[geocentrism] Re: Voyager
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:11:33 +1000
Dear Neville.
It will take me some time to gather together my views on the points you
raised. It is important to me that I get my sources correct, as I do not
want to take the credit of other peopls inspiration as my own.
However, I will answer here those things which you raised that interest me.
"one of which is trying to decide how the World's gravitational "field"
varies with distance (I do not consider that it has anything to do with
mass). Your ideas and suggestions would be appreciated. Do you consider, for
example, that the "field strength" would still vary inversely as the square
of the distance?"
If you mean by, (I do not consider that it has anything to do with mass).
that gravity is not an attraction due to mass then I agree that this is an
acceptable hypothesis. But we may agree that the mass of objects do affect
the pressure of the aether on each other, in that they interfere.
A large body such as the world would (I am speaking analogically) weaken the
pressure upon the smaller close by body, on its proximate side, and the
presure from the opposite side pushes them together. I cannot remember who
it was that postulated this, but I must have it somewhere in my files.
I have no difficulty with this force being within the inverse square law, or
Newtons laws of gravity mathmatically, though this law becomes irrelevant
in practical terms as the force over distance very quickly gets beyond any
sphere of local influence or even measureability.
From the view of magnetism, I can easily see that this "field" is merely a
strain against an all enveloping aether, and thus these "lines of force" do
not go beyond the limits set by the medium and the magnetising force.
(action and reaction). Whereas conventional science supposes that these
"lines of force" stretch infinitely into space getting infinitely weaker.
I can therefore see a similar analogy in regard to the effects of gravity.
The mind boggles if in the end we have to say that unlike poles are pushed
together. Some electrical people still have trouble accepting the new
convention of electric current. "positive <-> negative"
.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Voyager
Dear Philip,
Your posting is a fine example to us all on this list. And as for the
"without any comprehension of what real Christianity is" comment, I could
not agree more.
I am very interested in your aether pressure idea. Do you have any further
thoughts on this concept that you would like to share with the group, now
that we are relatively free from scoffers? As you probably know, I have a
"size of the physical universe" paper that I have taken down, temporarily,
from my website for two reasons, one of which is trying to decide how the
World's gravitational "field" varies with distance (I do not consider that
it has anything to do with mass). Your ideas and suggestions would be
appreciated. Do you consider, for example, that the "field strength" would
still vary inversely as the square of the distance?
Furthermore, I would like to encourage some group discussion of Nick
Niemann's observations regarding the Fibonacci sequence seemingly contained
within the "flower patterns" that Steven produced from GU 2.1
Any comments/research ? Let's have some contribution(s) from those who like
to just listen, too. You should not feel afraid of being branded a fool on
this list for proclaiming that you perceive the emperor to be, shall we say,
ill dressed.
Neville.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
"There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of
God, that the same minute and searching investigation, which
displays the defects and imperfections of the one, brings out also the
beauties of the other." - Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons."
Website www.midclyth.supanet.com
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
