.
Or again if you kick a ball straight up into the air there wil be a
split second when it will have no weight, this does not mean there was no
gravity..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: PETER CHARLTON
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 6:06 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
As you know, I have no scientific knowledge, but it seems logical
to me that, rather than there being a "zero gravity point", that instead there
is a point where the pull of gravity from the moon, is equal to the pull of
gravity from the Earth, that is, the two forces pulling equaliy at a given
point.
If you go nearer the moon, you still have the pull of gravity from
the Earth, but it is less than the increasing pull from the moon, and visa
versa.
Surely, if there was a point where gravity was zero, the moon would
escape from its orbit?
Pete Charlton
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Statement/Question:
"It is widely accepted, although not by me, that the moon causes
the tides. It is also widely accepted, although not by me, that there exists a
zero-gravity point situated somewhere between the World and moon.
My question is this: If the ocean were situated at the
zero-gravity point, then there would be no tide. Closer to the World the pull
of the World is stronger. Closer to the moon the pull of the moon is stronger.
The net effect, this side of the zero-gravity point, is always a positive pull
by the World. Since this is equivalent to a force of gravity that produces a
stronger pull as we take the oceans further this side of the zero-gravity
point, then how does the moon produce the tides?" Dr. Neville T. Jones
Response:
"IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY, ONLY INDIRECTLY. Hooray! I’m so glad
finally someone else sees this issue too. Further, the tides are one of the
major reasons why I model gravity as a vibration, for The Alias Effect shows
that the position of the sun and moon has a relationship to gravity on Earth
but tides demonstrate that they are not directly related due to the whole
satellites issues as well as atmosphere. However, in vibrational gravity the
positions of CB's ( Celestial Bodies ) will affect the vibrational wave. In
short, the tides are caused by the squeezing effect of the gravity vibration,
that is to say, that there is no additional or absence of gravity force, only a
uneven squeezing effect that is a result in part due to
sun/moon/background-stars positioning ( The Alias Effect proves this ). A
vibration is the only known physical explanation that can account for that
effect while producing a non-detectable gravity force in all of its anomalies,
which are not anomalies but rather clear indicators that gravity is a vibration
of aether waves. No other known physical construct could account for all those
things." Allen Daves
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I haven't yet seen anyone come with an answer to something
Neville, I think, once said regarding the point, which must exist, between the
Earth and the Moon where the gravity is zero. This being the case how is it
that the Moon controls the tides? I'm sure, I think, that there must be a
simple answer.
The M-M part of the subject is to ask Regner how he is getting
on with the answering the interferometer experiments wrt a non-moving Earth?
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date:
3/04/2008 6:36 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date:
3/04/2008 6:36 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date:
3/04/2008 6:36 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date:
3/04/2008 6:36 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date: 5/04/2008
7:53 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date: 5/04/2008
7:53 AM
Other related posts:
