[geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M correction
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 8:56:47 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M
Phil,
How can this be so hard?..
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
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides and the moon and M-M correction