-----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 …..based on the apparent interaction (transfer of energy/force efficiency) of aether and mass and visa vers ie Aseden effect…gravitational slingshots and such…taking into account the presumed “density” 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) ….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 ……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 board……
----- 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.Philip....
