[geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:02:09 +1000
Good one Robert.. and I have to concede that with Cheryl who says I cannot
spell, you have proven I cannot read either... LOL.. I'm really happy to get
your correction. Thank you. Now onwards,
You said,
RB: Agreed - it's only a theory.
By the same token what supports the case for a rotating Earth surrounded by
inertial forces which spread out from it through vacuum? How does the space
around the Earth know that the Earth is there and it's spinning?
"From nothing comes nothing" - Aristotle.
Does not the same objection you have to the plenum hold for Newton, as well?
Newton's "laws"?? No, Newton's "theories".
> Robert :
Oh yes absolutely. Your last paragraph that is. I have always said here that
observation alone supports both positions. But I will have to contradict the
first paragraph, when you said ,
"How does the space
around the Earth know that the Earth is there and it's spinning?"
It is easy to answer that demonstrably by saying that we can demonstrate that
"one or the other" is spinning, simply by measuring the varying magnetic
fields..
Likewise it may be possible to assert as you do that inertial effects as
measured can be attributed "one way or the other".. This is in reality the
substance of Nevilles SECOND POINT.
However I have a problem with this in regard to your inertial field theory, THE
LIKEWISE. As we have discussed before. I put it in a single sentence..
[ bugger you Cheryl. I have to keep going back and correcting my typing. You
should see my typing fingures.]
Where was I ? Oh yes . a single sentence..
For you to see an inertial effect in the equatorial plane, on a stationary
body, caused by the universal rotation, when we see a newtonian effect on one
rotating in the polar plane at right angles to the equatorial plane ,
exhibiting exactly equivalent forces, how do you differentiate these two
phenomena, when moving from one plane to the other?
I need to have you explain this in the same terminology I used without any
complex mathmatical equations.. I could do it, but I might be wrong.
An aside comment for all, and it is questioning Neville and Robert and all
physicists of the mathmatical variety. I cannot for the life of me see how a
mathmatician can see a real physical universe based upon an equation. I can
understand how E volts can force I amperes through R Ohms. That is a law... E =
I x R not a theory.
But it tells us nothing about what is flowing, or even if there is anything
like a current flowing. It is only a representation of a quantity relationship
as observed. . Even this is not a true truth in every application, hence they
had to come up with impedance, Z.
When the Einsteinians ( never could spell him, which is why probably Neville
called them one stoners) talk us down with General Relativity equations, most
of the time they are putting in their concocted "constants" to validate the
balancing .
Likewise in my formulas for calculating the capacitance. A constant for
dielectric is inserted, which is not valid outside certain constraints..
Boyles "law" as well with gases. versus vapours /
Yes I am angry and shouting off, but I am sufficiently educated in the pre 1950
physical sciences to know when I am being fed what is called in the vernacular
.. Bulldust. Not at Neville and Robert mind you, not personally , but I do
believe these two persons one Catholic and one Non Catholic, sound like they
have been contaminated by their education. They sound young. post 1950/ 1960 .
university education... I hope I am wrong.. I hope they are both over 70....
By the 1960's university education had been taken over completely by the NWO
establishment.. An old barrister retired, told me when confronted, that he was
educated when the universities taught them how to think, not what to think.
That says trillions.
Look forward to some feed back from everyone... And especially Cheryl, who
thinks I might be a catholic church Infiltrator sent to sabotage
something.....LOL. Oh Oh I gotta go back with my fingers and put a capital C
No bugger it..
The only sane sensible person on this list with more intelligence than me is
NICK .
Nicholas or Satan..... Watch it Lucifer was the mostest and the closest
intelligent of the angels to God.
Ok Im rambling,, at my 6th or 7th beer at 4.8% al. Signing off .. Gods
Love to you all. Especially to Jack.
Philip. PS More to Robert tomorrow on his great post.
snzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 4:23 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
Philip,
see RBs below
Hosanna in the highest,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:51 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
>
>
> Robert said: "In this simple model the medium is air; in reality
> the rigid and rotating
> plenum either transmits or creates rotational inertia."
>
> I respond: I never did doubt your stated case with regard to the
> plenum, and its effect. However I do say, and still maintain,
> that the existence of the aether or plenum has not been proven to
> the satisfaction of any physical observer. It is still only a
> theory which can support the case for a still earth surrounded by
> a rotating universal medium.
>
RB: Agreed - it's only a theory.
By the same token what supports the case for a rotating Earth surrounded by
inertial forces which spread out from it through vacuum? How does the space
around the Earth know that the Earth is there and it's spinning?
"From nothing comes nothing" - Aristotle.
Does not the same objection you have to the plenum hold for Newton, as well?
Newton's "laws"?? No, Newton's "theories".
> Robert :
> "Know you also, that you
> attempt to refute the testimony of the Word of God?"
>
> Pax Christi,
>
> Robert."
>
> No! such an attempt would be futile. I attempt to make the
> evidence in support of the Word, more credible to those with
> average physical/ mechanical senses. Talk of MP and GR et al
> certainly does not fit into that category to my mind. Nor does
> my aether time and 4 dimensional universe explanation.
>
RB: One benefit of e-mail is that under-quoting can be corrected.
Let's restore what was elided prior to your sound bite above.
> The correct question to ask of science is this:
> "Demonstrate any experiment, observable in fact, which will refute the
> testimony of our own eyes, that the heavens, rotating daily around us on
> this immovable Earth, can produce local inertia. Know you also, that you
> attempt to refute the testimony of the Word of God?"
RB: The full quote was not addressed to you but to science - a question for
you to ask scientists - since it turns the tables for GC from defense to
offense.
"I simply tempt you or another to prove in a practical way that the
universe is spinning not the earth. Any reasonable logical person recognises
that what the eye sees in relation to relative movements can be deceiving.
People used to be absolutely certain the earth was flat."
RB: Rotation of the universe has not been proven empirically, nor has the
writer claimed so.
The washing machine test ends with :
The experiment is left to the reader... are water and clothes centripetally
flung against the tub when the tub alone rotates?
> Yes => GC is possible
> No => Only HC is possible
The model only shows that a GC explanation is possible, not that GC is
unique.
In contrast, the claim of modernists is that a spinning earth is the only
correct view possible.
> So far, in regard to this matter, we have not managed to prove to
> a non biblical person the truth of the bible in any practical
> observable way, that is any less theoretical than their own HC
> position.. Its a stalemate. Yet leaving the Bible aside, the
> logic certainly favors the opposition in apparent common sense.
> That does not make me happy.
>
RB: Really? Logic favors the apparent common sense of a heaven that is seen
to rotate but is said to actually be stationary?
Does leaving the Bible aside make sense, when it contains only truth?
Common sense - if such exists - to me would favor reasoning that all
creation had its source in something beyond our power to comprehend. We
have no excuse...... according to St. Paul.
> Philip.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Bennett
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:40 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:45 PM
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
> >
> >
> > Wasn't the answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved in a
> > dialogue between Philip and Robert?
> >
> > Well it has been theoretically answered, but not in any way
> > observable as a fact.. The washing machine plenum poses a
> > possible solution, but it has not been demonstrated in fact....
> >
>
> RB:
> Isn't the following Einstein's version of Mach's
> Principle(MP)theory yet to
> be disproven, even by those Very Bad Astronomers?
>
> "The Earth's inertia is the result of the interaction with the
> rest of the
> universe. Every particle in the universe ultimately has an
> effect on every
> other particle."
>
> According to this relational theory, the Earth in an otherwise empty
> Universe (like Day One)would feel no inertial forces and
> rotation could not
> be observed. One would have to ask, "Rotation with respect to what?".
>
> The Earth's inertial forces, like Coriolis, are caused by all the
> gravitational forces from cosmic bodies such as the distant
> stars; rotation
> only makes sense relative to the stars. In dealing with the origin of
> inertia, MP demands that all dynamics be explained by interactions of
> material objects. The existence of inertia is due to
> interaction of local
> matter with all of the matter in the universe. The oceans will
> bulge due to
> the relative motion of Earth and universe.
>
> MP has never explained how the stars can have such an effect -
> what is the
> mechanism and medium to transport the cause of rotational
> inertia through
> space to the Earth?
>
> But Robert's Principle has shown how the rotating plenum can satisfy
> science's MP and also be compliant with Revelation - see archives.
>
>
> For the observability and demonstrability of MP or RP, see next
> response.
>
>
> > Wasn't the GC answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved by
> > considering rotating distant masses (Mach's Principle) or the plenum
> > (rotating firmament)? The former is scientifically provable; the
> > latter is
> > theologically consistent, as well.
> >
> > Why? Your case has parallels in our courts of law.. We can all
> > understand and see a fingerprint... We have to take the word of
> > an elitist to accept genetic evidence, both in its reading, and
> > its application
> >
> > Can you reduce Machs principle to an observable practical
> > experiment? None of the sites I visited it did any more than show
>
> > how confused the believers were.
>
> RB: How confused the GC believers are, O Lord !
>
> We are asked to demonstrate the prediction of MP or RP, that
> the motion of
> the universe has an inertial effect on the Earth, with an
> observable fact...
>
> Now, every day and night mankind has witnessed the motion of
> the heavens,
> since creation was completed. And the existence of inertial
> forces, such as
> centrifugal and Coriolis, for a system with rotating periphery and a
> stationary center has already been shown in fact for the washing machine
> model. See Freelist/Geocentric archives.
>
> To repeat briefly, when the center agitator (rotor) spins and the tub
> doesn't, water and clothes exhibit a centripetal motion outward
> against the
> tub. This is the HC cosmic model, where the center represents
> the Earth and
> the tub the distant stars. Inertia is due ONLY to the Earth's
> rotation, not
> the relative rotation of Earth and universe.
>
> Heliocentricists must deny MP, else they agree that the
> universe could spin
> while Earth could not. They must logically contend that the tub
> motion will
> NOT effect the water in the tub, that the motion of a spinning
> tub with a
> stationary central agitator (stator) would produce no inertial
> forces in the
> space between.
>
> Despite HC adamance that only the Earth can spin, many attempts
> to disprove
> MP have not only failed thus far but have confirmed the
> principle (Sprechen
> sie Deutsch, jeder?):
>
> Thirring, H. Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der
> Einsteinschen
> Gravitationstheorie. Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33 (1918).
> [On the Effect
> of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation]
>
> Thirring, H. Berichtigung zu meiner Arbeit: "Über die Wirkung
> rotierender
> Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie". Physikalische
> Zeitschrift
> 22, 29 (1921). [Correction to my paper "On the Effect of
> Rotating Distant
> Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation"]
>
> Lense, J. and Thirring, H. Über den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der
> Zentralkörper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der
> Einsteinschen
> Gravitationstheorie. Physikalische Zeitschrift 19 156-63 (1918) [On the
> Influence of the Proper Rotation of Central Bodies on the
> Motions of Planets
> and Moons According to Einstein's Theory of Gravitation]
>
> I. Ciufolini, E. C. Pavlis. A confirmation of the general relativistic
> prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect. Nature 431, 958 - 960
> (21 October
> 2004); doi:10.1038/nature03007
>
>
> The experiment is left to the reader... are water and clothes
> centripetally
> flung against the tub when the tub alone rotates?
> Yes => GC is possible
> No => Only HC is possible
>
> In this simple model the medium is air; in reality the rigid
> and rotating
> plenum either transmits or creates rotational inertia.
>
> An experiment now in progress - Gravity Probe B - is intended
> to confirm the
> frame-dragging effect of General Relativity, but it will also
> support the
> existence of the rotating plenum !!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
> Warning to conspiracists: this is a NASA program.
>
>
> The correct question to ask of science is this:
> "Demonstrate any experiment, observable in fact, which will refute the
> testimony of our own eyes, that the heavens, rotating daily around us on
> this immovable Earth, can produce local inertia. Know you also, that you
> attempt to refute the testimony of the Word of God?"
>
> Pax Christi,
>
> Robert
>
> >
> >
> > Philip
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Bennett
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 12:44 PM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
> >
> >
> > Philip and all,
> >
> > Speaking of the Tower of Babel, why are old topics being
> rehashed in a
> > different and confusing language?
> >
> > #1
> > Wasn't the answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved in a
> > dialogue between Philip and Robert? - use Freelist archive
> and keywords:
> > washing machine, plenum
> >
> > Wasn't the GC answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth
> resolved by
> > considering rotating distant masses (Mach's Principle) or the plenum
> > (rotating firmament)? The former is scientifically provable;
> > the latter is
> > theologically consistent, as well.
> >
> > Doesn't the analysis of pure vertical motion from the Earth in
> > a GC model
> > have to include either of the above?
> >
> > Doesn't one conclude that the GC model predicts the same
> > westward drift as
> > the rotating Earth, so the experiment is meaningless?
> >
> > If not, how can one explain the geostationary satellite,
> > without MP or the
> > plenum?
> >
> >
> > #2
> >
> >
> > Didn't NASA state/claim/allege/lie [choose your personal
> > favorite] that all
> > Moon trips were launched from Earth orbit? use Freelist archives and
> > keywords: Robert orbit launch Moon
> >
> > Since the launch could take place anywhere in orbit, doesn't
> > that mean that
> > any direction could be the launch angle?
> >
> > Why discuss the vertical launch from the ground as if the
> > trajectory were
> > directly to the Moon, when the trip was not directly to the
> > Moon nor was the
> > launch angle from orbit vertical to the ground?
> >
> >
> >
> > Pax Christi,
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:43 PM
> > > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [geocentrism] peripheral speed...
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary and all.
> > > Today I had another look at what I proposed as an experiment that
> > > should show whether the earth rotated.. At least in appearances,
> > > and ignoring theoretical plenum effects .. I expanded on it,
> > > taking in Nevilles figures.
> > > I know this peripheral speed and momentum can get confusing. So
> > > I dreamed up this word picture to help..
> > >
> > > Recall I said that we must deal with it above the atmosphere, as
> > > winds in the atmosphere can cause too many variables. Of course
> > > they always try to launch in windless still air. Let us take 150
> > > km altitude to be above the atmosphere..
> > >
> > >
> > > Draw a circle for the world, and mark it as having A MEAN
> > > EQUATORIAL RADIUS OF 6378 km. giving it a speed towards the east
> > > at the surface of 1670 km /hour. Draw a line from the earth
> > > centre to the surface launch pad Now extend this line out into
> > > space for a distance equal to another 300 km. Call this the tower
> > > of Babel.
> > >
> > > For a perfect vertical launch we will assume for the sake of
> > > simplicity, that at the height of 150 km the rocket will still
> > > have a sideways momentum of 1670 km/hour towards the east, and is
> > > thus momentarily still above the launch site.
> > >
> > > If we calculate the peripheral speed of Babel tower out there,
> > > at the 150km height it will come to 6378 + 150 = 6528 X 44/7
> > > divided by 24 or 1710km/hour. Take away 1670 and you can see
> > > that if the world is rotating, the rocket will slip behind and
> > > appear to move west at 40km hour.
> > >
> > > Now if it continues firing till it reaches the altitude of 300Km
> > > where the peripheral speed of our Babylonian tower will be 1749km
> > > hour, it will be slipping behind at an even greater rate
> of 79km hour.
> > >
> > > Thus I can see no reason why this simple rocket to 300km with a
> > > stabilised vertical thrust will easily show if there is indeed
> > > any rotation of the earth and its babylon tower. More if allowed
> > > to run out of thrust and allowed to turn and fall back, it will
> > > fall even further towards the west of the launch pad..
> > >
> > > If the world is stationery, which we say it is, then babylon will
> > > not move, and the rocket will return falling the exact same path
> > > by which it left. again neglecting the effects of the wind, which
> > > will not be a factor in those critical 150 km above the
> atmosphere.
> > >
> > > For those pursuing the moon. lets look at it first from
> NASA's view.
> > >
> > > If they they were aiming for the moon, and if they were correct
> > > in that the moons orbit is 28 days, not near 24, then lets see
> > > what our rocket needs to be doing toward the east at say
> > > 385000Km. distance.
> > >
> > > First the moon s speed 385000X 44/7 over 28 x 24 = 3, 601km hour
> > > towards the east... Our rocket rising straight up will still
> > > only have an easterly momentum of 1,570 km hour. 2000km
> hour too slow.
> > >
> > > However it is feasable to expect that when the moon approaches ,
> > > before our rocket gets that high if the timing is right, for it
> > > to be captured by the gravity of the moon either into orbit or a
> > > crash landing.
> > >
> > > A more favourable result would be achieved if the rocket was
> > > aimed slightly eastwards, which we are told is done, to increase
> > > this original "earth speed" closer to the moons speed.
> > >
> > > But and this is the big but. Neville has shown that if the world
> > > is stationary, and I say "if" merely as a conditional factor, not
> > > becuse of any doubt; that the mooons speed would have to be
> > > very much higher than 3,600km hour. 385000 x 44/7 over 24 which
> > > is of course 28 times the speed or 100, 828 km hour..
> > >
> > > I have always concurred and never refuted Nevilles conclusion,
> > > that this puts a verry different exercise in dynamics for
> > > achieving a moon landing. I do differ only in that I have yet to
> > > be proved that it is a big lie. I am not forgetting though, the
> > > big millennium hoax lie, and would not be in the least surprised
> > > if this also was a great hoax.. After all the entire world
> > > cooperated and participated in the millennium hoax, which says
> > > much about the world conspiracy power, and its god, the prince of
> > > liars. .
> > >
> > > That said and assuming they did land on the moon, then I am left
> > > with the dilemma of trying to show how they could have done it.
> > > And I have to do that with due consideration of the power/energy
> > > requirements presented by Neville, and I need to try to do that
> > > within normal Newtonian physics without resorting to any exotic
> > > alternative theories. So lets get back to the launch pad, away
> > > with the tower of Babel.
> > >
> > > We have mr moon coming over the horizon at over 100,000 km hour.
> > > Neville has shown that it is beyond any current rocket technology
> > > to get up to that speed. But has anyone thought about what would
> > > happen if we did it this way. And I am still on peripheral
> > > speed. We launch to the east. The only thing missing in our
> > > geocentric position is we do not have any earth push. But we do
> > > have to factor in something else. For the moon to still have the
> > > orbit it does at this phenomenally increased speed, the gravity
> > > between the two bodies must be much greater. The earth G we
> > > know, so the moons Gr would have to be much greater than the
> > > sixth G given it. This being the case, the figures are beyond
> > > me, let others more competent do it, the balance point would be
> > > closer to the earth Does anybody agree that for this orbit
> > > period g would have to be greater?
> > >
> > > Just for the exercise, let us make them equal, which would place
> > > the balance point say half way, at 190000km. I am ignoring for
> > > the moment the pandoras box this gravity change will open up.
> > >
> > > At this distance the rocket would only have to reach a speed of
> > > close to 50,000km hour, which would put it parallel to the moon
> > > and having the same angular velocity. The moons gravity would
> > > handle the rest... Which then brings Pandora into the picture...
> > > Landing and leaving the moon is not going to be that one sixth of
> > > the energy requirement NASA talked about. Or is it? I cant
> > > help feeling that in the geocentric system, all their
> > > calibrations based upon false assumptions, for g , weights of the
> > > heavenly bodies, etc would have to be re calculated...
> > >
> > > Enough food for though for one post...
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
