[geocentrism] sagnac effect...
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:39:09 +1000
Just read that through.. will follow up soon.. However, like everything else,
it does not prove the earth rotates, if the aether is rotating. And as I said
before the aether is not material, and as such frictionless to material
things.. can we apply the analogy of a ripple in a flowing stream to a
electromagnetic wave in a flowing aether.. I got to doubt it... on the
uncertainty principle, lol... Grin... Hehehehe..... God is just too smart for
mere mans science....Philip.
27 But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound
the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may
confound the strong.
28 And the base things of the world and the things that are contemptible,
hath
God chosen: and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that
are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his sight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
Philip,
Comments inserted.
Pax Christi,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:28 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> Hang on here.. Lets not our static earth confuse our rotating
> earth thinking.
> a vertical launch in aspect, will still have the horizontal
> vector of the rotating earth in the direction toward the east. In
> other words whilst rising vertically under power, it will be
> sliding sideways towards the east. This would happen if you
> pointed it east or west. Graphically on a graph it would be a
> curved course. Remember my example of a ball falling from your
> hand in a glass carriage,as it passed the station? Or didn't you
> read it.? to you the ball fell in a straight line to your feet.
> But to the person on the platform, it fell in a curve towards the
> direction the carriage was travelling...
>
RB: In different reference systems, events are equivalent but not
trajectories.
> Boggles the mind doesn't it.. People in a concorde doing greater
> than the speed of sound can still speak normally..
RB: relative to the vocal cords the air speed in the cabin is zero. (with
the windows closed)
Here where I
> am near Brisbane, if the earth is rotating, am moving at near
> twice the speed of sound and notice nothing...
RB: the equivalence of inertial frames? You are also rotating upside down,
in the land down under... ~(:^)>
Does a radio
> signal take longer to go round the world easterly than westerly?
RB: Without question. The Sagnac effect shows this conclusively. Here's a
Zealie site on the state of the art.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml
Why haven't you heard of this experiment before in the scientific press?
BECAUSE IT IS A SOLID DISPROOF OF RELATIVITY!
btw - If we can ever put the distractions of chauvinism, hoaxes and inter
denominational rants behind us, the Sagnac effect would be an excellent
place to start a scientific GC defense and a deconstruction of
HC/AC/Relativity. Maybe some day......
>
> I think my polar launch just might answer some questions.
>
RB: ...or raise some new ones.
> Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Shelton
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 6:59 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> Dr. Jones,
>
> I don't have much to solidly contribute here, but I read your
> piece and it
> seems to me that you are saying that the rocket will run out of fuel
> reaching the moon, or certainly that it won't have enough for the return
> trip. And this is for either GC or HC, correct? Has this been
> echoed in
> other places for backup?
>
> Also, I assume when you say a rocket is launched "eastwardly" or
> "westwardly" you are referring to an attitude change in said
> rocket once it
> is already launched, for all rockets launch straight upwards, correct?
>
> Further, I would ask you if the "launch direction" would be
> predicated upon
> the position of the moon at the time of intercept? I mean, in
> the GC you
> are saying we launch westwardly, since that is the direction of
> the moon's
> travel, but what if the moon were sunk way down in the east at
> the instant
> the decision were made to "aim" the rocket eastwardly or
> westwardly? Would
> it not be therefore possible to shoot a rocket eastwardly in our GC
> worldview? And, conversely, shoot a rocket westwardly to meet a HC moon
> sunk way down in the west?
>
> Would not the interception of the moon be a perfectly feasible
> manner, in
> either case, given enough fuel?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Shelton
>
>
> > All,
> >
> > Can I have some more opinions on the alleged Apollo Moon landings and
> whether they conflict with the Bible, please? So far, the
> silence has been
> deafening from some of you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neville.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] sagnac effect...
