(N)then why do celestial objects that move through the aether not slow down? (A)They do 1.The viscosity is demonstrated in and can be measured in the following experiments A.DePalma spinning ball drop/ spinning gyro drop GWW CH12 ,Pg 861 equiv force diference is .33% A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether asrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute thisto an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball ? anti-gravity ? can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making. Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart ? energy that would be manifest asgravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories. Gyro Drop: A fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance was photo-timed, with the rotor stopped and then spinning. The gyroscope fellalong its axis. Power leads for the rotor were disconnected just prior to release. B. Aspden effect Page 869 An Adams motor with a magnetizedrotor and no electrical power input is started on no load by a drive motor and brought up to operating speed of 3250 rpm, then runs steadilyat that speed for two minutes. With a machine rotor of 800 gms, its kineticenergy and that ofthe drive motor is less than 15 joules, contrasting withthe 300 joules needed to spin up from rest. After five minutes or more, the machine is stopped, but can be restarted up to speed in the same or opposite direction with only 30 joules, only 10% of the original effort, provided that the machine is not stopped more than about a minute. This totally violates all known laws of physics. It is ten times easier tospin the magnet once it has already been spinning. (The term for this is hysteresis, a memory of prior physical states). Energy within the magnet seems to continue ?spinning? inside even when the magnet is not moving (similar to stirring up a glass of water and then removing the stirring rod, while the glass itself remains still). It will take less energy to stirup the water in the glass again if you wait less than a minute before trying. So it certainly appears that this.......... 2. If objects were launched strait up from the earth then they are always biased toward a e-w trajectory.....that is the whole point of all objects including light demonstrating a e-w preferred direction. Summary: There is no other explanation that can be arrived at via logic & observations all other "Explanations" are just imaginations....... that ya could be true they might not be true....the point is LOE only leads you or supports one conclusion there is a viscosity to/in as a property of "free" space.....If we use what we actually have and not worry about what MS imagines we might be able to more clearly define the nature of gravity and the cosmos itself. Start with what you have (actual experiments) not what you do not have ( validity for MS assertions/imagination) philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Correct Neville, and its just another support for my contention that you cannot call it a fluid, or substance or attribute to it any physical properties, such as wind, etc, which sent michelson, morley, einstein et al, down the wrong corridor. But perhaps Allen was speaking of synominousness, not being quite couragious enough to coin a new word...for the analogy of fluid viscoscity in the aether.. arrr. errr how about aetherage, or aethoricity... As I said, who knows how far science would have advanced had it chosen the aether for serious consideration .. rather than a hypothetical Newtonianism.. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Neville Jones To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:31 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether effects Allen, If the aether has a viscosity, then why do celestial objects that move through the aether not slow down? Neville. Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: A spun up flywheel that stops takes less energy to bring back up to the previous rpm then the energy required to bring it to that rpm initially, as long as that is done within a limited time frame....does it matter what the fly wheel is made of? In any case that time multiplied by the entropy = efficiency or rate of energy transfer or we could say the viscosity of the aether to that ordinary matter??? Viscosity(aether) / Apparent motion or gravitational rate should yield the necessary possibilities for the frequency of gravity itself. The fact that the gravitational rate will be the same regardless of the strength of gravity of more massive/volumous bodies indicates that gravity is a function of vibrations?where the rate/ frequency of those vibrations stays the same but whose strength will be determined by the mass and size of a body in question??.low frequencies push high frequencies shock. This hold true even in the everyday world. Therefore the frequency for gravity must be a low frequency as compared to ordinary matter in space. The wave form must be at least longer then the most massive clustering of bodies in space if the distribution of matter is due to gravity. At least ~128 million parsecs or 420 million light years from crest to crest the difficulty is that the source should be located at the center not the peripheral unless either gravity is not responsible for the overall structure ( ie ..structure do solely to a crystal lattice) and or a peripheral source could somehow create interference patterns as we observe in the matter distribution. If due to crystalline structure rather then vibrations then the frequency should still be able to be extrapolated from just viscosity of the aether and the gravitational rate. That in turn should allow us to by trial and error reproduce the observed distribution of mass and or correct for the errors in distance, since the distance maps should have some degree of accuracy even if just in terms of proportions or distance ratios between bodies. The fact that the maps all show a fractal structure which can only be explained in a ordered harmonic universe in contrast to the assumed isotropic randomness expected my MS indicates that the maps have some degree of accuracy if in nothing more then the relative distances between the bodies not necessarily the actually distances to the bodies. It might even allow us to produce more accurate distance maps. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. --------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 21/04/2007 11:56 AM