Your analogy is interesting but I'm left wondering in which direction you would have the rowboat moving relative to the aether at the various stages of the rendezvous proceedure.Paul D Thats where you miss the point. , and why the analogy is not the best. The aether is unseen, thus you would be in a boat of a river that is not seen, hence the rowers would only see their own movements as being their own. This is why the heliocentric calculations to meet with Mars work, because the reality is hidden. We are back to the two trains passing each other at 50mph. Making the connection is relatively the same . whether the trains are actially moving themselves, or the tracks are moving and carrying one or both of them along. As regards the aether rotating around the earth, our explorer moving out towards Pluto would be like Microman on the spindle of a phonograph walking out to the edge of the record. If there were no centrifugal force, [and there isn't if one is synchronised with the aether,] he would think it was a straight walk.. all his physical effort would be a straight heliocentric walk, but if you know about and prove a rotating medium is doing the work, then the reality is quite different.. a neat trick by God, one might say, to confuse the unfaithful and proud. And quite candidly, that is what God is all about. Sorting the sheep out, from those who would know better.... (He loves the sheep) This quotation must make them livid. especially coming from that dumb old fairy tale book. 26 For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. 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. [That the achievements of mans science will be as nothing,] What sort of a man does it take Paul, to see the emmense power and logic in those words, especially today as we see before us a world collapsing and being destroyed by its own works? Philip. Interesting ... Confound is found only twice in the NT. and only 4 times in the OT specifically on the same theme... Gen 11 Job 19 and 40 Ecc 25. ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Deema To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:03 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science Philip M From philip madsen Thu Aug 30 22:40:27 2007 Paul, in this medium, it is difficult to explain motion, especially relative planetary motions.. However we can simplify the principles involve to explain the error in your assumed figures below, which cause you to conclude, " Should the GS position be the truth, the chances of a successful rendezvous, if the mission is based on HC data, are zilch, zippo, nil." Your major error is to neglect to include the aether, which you must admit, even if hypothetical, is as valid a consideration as any other hypothetical position taken in science, especially as is those applicable to special relativity, or any nuclear physics proposition. If we interpose a real physical medium called the aether, then we may explain your problem quite simply in the following way. Consider a swiftly flowing river, in the middle of which is a boat floating swiftly past. It would seem an impossibility for our rowboat on the shore to ever be able to reach it. However, if we time it correctly and put our boat into the relatively slower water near the shore and row towards the centre of the river, we will be quickly taken up into the swiftly flowing stream, and in no time at all be able to row up along side, and board the ship.. Now in case you missed the connection, it is the aether being left out of the equation which is the cause of all the confusion. For both sides actually. Philip. Your analogy is interesting but I'm left wondering in which direction you would have the rowboat moving relative to the aether at the various stages of the rendezvous proceedure. I have a bigger problem however with the aether itself. Firstly, its existance. My understanding is pretty much covered by the following gleaned from http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae489.cfm Question I am curious as to exactly when scientists found out that space is a vacuum and not made up of ether? What year was this and who is credited with the discovery? Asked by: Nancy Thorgaard Answer In 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley conducted an experiment that refuted the concept of and ether wind. They compared the speed of light in one direction with its speed at right angles to that direction. If light were in fact transmitted via an ever present ether, the motion of the Earth through it would result in an ether wind which would affect light's speed into and across its path. The Michelson-Morley experiment detected no difference in the speed of light, regardless of direction vs. the hypothesized ether wind. Although several attempts were made to explain away the experiment's results, the eventual conclusion was that the proposed ether wind must, therefore, not exist. (Emphasis added). Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A., Part-time Physics/Astronomy Instructor. Originally, the idea of measuring the speed of Earth through the ether came from Maxwell. During correspondence with others, the task fell upon Michelson. Michelson had made the most accurate measurement of the speed of light to date. But then Michelson proceeded to invent a new instrument with accuracy far exceeding that which had been attained to that date, and that instrument is now universally called the Michelson interferometer. In trying to measure the speed of the Earth through the supposed 'ether', you could depend upon one component of that velocity being known - the velocity of the Earth around the sun, about 30 km/s. Using a wavelength of about 600 nm, there should be a shift of about 0.04 fringes as the spectrometer was rotated 360°. Though small, this was well within Michelson's capability. Michelson, and everyone else, was surprised that there was no shift. Michelson's terse description of the experiment: 'The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. ... The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect.' Lord Rayleigh wrote to Michelson, urging him to repeat the experiment with greater accuracy to test these hypotheses. Michelson, with the collaboration of E. W. Morley, constructed a new interferometer with multiple mirrors and a path length about 10 times longer. This device should have given a fringe shift of about 0.4, but they observed less than 0.005 fringe. Although repeated over the next 40 years with ever greater precision and the same negative result, this 1887 experiment is pointed to as one of the experimental foundations of relativity, and earned Michelson the Nobel Prize in 1907. Answered by: Jason Heidecker, Physics Undergrad, Occidental College, Los Angeles Second, this aether must travel at different velocities depending on several factors - o the proximity to Earth; o the particular planet; o the point in the orbit at which it is currently situated ie retrograde, forward or transitional; o and whether the planet is at opposition or conjunction (width of the "flower petals"). In addition to this it has to be synchronous with the Sun and almost synchronous with the stars -- all in all a pretty complex phenomenon! How does this happen? More importantly -- why? You must be able to see why I prefer the simpler model with "attached" coherent theory. Paul D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 31/08/2007 5:21 PM