[geocentrism] Re: Fw: [creation] Moon landings?
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:11:26 +1000
OK, Philip - tear it apart...
Pax Christi, frater.
Robert
No , I like it... It fits with what I said, and of course I was influenced by
your own input previously, as I tried to understand it. . Whereas I spoke of
the deviations allowed, within the degrees of arc, of the rotating radian, in a
general term, you were specific on this effect to allow the moon and sun to
slip , and if I read you right right, the effect of the coriolis on winds etc.
I had not mentioned the increasing effect on bodies remote, as you did, but it
was in my mind. So trying to fit it in with what you stated here.
If it was easy to move unit mass against the cosmos near the centre, it would
become more difficult the further out one went, and the amount or "distance"
that a body could defy this force, though the same distance (relatively from
the radius vector, ) the further out it went, the degrees of arc behind this
radian will decrease, till from our viewpoint here on earth, it will be in
synchronism with the stars..
I guess as I am a graphics person, and your a maths person, using word pictures
can make communication confusing..
Analogy: Take the original rotating radian line out to infinity. Near the earth
tie a ball to this arm .by a short peice of elastic, that could stretch to a
maximum distance equal to say 24 circumferences of the earth. That is the
maximum distance it could stretch.
Eventually this distance further out will encompass just one circumference,
and then half a circumference , and so on till even more eventually it will be
merely equal to an infinitely small portion of the circumference.
I hope that explains the way I see your point.
By the way, I still do not yet see how this causes an outward centrifugal force
on a stationary body such as the static satellite,
If you are correct, then we have to confront the existence of two types of
centrifugal force... One positive caused by the motion of the body itself
relative to a central mass. And the other (something new to consider) caused
by the rotation of the plenum.
This being so, then the geostat satellite is at the true neutral point of
gravity versus plenum centrifugal force, and all other conditions of a rotating
body will experience a net centrifugal force due to both motions.
I repeat I'm no mathmatician, but it seems to me that whilst Newtons laws work
to explain observed results, his reasons for why they work are incomplete, or
even totally wrong**.. if what we suspect and have mentioned here, Gravity is
not due to attraction of mass at all, but rather a force due to the
aether/plenum ...
Philip.
*** There are many precedents... When everybody thought electricity was a
fluid flowing from a positive reservoir to the negative or empty reservoir,
their equations always worked and balanced. Yet they had the reality all wrong.
Maybe they still do.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 3:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: [creation] Moon landings?
Philip,
>
> Word diagram. Take a straight line out to infinity from Earth
> central. Place an arrow pointing up above this line. Thats east,
> and one under pointing down. thats west. This is a 24 hour
> rotating force vector downwards toward the west. This force
> pervades all space, and obviously it will have greater
> momentum/speed the further from the centre you go.
>
> This speculative theory, and it is mere speculation, maintains
> that all mass/matter in space is constrained to move within
> "restricted bounds" either side of a radial from earth centre. In
> effect the force that carries the cosmos of sun stars at such
> apparent velocities, also must act upon any other bodies in
> space. The force forward (the future?) to the west may be greater
> all the way, than the force backward, (the past?) That is, it
> will always be easier to navigate against the cosmos rotation,
> than it is to navigate ahead of it, and this force increases
> either way the further one is from the centre of rotation, the earth.
>
> The inertial navigation systems upon appollo would show what NASA
> expects to see. Not necessarily the reality.
>
> Now that was my geocentric theory. But let us suppose for a
> moment, that NASA,made a big mistake and told a bigger lie. More
> on this to come, after I look at the course they claimed to have taken...
>
> Philip.
>
We are very close to agreement on the plenum's effect on objects (PEO,
hence).
Using a line from the earth's core out to the WAF, as you did, here's my
detailed speculative but empirical model:
1) in deep space the objects feel the maximum PEO - period = 24 hrs - 4
min, E to W
2) as we approach earth, the PEO weakens: Sun's period = 24 hrs, E to W
3) again moving closer, Moon's period = 24hrs + 52 mins, E to W.
4) but at 6 1/2 earth radii, the geostat distance, the PEO weakens to zero.
5) with decreasing distance within the geostat distance, the PEO increases
FROM W TO E.
6) at the highest levels of the atmosphere PEO causes air motion W to E, as
observed in the high-level general circulation of jet streams and prevailing
westerlies. At lower levels atmospheric forces of air temp and pressure
dominate over the weaker PEO.
OK, Philip - tear it apart...
Pax Christi, frater.
Robert
Other related posts: