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

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:14 -0800

Allen,

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.

Regards,

Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----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 aether’’s 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 won’t be perfect but it will be useful.........

Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,

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

Neville


-----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)  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 ……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.
...


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: