[geocentrism] addendum inertia,
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:06:30 +1000
addendum
The original momentum, (given time and space, and no other physical force save
the motion through the aether), will slow down.
Going out from the earth... Will momentum speed up coming back? Perhaps. ..
Is the momentum change independent of the rotation of the aether, or the
direction of the motion in it? Yes. I am referring only to momentum impulse
given in any one direction, Any rotational force caused by the rotation of the
aether is covered in that other part of the law, . "except in so far as it is
compelled by forces to change that state."
"Every body continues in its state of rest or motion in a DIRECTION GOVERNED BY
THE MOVEMENT OF THE AETHER except in so far as it is compelled by forces to
change that state."
answer to a proposed objection. ;
A body given an impulse of momentum "upstream" of the aether will of course
travel relative to itself, the same distance as it would travel downstream,
however the observed distance from a centre of rest, would obviously show the
down stream "boat" covering mny more degreees of arc, than the one moving
upstream. (simple water analogy. )
This is essential to my theses, if I am to explain Nevilles objection to NASA's
landing on the moon, allowing for the different dynamics of the geocentric and
heliocentric moon speeds.
Further point to consider: The speed of the aether at the rim of the cosmos,
causes it to display greater "density?" Density is of course the wrong word for
a non physical entity. Concentration would be a better word if you get my
drift.
If you fell onto a stream of water doing 600 miles per hour, it would offer
quite different resistance to your falling on still water, though the
"densities" in both cases are the same.
All of this is independent of G forces, which are not being considered here.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Raddatz
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] on inertia.
Re my last post on the subject of inertia and the aether I realise it was
just a summary. We really need to get our teeth into this subject at the
mechanics level. You all know what I think mechanically of mathmatics.. A
useful tool is all. Math explains actions and reactions, it does not explain
what you see or why. eg Math cannot explain creation. Today I want to show not
how wrong Newton is, but how presumptuous, are his followers.
The number One Point . All we are told about inertia is the observed actions
and reactions.. Not a single explanation of why the reactions, other than
"because its natural stupid!"
Hence we are given Newtons first Law of motion: From a modern university
internet lesson on astronomy.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/index.html
1. "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state
of motion unless an external force is applied to it.." This we recognize as
essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the
"Law of Inertia".
Notice the phrase "tends to" Its synonomous with " reasonable" in legal
documents today. Its unreasonable to call that reasonable. .........!!
Here is the real definition from 1920. (me olde Physics book) which is
probably closer to what Newton said, and has no airyfairy inconsistent words,
and is quite definite. Newton said "it does" not it "tends to"
"Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight
line except in so far as it is compelled by forces to change that state."
I do not have any argument with that as a working hypotheses on laboratory
earth, because it works according to observable results. But that is all it is.
A hypotheses. It has no entitlement to be called a law, as in TRUTH.
I do not like to or wish to use modern scientific jargonistic terms such as
"frames of reference" etc. This is "the secret society" mentality of select
groupings. I'm talking to my fellow man. Not a select group.
If Newton believed with most of todays science that the world is rushing
through space around the sun, then he must have ?realised? that the law thus
stated, cannot be actually true. Or put more realistically, cannot be actually
proven by observation because there is no way of finding an observable state of
rest. (Only the Biblical geocentrist has the theological certainty of where
that is)
From this, it seems obvious to me that any motion in a straight line can only
be an illusion, like the ball falling to the floor in a straight line from the
hand of a child standing in the pasageway of a plane doing 600mph.
Back to work: We have to accept that there is an effect called inertia. But
what causes this effect?
"Its natural stupid" is not good enough. What causes a mass to offer
resistance to change of state (of motion)? For that matter (pun?) we don't know
what causes mass to have mass. Mass and inertia could be the same physical
property . But of what?
Perhaps the aether figures in here. It seems to me, going on all the evidence
presented here by Dr. Neville Jones, Dr. Robert Bennet and others, supported by
the Word of God, that the plenum, (aether?) holds the cosmos and rotates it
around the central world.
Inertia then , the first law of motion, could be written as follows:
"Every body continues in its state of rest or motion in a DIRECTION GOVERNED
BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE AETHER except in so far as it is compelled by forces to
change that state."
I removed "uniform" from "uniform motion" because given sufficient distance
not yet realised , the effect of the aether may not be uniform, and its effect
may be subject to some universal square law..
That is it will increase by the square of the distance travelled. Just as the
constant of gravity is almost negligble near the earth, likewise the constant
for inertia.
I can easily see how this effect could upset and cause discrepancies to space
probes, course and speed, (already observed); to stellar light doppler
measurements, even the speed of light. Making it more than likely that all of
the galaxies and stars are emmensely closer to us than current scientific
philosophy suggests it to be. The original momentum, given time and space, and
no other physical force save the motion through the aether, will slow down.
There is no way of me proving this, but there is no way they can say I'm
wrong either, save "Its not natural stupid"
Philip.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] addendum inertia,
