## [geocentrism] Bernies problems.

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:11:11 +1000

----- Original Message -----
From: Bernard Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?

Philip,

Does the magnetic field of force of the 3,000 pound magnet
in my living room extend forever or everywhere? It may, but the practical
pulling force is only for nearby objects. After a certain distance
the pull force is zero. Without any other fields in proximity, all of the
lines from one pole will curve out and re enter the other pole, given the
hypothetical convention of direction from N to S. The amount of distance this
strained line at the outer periphery of the curve reaches is dependent on the
magnetising force of the magnet, and the elasticity resistance offered by the
aether in storing the force. It is not a good practise to use the analogy of
magnets which are dipoles, for gravity which are "monopoles"

But when I sit on it for 3 hours watching television my
bones start to hurt and ache.   : ~ )   Any suggestions? Try reversing the
polarity, or use a thicker cushion?

Also when I vertically extend my right arm over my head
then reach behind my back to scratch the rear of my left shoulder,
it hurts every time when I do that - about ten times a day.
What should I do? Same thing happens to me. I get up and horse scratch my
back on a door jam. A long handled brush helps but I reserve that for the
toilet. I don't think the magnet is the cause.

Any time, Dr. Phil.

Bernie

Bernie, I'm not expert here, but there is no real "zero gravity", as
regards the force "field" Notice I enclosed "field" because it is a mathmatical
abstract to represent visually what is only hypothetical.
The field of force is technically everywhere, even in a neutral zone. What
we are getting confused with is weight. or weightlessness. We experience this
phenomena during free fall. You might recall seeing these free fall experiments
in high flying aircraft. A satellite in orbit is in a continuous "free fall "
mode, as it technically falls "towards" but around the earth.

It looks as though no one offered the means to calculate the weight of an
object within the gravitational field, so I'll do a quick search and get back
to us. we should be able to calculate exactly the weight (force) due to gravity
at 22000miles up. but I just hate the metric system because it converted simple
pounds into a Jewish name...

I do not think it is a conspiracy here as regards the orbiting objects and
the formulars used, The devil may know, but these guys are just believing
blindly what to them seems a rational concept. The world does not produce many
Faradays or Teslas like us you know...

Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernard Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:01 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?

Neville,

You were saying that there was still a gravitational field strength
at 22,236 statute miles above sea level, because I had thought it was
zero gravity.
Zero gravity is what I was told as a child that enabled astronauts to
float.

So I thought if the Earth was still creating a gravity pull force at
22,236
then it must be very weak. It would be like playing with a helium balloon
here on Earth - a little tap and it moves up, not much force required.
I wonder if there is a table of completed calculations for the percentage
strength
of gravity at various altitudes above the Earth? What kind of gravity
power are
we dealing with at 22,236 considering there's an inverse distance squared
rule?

So my thoughts are that the so-called geosynchronous satellite
just sits there, no engine, practically zero gravity
and takes decades to fall back towards Earth and burn up in the
atmosphere, by which time it has been replaced with a new satellite.
Or, they are lying about the thrusters being used for lateral drift and
they are really for, or also for, vertical lift and we have another
State-sponsered conspiracy on our hands,
a la Federal Reserve, Apollo, 911, Iraq, etcetera, ad infinitum.

Bernie

"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bernie,

I am very interested in this.

I know that geosynchronous satellites have thrusters to correct for
lateral drift, but I did not know that they had "vertical" thrusters. Do you
have any more info on this? In particular, the thrusters would need to be of
very low power, but constantly running (solar power/battery).

Neville.

Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The gravitational field strength is very weak at the 22,236 altitude,
because of the inverse square distance rule. So the satellite
would just need a small strength vertical thruster to keep it in
place.
I read they do indeed have thrusters.

Bernie

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo!
Mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date:
27/03/2007 4:38 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date: 27/03/2007
4:38 PM

### Other related posts:

• » [geocentrism] Bernies problems.