[geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Philip,....me in blue...
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.
(a unit of angular momentum or spin-energy), h+, the
speed of light c, and the gravitational constant G to give a length of
1.616x10-33 cm. By the same token, the constants give us a fundamental
unit of mass M*, called the Planck Mass, which is 2.177x10-
5 gm. The corresponding basic unit of time, the Planck time, t*, is
5.391x10-44 sec. Lastly, the fundamental unit of temperature T* can
be derived by introducing Boltzman’s constant, k, and it gives a
temperature for the firmament of 1.417x1032 K; a most fervent heat
not observed anywhere in the universe......... pg 126 Primer
speed of light, pull of grav.....tempeture...... all observable and relational
measurable in real terms.... ......regardless of what the fundamental most
basic truth about the "real" absolutes.... ..the truth about the fundamentals
must incorporate these ..thus planks wich is based on this is reasonable at
this point at least... I think your criticism is "overextended" and without a
viable alternative..."measurements" are just relationships, and i don’t think
your criticisms of Plank fully appreciate that fact.
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:02:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
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.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth gravity static or time dependent?
Philip,
What i think you fail to fully appreciate is that all properties even the
definitions of the ones you address have no intrinsic meaning eternal of a
relationship to something else.... context is everything.....in the same way
that atmospheric pressure, generally, can not be perceived it is the "natural
state". It is only by showing a relationships to some other value(s) that it
has any meaning and those values only have any meaning in context with
others....just because fold did not perceive the pressure of air 600 years ago
does not mean it had no pressure it only means that a meaningful relationship
had not yet been established.....finding the right "meaningful" relationships
is the whole point of these discussion on the aether’s pressure.....we don’t
have those or a meaningful relationship yet.....THAT’S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT.... you cant say that since it does not conform to known
relationships that it therfore has no pressure
anymore then it would have been correct for those folk 600 yeas ago, who knew
what pressure was to state that the air has no pressure...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....?
Other related posts:
