[geocentrism] Re: Voyager
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:42:57 +1000
Dear Neville. Thanks for your well considered reply. Its nice to be able to
discuss science without the ill will that some of the non believers have
ehibited here. In passing, I suppose it comes as no surprise to you that
those who do not believe in Him are never shy in attempting to use His name
against us, accusing us of being unchristian hypocrites, when using their
"selective idealism" without any comprehension of what real Christianity is.
Many self confessed Christians likewise today only select that which suits
them. Poor souls.
I will answer your reply interspersed, in [ ] between yours below.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:11 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Voyager
Dear Philip,
I have no problem with the fact that you were tracking LEO satellites in the
50s and that you would need to be alert, because of their speed and the
background noise.
You ask whether my doubting the existence of geostationary satellites is
scriptural. Fundamentally, yes, because the Scriptures state that the World
does not move, and if it does not move, then it does not rotate. Of course,
the satellite can be explained in such a system by assuming that it is held
in place by the balanced forces of gravity from the World and the mass of
the rest of the universe. Some geocentrists assert this, and they have
quality research papers to support their view (Gerber, Lense and Thirring,
et al.).
[Until I see some evidence that the geostat is not there, surely a simple
triangulation based upon a wide base between different receivers would
position them fairly accurately, then I am forced to hold to the latter
view.]
I am not happy with this for several reasons: I do not think that a
gravitational field needs to exist anywhere but around the World, for
everything else is "set in the firmament."
[ I have stated on this list often enough I do believe in an aether. As the
heliocentrists cannot disprove it I accept the likely possibility of a
stationary world. Because of Scripture, and also because of the obvious
anti-God motives of those who oppose it. Almost a prophecy fulfilling
itself, of lies and deception. "believing fables"
I do not see gravity as a physical field in itself "emanating" from matter
as is often textually presented. (ditto for the magnetic field). The force
observed is a resultant physical phenomena, and it could easily be due to
pressure of the "aether" . This supports the view offered by another, that
gravity is push rather than pull. I'm no expert at math, but it seems to me,
that the application of Newtons law would be the same for either belief. Its
just a case of differnt conventions like positive is negative. Thus then we
can have "gravity" within Newton, locally everwhere in the cosmos, and still
conform to being set in the cosmos. I am having difficulty with the words,
but I have been trying to say that the aether is the mechanism that "locks"
the entire cosmos in position, whilst allowing the purely local movements
near the heavenly bodies. move within the Newton framework.
Why do I get a feeling this fits in with Einstein, and his inertial frames ?
LOL ]
I distrust all of NASA's claims, because of the Moon "landings," Mars
"landings," and "space probes." (As a matter of interest, could you tell me
if you were able to track any of the Apollo missions, or pick up signals
from them?); Also, I believe that the universe is far smaller than we are
told.
[ I never participated in any personal tracking. I was out of Woomera and
NASA before the apollo program. I heard of others doing it. But I also heard
of the cynics my self included, who were ever ready to indulge in
speculation as to methods of deception that could have been used to make
voices come from space. I cannot see any evidence against the existence of
deep space probes or robotic landings on the moon or mars.
You have mentioned the danger to electronic circuits by radiation. I agree
that modern integrated circuit technology is very susceptable and that
special screening protection has to be employed. But the early probes used
descrete components. Have you considered that these might be more robust
against radiation. ]
I do accept that, although your 2-3 degrees still represents a fairly large
patch of the sky (a full Moon subtends only half a degree), the sharing of
television signals between satellites would have to be quite extensive to
ensure that there was always at least one in that region.
Although the "exact" location of the Van Allen radiation belts seems to
depend upon who you ask, the general concensus is that they extend over at
least the region 6,000 to 60,000 miles up. This is precisely where
geostationary satellites would have to operate (~ 23,000 miles).
[ Most of the NASA satellite passes (leaving out the military) that we
monitored during my brief time was to map the earths atmosphere, magnetic
fields and radiation belts. That was a continueing ongoing project. We were
not popular if we missed a data collection. That is a nother reason I was
quickly able to see the Big Lie concerning the Ozone Hole Hoax. The hole in
the ozone has always been a natural phenomena at the poles during the polar
winter, and was well mapped during the 50's.]
This whole area is quite fascinating.
[God's blessings to you and yours and all on this list, Philip.]
Neville.
Other related posts:
