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

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 05:54:30 -0800

Yes, Allen, I agree with Philip. Why take Planck "absolutes"? You rightly say that we need a starting point, indeed that is why I have assumed the aether to be a totally non-viscous fluid, but as far as I understand Gerardus Bouw's position, his starting point is a supposed interrelationship between "fundamental constants."

I am not attacking your starting position, only trying to get to the lowest level of your assumptions.


-----Original Message-----
From: joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:02:42 +1000

why they knew about air/ breathing...it’s the same thing, and you are attempting in essence to argue that since there is no meaningfull understanding, thus proof that there is nothing meaningful to understand....?  Allen
I understand i think? what you are saying Allen..  But why resort to way out quantum physics of Planck, who uses his own units to explain evolution via a big bang.    Math is a great and necessary tool of the engineer,mechanic, but I do not accept it when it is used as a means of supporting invention (ideas) .. which quantum mechanics are..  inventions..  Imagined inventions..  like worm holes for intergalactic instantaneous transportation.
Lets get down to specifics.
You said,
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...
You should be able to explain to me in a single paragraph of a few sentences what YOU understand in practical terms what is   "theoretical construct based on the calculation of plank "absolutes".
with specific explanation of these absolutes.

Other related posts: