[geocentrism] Re: relative motions.

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:33:28 +1000

First I want to clarify which experiment you refer to. 

Hanging the bicycle wheel on a string, the wheel will be horizontal , the axel 
hung vertically. Its only to measure friction resistance versus inertia , so 
latitude comes not into it. 

For the earth rotation experiment the wheel will be on an axel that is N-S 
oriented, with the plane of the wheel vertical to the latitude line. Thus the 
axel  will not be parallel to the earth axis, but this should not matter. Try 
it with your turntable by offsetting it from the horizontal whilst you turn. I 
think its better to keep the bearings in the normal alignment for equalisation 
of gravity on bearings pressure.. Gravity is our problem. As you say the 
equator or the poles are ideal locations for experiments, if you like the 
cold.. or heat. 

Philip. 
PS I'm getting lots of mail 60 today from the Prius technical group.. Toyota 
released its latest at the Detroit show yesterday, and I'm getting reports 
direct from two of our observers who were invited. Im saving them for later.. 
too much technical info in one hit. I will not upgrade tioll its a plug in.. 
There is absolutely no doubt the oil companies are in control, and they are 
terified of an all electric car that can do 70mph with a 100 mile range on one 
charge. They are forbidding even the 20 mile range, which 80% of motorists use 
90% of the time. If every one had a current (home made) plug in prius with its 
20 mile range, it has been estimated that oil demand would drop 70% instantly. 
(these are conservative estimates.)  The oil cartel is worse than the mafia..  
They own the battery technology patents. 

plm


I----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:29 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.


  Philip M

  I look forward to the results of your real experiment. Yes -- I quite grasp 
your emphasis on low friction and significant mass. It was a definite factor of 
concern for me too because I have also to report that a real experiment at my 
location was conducted tonight. Watch this space!

  I have to ask though -- you have to hang the wheel such that it is in the 
same plane as the plane of your latitude. This is easy at the poles but at the 
equator, its plane of orientation will have to be vertical. At your latitude, 
it must be about 27 deg from vertical and when ever I try to visualise this, I 
run into problems. Have you solved them or perhaps my visualisation of your 
experiment is faulty?

  Paul D






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Sent: Wednesday, 14 January, 2009 7:45:38 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.

   
  Its an interesting experiment worth the effort. Not many would think about 
this effect. Technically the only force that could make the platter move from 
its original orientation (oops naughty word?) is torque from your rotation 
through the bearing friction. Hence you will appreciate why I stated using 
frictionless bearings with high inertial mass. . I am going to hang a bicycle 
wheel from the ceiling by a string tied to the shaft. and see how stable the 
wheel is against a twisting string.  Then I will try the real experiment 
pointing at the sun, as I showed in my diagramatic post, using needle point 
bearings. 

  Phil
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paul Deema 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:18 PM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.


    Philip M
    Sorry -- I often overlook the obvious. Well, it was obvious to me -- when I 
was looking at it. It is just the platter and the support bearing on a spider 
mounting frame. Just the two pieces. I held the frame and the platter was free 
(no belt). It goes without saying that I did my best to hold it level.
    Paul D






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Wednesday, 14 January, 2009 2:07:12 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.

     
    Thanks paul, I will need to analyse that, as it does not seem to equate 
with my experience..  I have to ask, has the turntable belt been removed to 
prevent it turning the motor? Philip. 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Paul Deema 
      To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:06 PM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.


      Philip M

      You will remember my mentioning that I have a heavy 12" turntable the 
platter of which tips the scales at 2770 g. I've just had a play with it and 
found that if I turn CW, the platter appears to me to be rotating CCW. Now if I 
made a 90 deg turn and stopped, I found that the platter was no longer pointing 
where it was when I started the turn but rather some radial distance CW. 
Friction. However the really interesting bit is that when I stop, the platter 
keeps turning CW for a short time. This is due to the radial acceleration 
imparted by my turning through the agency of the aforesaid friction. Presently 
the platter does come to a stop.

      If I rotate 360 deg and stop, the platter turns further than in the 90 
deg example. It was accelerated for a longer time -- what else would one 
expect? Of course because the friction is still acting, this time to 
de-accelerate, it doesn't return all the energy so one cannot draw any 
quantitative inference from this.

      Don't worry about Allen's disparaging of table tops. He has already 
conceded that the laws of physics are universal thus if it is so in space it is 
so on the top of a table. Anyway, when I used the above described platter to 
illustrate a similar argument, he replied that if I leave it on the ground it 
still doesn't rotate, as though this somehow explained the willingness of the 
platter to resist my turning. I wonder where he gets these patently absurd 
notions?

      Paul D






--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 12:07:01 AM
      Subject: [geocentrism] relative motions.


      Allen has already indicated that he will not accept any demo that is done 
on the kitchen table, as applicable to space so therefore this is not for he.  
But I will claim whilst recognising that constants will vary, it does apply 
universally. Basic mechanical laws are universal. To avoid any anticipated 
reactions to that, I will add “CONFINED TO THE SOLAR SYSTEM” It’s a basic 
principle I want to demonstrate, and apply it to this world in space.

      Consider we are looking down on the world from the N polar axis.  

        





      This is the wheel at midday. The yellow square mark is ponted in the 
direction of  the sun. Note that there is no external force applied to this 
wheel which is free to rotate. It has considerable inertia due to its mass.

      In this second diagram the world has turned 90degrees 





      In this picture, the world has turned 90 degrees or 6 hours later. I can 
gaurantee that the yellow dot on the wheel will still be pointing in the 
direction of the sun as shown. It has remained motionless in space whilst it 
was translated to its new position. If you were on the platform supporting the 
wheel you would see it appear to rotate 90 degrees. This is an illusion because 
it is actually you and the platform that has moved. 



      Before anybody picks it up, I will say I have not tried it with a wheel 
so fixed yet.  I doubt we would see anything because a frictionless bearing is 
difficult, and in 6 hours even this friction may be enough to turn the wheel..  
Maybe not.  But I have done it on a model on the kitchen table at a faster 
spped..  the principle is proven



      Why.  When I said illusion, it works both ways..  It does not prove the 
world turns, but according to my theory, and the Bible, it proves there is a 
relative movement between the universe and the world, which cnotrols the 
inertia. i.e.  either way, there IS angular motion. 



      Philip. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take 
a look.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a 
look.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a 
look.

GIF image

JPEG image

Other related posts: