[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:19:35 +1000
Neville have you read my treatise on this subject, which I posted recently
which goes along way to answering your questions, requiring only specifics ...
If you missed it I post it again below.
Philip.
A Philosophy of science, time and space. the aether (by meself it is.)
It is not an un-natural attribute of man for him to limit his thoughts and
imagination to what he can experience with his normal senses. And for the
normal man, which is the majority, the idea of God as an omnipotent omnipresent
eternal personal being is generally accepted as a mystery beyond what his
Creator expects him to comprehend. Yes, that God Himself uses imagery such as
the fatherly figure, angels in the human form and many other apparitions, is
indicative of the fact that He is satisfied with the child like simplicity that
allows normal man the uncomplicated faith. To whom much is given, much is taken
away.
Yet out of normal men, arises those who have an adventurous spirit, a vocation,
the desire to understand more. Is this unwise? We have the example of Adam who
was forbidden the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Yet since we have inherited
the fall from grace, because of his disobedience and not his desire for
knowledge, it appears rational enough to me, that so long as our adventures
into the unknown are done within full compliance of His commandments, according
to His Word, there could be no sin. We must keep in mind that such adventures
are fraught with danger, which is the reason no doubt, why the original
prohibition was imposed. This is where Galleleo failed. He allowed his faith in
the Cabalistic science of men such as Newton, to overule the commandment of
obedience. And thus began the disorder of making the word of God completely
conform to the science of men rather than the correct order where science in
the first place must conform to the word of God. By saying in the first place,
I mean of course, where necessary.
At first I wondered at the wisdom of venturing into this article, because of
the dangers I have already noted, and because I worried that any contribution
to knowledge, or even directions of research I proposed, might lead the man of
weak faith into the same error of pride that consumed Galleleo. But this was
false reasoning considering that all of us on this list have already consumed
the fruit of error one way or another, and are endeavouring to get things
right, or at least establish truth.
Science (of inertia) time and space, the aether.
This is an endeavour, a philosophical approach. It is not to be taken as the
absolute or final truths of the subject. It proposes to be a guide to an
alternative approach or concept of physical realities, to that taken by
mainstream science. It is based upon what is the absolute truth as far as it
has been revealed to us, the Word of God. I try to utilise the evidence of the
physical sciences as they have been demonstrated to exist, and present them
with alternative theoretical possibilities and causes which do not conflict
with or oppose that Word which is true. If I am delving into the physical
unknown, it is because in mainstream science, these subjects are unknown; based
as they are upon theoretical reasoning, that I do not deny appears reasonable,
but theory upon presumptions nonetheless.
If science can reasonably treat of the possibility of the aether, and it does
so among many notable theorists, without the help of the Word of God, then so
might I also treat of it; and that I claim it is the more reasonable because it
allows conformity with God's word, should not raise any objections from the
dissidents, less they risk being seen as bigots.
In proposing the aether as the all encompassing ingredient necessary to explain
all physical experience, my most difficult task, even among Bible believing
geocentrists is to bring the dimension of time into the discussion. This is why
I called this article a "Philosophy" of science, time and space, because the
difficulties are philosophical rather than physical. How can one explain the
experience of the rainbow to a person blind from birth? Intelligent imagination
may give one the concept of color, but never the experience.
To the same extent I can say that our three dimensional senses make us
"spiritually" blind to a fourth dimension. One is capable of seeing the trees
immediately in front and behind, but not the whole forest. But like the blind
man, you just might be able to grasp the concept.
Why does God call Himself, 'I am alpha and Omega' in one place, and "I am" in
another, and then Jesus in another again says, Amen, amen, I say to you, before
Abraham was made, I AM?
Can you see the powerful scientific statements here, that transcend our
experience of time? He did not say "I was" ... He said "I am." Past present or
future 'He is' for ever and ever.
So what is time? Basically its a sequential experience. I'll re-phrase that. We
experience everything physical sequentially as time. Time like color has no
reality without there existing a sentient being to experience it with his
senses. Most importantly this experience is limited by the senses we possess,
which are three dimensional. This is the cause of the apparent sequence of a
ball rolling, or your interference with its direction. Time is a mental
component. And this raises the important question of free will, and what
happens when we interfere with the direction of the rolling ball. We think we
changed its future, and we think that destroys the concept I propose.
But we are wrong on both counts. What we think is about as accurate as what a
blind man might conceive the color blue to be. What we did when pushing the
ball in a new direction, was to change the shape of the fourth dimension and in
so doing experienced the inertia (resistance) that such action presented.
Physically the action was similar to compressing a ball and changing its three
dimensional shape into a pyramid. We experienced a change to all four of its
dimensions.
We see and experience the sun as it moves across the sky. The sun could say " I
am" and our experience of its sequential change of position is just that. An
experience as we view it in all its positions sequentially. Subjectively our
three dimensional senses as we sequentially view this solid fourth dimension
give us the impression that the sun moves. How else could Jesus say He was
before Abraham, and presumably He WAS before creation and after the consumation
of the world?
"And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in
the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world. 9
If any man have an ear, let him hear. "
Isn't that last sentence marvellous? Daniel says similar. "Let the reader
understand!" which Jesus re-asserts in Mathew 25:15.This contradicts the
doctrine that reading the Bible alone can save all; and confirms the need for
an authorised teacher. 2 Peter 3: 15-17 Acts8: 30-31.
But I digress.
Is it such a big stretch of the imagination therefore to call our "time" no
more than an experience of inferior three dimensional senses? I say inferior
because until our soul is released from these limiting bodies, we are told our
experiences are inferior and incomparable to the experiences of our being after
death, whether our destiny be Hell or Heaven. We will see Jesus in all His
glory as He really "IS" , yes, even before Abraham was.
If this seems impossible to you then you will have difficulty comprehending the
application of this principle to the physics of inertia, which attempts to show
how this concept of time allows for a four dimensional created world, having
four real physical dimensions, and because of this, how it follows that the
effect of what we call the aether, is the primary cause of our subjective
experiences of inertia and the other force fields.. The implications as applied
to the limitation on the speed of light , magnetic fields, and gravity are
fascinating to say the least and will merely complicate this post to go into
all of it here, but perhaps later.
Have you ever seen those iron filing diagrams around a magnet which allegedly
demonstrate the position of a line of magnetic force? Ever wonder what that
alleged line is? Can't be weighed. Can't be touched, felt or smelt. Nobody,
that's absolutely nobody, knows what it is or why it is or even if it is a
line, other than it is an effect due to electrical activity, called charge,
which is another unknown. I can't tell you what they are either. But with
Faraday, I can say there must be some sort of "reason" that "acts" like a
"medium" to allow them to exist in a pure vacuum. I further say that this
reason is the existence of a solid physical fourth dimension.
But if you want to look on the aether as just hypothetical three dimensional
"fluid" or even call it a spiritual "ecktoplasm", that may suffice, but this
fails to satisfy any reasonable investigation of its physical existence. It
cannot explain how Jesus could say, 'before Abraham was, I am.' They cannot and
never will find any such a medium, simply because it is not there. But this
cannot change the reality of the effects it causes. As Faraday once said, 'you
cannot exercise a force at a distance without a medium.' I need though, to
extend the term medium to " a cause" or a "reaction" , something quite
different to a "conceptual fluid". The "cause" is the reaction to the finite
physical solidity of the entire four dimensional created universe.
That is my definition of the aether. The aether is a physical reaction to the
finite physical solidity of the entire four dimensional created universe.
Gravity.
The first casualty of this scenario of a finite universe has to be the Newtons
universal gravitation law. Whilst it can be conceded that this formula f/g =
m1m2/d sqd. can be used accurately locally anywhere in this area of space
called the solar system, this does not necessarily mean it is so to the finite
limit of the universe.
Assume that this universe is a finite four dimensional entity, there being no
infinite space, such as what we call space "outside" of this creation. We have
to deny the contradiction imposed by the weakness in our three dimensional
senses which implies otherwise.
In this universe we can say that gravity is a push which directs mass towards
mass, rather than a property of mass that causes attraction. This pressure
comes from the surrounding universe by all of its four dimensions, (aether?) in
which we may PRESUME to be the centre. With this cause of gravity the principle
naturally follows that the true centre will experience gravity equally from all
directions, and as our world does so experience such, we may in such a universe
as I have described, safely deduce that it is the centre.
Correspondingly if one were to move away from this centre towards the edge of
the universe, this force will become unbalanced, ultimately changing from
positive to negative. The inverse square law cannot hold true.
Whether this presumption be true or not, we do have anomalies in navigation
reported by deep space probes, which may be attributed to gravitational
defects. In any case as I said, this is not a local effect and has no bearing
on our problem of the geostationary satellite. This latter was easily explained
by a rotating univese, synonomous with a rotating aether, and the inertial
forces it produces. (see previous paper)
Whether the red shift is valid, accurate or not, I can see this theory of
gravitation supporting the expanding universe theory, which is ok as far as it
goes, except it can only go as far as its end, its finite end in space, called
the end of time, already acomplished, in eternity .
We will apply this scenario to the speed of radiation which effects the
presumptions of stellar distances, a more complex technical discourse requiring
more actual data, at a later date. But in the mean time consider this. The
spectral shift of a star, its speed away from or towards us all depends for
accuracy upon the speed of light being constant. And as we get closer to the
edge of creation I do not believe such is necessarily so.
Philip.
wavelength = velocity / frequency.
velocity (of light) = wavelength X frequency
The frequency of the source is fixed. If the source is moving away the
wavelength is increased and we "observe" a lower frequency. But if the velocity
of light is lower, the wavelength likewise is lower, and a lower frequency will
be observed, without the source moving anywhere.
MS depends so much on their belief that c is constant, to support red shift as
proof of the big bang expansion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Aether effects
Back to scientific issues.
Could I ask those of you who advocate an aether to supply your thinking as
regards what effect the aether would have on material bodies (planets,
satellites, gas molecules in the atmosphere, or whatever).
I ask this because it seems to me that the aether cannot support (pun
intended) the geosynchronous satellite.
Neville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up
for your free account today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/764 - Release Date: 17/04/2007
4:43 AM
Other related posts:
