[geocentrism] apology fruitless debate.
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 18:01:13 +1000
Sorry Alan and Mike and the list. I made a mistook. A serious mistook.
Well I think I am mistaken. I can easily get disoriented when moving around,
mentally moving that is.
You will see in my analogous creation theme that I gave the aliens ship a
secret rotational twist to make it think it was in the same frame as the big
rock.
That wouuldn't work if the alien or me were observant. I would detect the
twist very quickly. I remembered Arthur C Clarkes big wheel and the
artificial gravity. Wouldn't all the little things inside end up on the
inside of the outer hull? The centrifugal force would be certainly
detectable. Gyros and all that. So Alien would fly up and correcting for
rotation see a stationary stone along side the rotating one. No problem. Oh
yes there is.
As there is really a gravitational attraction or push from the aether?,
then in my imaginary created empty space my two stones, my two beautiful
stones will come together with a big bang.
But notwithstanding all that, hey I was God , I could have put a hex on
gravity and centrifugal force, and thus my original proof that I created a
stone in a stationary place having no movement up or down or around.
still stands. Its just that I will have to remove Alien out of it.... er
hmmm ...
ah heck just what is centrifugal force? Maybe I will propose that it is
stored momentum in the aether. Now that sounds like a good theory. We have a
rotating mass at constant velocity which in circular motion is acceleration
going nowhere, tied to the centre of gravity which has no weight or mass.
And the heliocentrists reckon the universe cannot rotate around the little
weightless massless centre of our earth.
What if the universe was just a big flywheel?
Just as the little flywheel is a little universe , mostly empty space with
all them little proton suns and planetary electrons, all rotating around
that nothing space in the centre.
Is that what the geo people mean by the universal mass?
I have no problem with that. Its a matter of relativity isn't it.
Regarding time, Asimov said that civilisations could rise and fall on the
spark falling from the anvil of a blacksmith. He further said our entire
universe could very well be such a spark.
I read somewhere that a flywheel of nominal mass will fall in a vacuum due
to gravity at a slower acceleration than the same mass falls if it were not
rotating. Like gravity is reduced? The leaning top does not fall over while
it is spinning, does it.
I went into a university site once to seek an explanation of the gyro effect
seen in the precession of a simple toy the spinning top. Do you know, there
was two or more pages of mathmatical formulas and equations.
I reckoned they didn't know.
Have fun, and dream tonight
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 4:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
We don't all think the earth isn't the centre of the universe just
because Copernicus said so. That's the point. It's not authority, it's
all repeatable experiments and confirmable logic. Science. Not faith.
Regards,
Mike.
Quite true. But all these confirming experiments are done within the
paramaters of the first concept. Quite naturally they will fit and be
repeatable. Prior to copernicus all the calculations also confirmed the
earlier view and were repeatable. (locally)
Other related posts:
