[geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:13:15 -0700 (PDT)


Yes your right..I did read your paper however i was not sure of exactly how you 
approached that aether so i just used that as a general abbreviated quick 
"thesis" for some of the aether evidence for "real density" ..but I take your 

I am glad there is some common ground in this area...even if the exact nature 
of the "common ground" is yet to be "worked out"..The numerical value is the 
issue that need to be addressed. The plank figure of 3.6x1093 gm/cm3. iss what 
i use for the moment... However, I think the implications of the efficience of 
the energy transfer between aether and mass and visa versa is yet to be fully 
examined....I think finding the right analogy based on other observed effects 
to/with /in the aether may be key in extrapolating meaningful properties not 
just theoretical mathematical ones, .which may or may not true. Right now 
though that is i believe is a good figure to date, and fits "firmness" and 
allows for instantaneous gravitational vibrations of the aether that based on 
plank constants would propagate at ~ 10-44 sec...... that would also implies a 
natural frequency of 1047 Hz this is based on the plank examinations of Bouw; 
Geocentric primer pg 125-129.  If
 someone does not have a copy we can re-post where to get that... I think the 
patterns, if reversed engineered, would give us a better or more accurate 
figure for that density ..but that would be a trail and error endeavor and i 
think would require supercomputing power like the one used in simulating 
nuclear yields based on physical configurations ( wave propagation/ harmonics)  
that the DOE runs instead of actual explosions to test new deigns of "special 
weapons"..in any case i don’t know anyone who would help in that just 
yet.....but i do think that is what will be needed to extrapolated the best 
most accurate numerical values based on the observed mass distribution 
patterns....a calculator & slide rule is not gona work here im afraid....

Your figure of half a milligram per cubic meter i think is not nearly dense 
enough to account for wave propagation as gravity........... . You outline a 
relationship of pressure in the aether to the weight of mass at the poles, but 
i would point out that if gravity ( cause of weight) is a vibration (for the 
reason i have already outlined) that relationship to aether pressure would not 
be valid for the aether itself....why?..... It would only be an expression of 
the aetheral vibrational wave pressure or the value of the pressure created 
above and beyond the "normal" aetheral "static pressure" by the gravitational 
wave...I believe vibration is the strongest explanation of gravity, certainly 
the only "mimic-able" one. Therefore, I think the relationship between pressure 
and the weight of mass is incorrect. It is the very issue that needs to be in 
some way shown external of its own definition as the validation for its 
definition. This is to say, it must be
 shown that the density and pressure have that relationship to weight before 
you use that as the defining criteria for its own definition. There are in my 
opinion far more weighter/logical reasons that imply "grav pressure" as being 
independent from the "normal" pressure of the aether. Just as any pressure 
applied to mass via "currents" or visa versa is independent/ above and beyond 
the "normal" pressure of the aether, whatever that is. 

I do not believe there is at this time a measurable "static pressure" of the 
aether/ firmament since it is the most basic and fundamental "natural state" of 
the objects placed in it. (in the same way that the preasure of the atmospher 
on you is inperceptiable to you except in terms of some other external  frame 
of reference)  In fact if you were to attempt to extrapolate the "static 
pressure" of the aether i would suggest that you will have to .... 

1. Recognized that the objects are placed "fixed" in it thus "static 
pressure"then should be determine by the movability or immovability of mass in 
the aether as being "fixed" in a medium aether....

2. This relationship might be in essence a lot closer to viscosity then to 
weight..."viscosity" ( the ability to pour or transfer energy since any fluid 
reacts with the mass or gas, ...ie air,.... around it in a numerical and 
meaningful way via energy transfer as long as there is a point of reference 
used as a "base line" figure(s)) then can be extrapolated via the efficiency of 
the mass to aether/ visa versa energy transfer value. That value should be able 
to be ~ "calculated" via grav slingshots and Aspeden effect and gyroscopic 
effects numerically and "meaningfully" using the action or reaction of ordinary 
mass as the benchmark or point of ref for any numerical value of aether 
viscosity as defined previously. ..........

3.We can’t move a planet to ascertain the "static pressure" based on numerical 
values of viscosity or inertia in the aether.... however artificial objects and 
small asteroids and such have a inertial value ( the force needed to move them 
from any "fixed" point placed in the aether)... that value we call inertia, 
external of a direct gravitational attraction (wake) would should tell us the 
"static pressure" based on viscosity ( energy transfer back and fourth between 
mass and aether) and the "force’ required to move a "reference mass"( 
artificial satellite) from its given location eternal or "neutralized" 
gravitational field...the reason is, even eternal of a gravitational field, all 
objects have an "inertial mass" based on the "force" nessisary to move or 
change its present location.

Having said all that even this is an assumption that the viscosity and the 
pressure are directly related to each other and even this is not yet known. 
Although it sounds reasonable at first, it is key to remember that the "aether" 
is the most fundamental "environment" known and therefore may not have a clear 
relationship of its properties to its other properties. It may be a fundamental 
medium that does not need clearly defined relationships of all its properties 
to any of its other properties since it appears to define the relationships 
that we observe with "ordinary matter"........Philosophically, the point 
is....that any "deterministic force" does not need to conform to the forces 
itself defines....Herein lies a difficulty that must always be in the back of 
our minds. If the aether defines the properties and relationships of those 
properties of mass that are in the aether, then the aether may not have the 
same kinda relationships or any relationships
 for that matter between its own properties....? Example: God, the source, 
defines man but God, the source ,is not defined by mans relationships or based 
on man’s properties.......at some point this becomes the inevitable logical end 
of exploration. However, having said that, there is good reason to suspect that 
the aether has similar relationships or relationships of some kind even if not 
in the same "format" as "ordinary matter" since it is a "created interactive& 
integral" part of the "natural" universe............. Gen 1:1


----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:41:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?


You have misunderstood me if you think that I deny a density for the aether. In 
fact, if you look at my updated geostationary satellites paper, then you will 
see ("Plenum Aether" section) that I derive a value for this density.

Perhaps your reply was to Philip. In which case, placing the name of the person 
you are addressing at the top of the posting would be of benefit.

My question asked you for a numerical value.




-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT)

The Aether most certainly has density!....... 
First i was alluding to the theoretical construct based on the calculation of 
plank "absolutes"....this is a reasonable "starting point"...if for no other 
reason then there is no other viable alternative... 
Second as for the density of the Aether it most certainly does have a density 
this is proven via the Aspeden effect and gravity slingshots tides..ect....the 
correct illustration would be that of air..... what is the density of the air 
that you all move though in our own houses?..you can't perceived it cause it is 
the "natural state" but it is real and can be measured but only measured in 
terms that have meaning such as how it correspond to the density of water or 
mercury...... Now the key think to keep in mind is the fact that "density" is a 
specific descriptive term for ordinary and observable effects that do have 
meaning to an observer......... I point this out because we can described the 
density of the Aether not just in theoretical calculations of plank absolutes 
but also in terms of observable effects such as the aethers ability to have 
mass in motion impart force to the aether and then the aether in turn to impart 
that energy back to a
 mass...Aspeden effect, gyroscopic effect..grav slingshots...in the short term 
any calculations will be general estimates but still useful descriptions.......
The Aether most certainly has density, because it has physical affects on 
physical objects and physical objects have a effect on it......... think about 
that....the only difference is in our ability to perceive the "natural state" 
of our own environment..like a fish in water or a man walking in is own 
house..the issue we have to address is not if it has density but rather what is 
the best way of relating/describing  or understanding that density ..or what is 
the best demonstrable and knowable frame of reference from which to objectively 
measure it by...i only point out the based on the bibles description of a 
firmament and planks calculations it is a good starting point but i think can 
be refined based on the other observations i mentioned 
The key is in the efficiency of the "force" transfer between aether and 
"ordinary mass" and visa versa....that can give us a useful measurement and 
thus a "frame of reference" by putting some properties into context of the 
ordinary..... we can then extrapolate/ measure against that its some of its 
other properties....it wont be perfect but it will be useful.........

Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

What do you take the density of the aether to be?



-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?

I leaving shortly for a short trip ill be back late Thursday or Friday Lord 
willing. However to address your question in short ..we can discuss this in 
more detail when I get back â¦..based on the apparent interaction (transfer of 
energy/force efficiency) of aether and mass and visa vers ie Aseden 
effectâ¦gravitational slingshots and suchâ¦taking into account the presumed 
âdensityâ of the aether,⦠the "known" mass and mass distribution patterns 
observable within the universe  a few Ukn variables such as the size of the 
Aether(universe)  â¦.I suggest not only is a vibration with a active and 
reactive matix the most logical and demons ratable solution but  it is the 
frequency necessary to produce the attached â¦â¦just like something you can 
produce on a sound board with sand the only difference is a 3 matrix (aether) 
rather then just the 2d of a sound boardâ¦â¦    

----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:31:29 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?

Allen I know that in the past I have tended to disagree if not just avoid your 
vibrational universe. This may have been a communication problem of my own. I 
do not like calling Light electromagnetic waves having the same theoretical 
structure as radio for instance. Can anyone demonstrate an electrical current 
at light frequencies for example, as they can do with radio frequencies?  I 
think not. Light might be corpuscular, radio is not.   Light might be photons, 
radio is not. I say "might" because I doubt it. 
Hence, likewise vibration. I do not like the use of the term vibration in any 
context other than as something physically felt.. pressure sound.  I would 
never call a 60hz electrical current flow  a vibration, except by way of 
analogy. eg the electrons vibrate longitudinally in the conductor. 
But on re reading your words I get the impression you use the term for all 
types of cyclic variations, in anything, be it pressure, mechanical, electrical 
etc. Perhaps you are calling any single cycle sinisoidal or non sinisoidal, 
event that has a frequency of one year or a hundred years, a vibration...I 
wouldn't, but if you are doing so, then perhaps I can agree with you as regards 
the aether having a frequency. Nay, perhaps even several different cyclic 
events as effects on matter, due to interveneing forces in matter itself.
Having cleared that up, I can now see what you are driving at, re the aether 
pressure (gravity) "squeezing" the water of the oceans towards the moon because 
the moon interferes with this aetheric "pressure" on its side of the earth.  
But I see this effect without need of any "vibration".  
If you are saying the aether itself has a basic frequency of "vibration" , what 
structure does this cycle have, and what is its frequency? Why cannot this 
gravity pressure be a static constant in a given location, just as is and for 
the same reason water pressure in a pond, is static. 
This water pressure phenomenon is transmitted via the molecular/nuclear 
"vibrations" , but the vibrations are not the cause of the strength of the 
pressure. Likewise perhaps you might agree is the aether..  I can get that.  
But you are assuming what all do, and which may be incorrect, nay most probably 
incorrect, that the aether has the properties of a material substance. 
Back to Harold Aspden...  the aether is a simple neutral state of electrical 
charges which without intervening environment , demonstrate no external 
material measurable effect. .  eg when we make an electrical current flow, we 
disturb these charges balance, and create a magnetic force stress. 

Get Free Smileys for Your IM & Email - Learn more at www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google TalkTM and 
most webmails

Other related posts: