[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
1. A vibration is the only real phenomena observed in nature that can reproduce
the effects and Anomalies that gravity does....so to say gravity is not a
vibration requires a much further leap of ?certainty? then to say that it is
because it behaves like one....
2. The frequency is the quest....... I have attempted to devise & explain in
detail a method for ascertaining its frequency. However, its frequency cannot
be directly measure due to the fact that the vibration is prorogating through
the entire universe, all ~15 billion light years, in about 1.5 seconds there is
no physical instrumentation that could be constructed to measure that since the
best we could even remotely hope for in a physical apparatus is a detector that
functions at the speed of light?
3 The affect is called the Aspden motor effect, I believe, but if I am wrong
and it is just referred to as the Aspden effect I can live with that too....????
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen gravity is not a
vibration.. If you say it is , and demonstrable then what is the frequency?
You'll have to reword this to simplify what you are trying to say.
"Theoretical constructs that can be demonstrated in the ordinary world based
on actual O&E is not the same as theoretical constructs external of any
demonstrable bases in reality used to develop other theoretical constructs that
too are not demonstrable in reality ???????.."
Now that might as well be in Japanese.
"The Aspeden motor is a real observational effect .."
I thought a motor was a thing, not an effect.. Please clarify.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
1. The Aspeden motor is a real observational effect not pseudo science
repeatable and demonstrable ( is also found In GWW cant remember the page..i
don't have the book in front of me right now.).
2. Although I have known of many of these Phenomena from elsewhere the ones i
use most frequently and quote are found in fact found in GWW. That is why is it
such a useful book for everyone to have. It goes along way in putting most of
the various "anomalies" in one reference book. I encourage everyone to get a
copy and do some research.. If there was such a thing as required reading/
reference material I would certainly consider it such.
3. If i understood you correctly then i think it importaint to point out that
all of the Theory that I put forward uses reference in and to reality using
actually observation and experiment ( O&E) found in reality. There is no pseudo
science in my deductions regardless of whether or not I am ultimately right or
wrong.. There is a difference between arriving a the wrong conclusion based on
a limited set of data verse coming to a conclusion based strictly on
imagination of "what could be" in spite of what is actually observed ?. I can
demonstrate, in fact MS has already demonstrated all the phenomena I use as the
bases for my points in argumentation and theory .. I could be wrong but not
because I used or relied on any "pseudo science"??Theoretical constructs that
can be demonstrated in the ordinary world based on actual O&E is not the same
as theoretical constructs external of any demonstrable bases in reality used to
develop other theoretical constructs that too are not
demonstrable in reality ???????..You may have me confused with those "other
guys" (MS Philosophers)
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen in keeping with the theory you posed below you migh find the
following of help. It is just one of many perfect examples of pseudo science in
action using terminology at random without reference to reality. In the mean
time what is an aspeden motor? Philip.
INTRODUCTION TO EXPERIMENTAL GRAVITONICS
Abstract by book of S.M.Poliakov and O.S.Poliakov
For the first time a book has been published as a helpful guide in
conducting laboratory investigations in the field of gravitonics.
The book treats problem of creating high power soerces and sensitive
receivers of gravity.
The authors develop an original phenomenological theory of gravitational-
radiation sources based on a physical micro-structural model of the
classical electron in rest state. This theory allowed to obtain simple
analytical equations relating magnetism to gravitation and gravitation
to retation of a material object.
It is demonstrated that radiation is a PROPERTY OF NONSTATIONARY
SYSTEMS ONLY WHICH POSSESS A TIME-VARIABLE PARAMETER.
The equations thus obtained have been verified in a series of many-year
experiments and may be recommended for use by practical specialists.
The experiments part covers the following subjects:
1. Light-beam curvature and optical-radiation frequency shift is
created and investigated in an artificial nonhomogeneous gravitational
field.
A new gravitational effect, named "quadrature" frequency shift in the
curved light beam is predicted and calculated.
2. Magnetostriction is at last explained as a secondary gravitational
effect. An equation derived for magnetostriction permits to calculate
the magnetostriction curve.
3. The propagation velocity of gravitational radiation (generated by a
laboratory source) was measured for "quadrupole" - 9x10E20 cm/s or
squared light velocity.
4. It was demonstrated that gravitation is only one of NONLINEAR-MECHANICS
EFFECT, that can be created in mechanical system or in ferromagnetic.
The book was published at the author's expense in 1991. Most powerful
experimental result described in this book is more than 1200 gramms of
pulsed G-force. Several mechanical systems and systems using ferrites
are detailed here.
Second edition in English is ready for copy process (disket's text).
Editors and investors are interested in joint project for publication
can get direct contact with Dr. Poliakov by address: Moscow area,
141120, FRIAZINO, 60-let str., 1-167. Phone 7-095-4658822.
E-mail contacts are welcome alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 7:29 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
Thanks Nevile,
Here are some more of my thoughts for everyones consideration....It will all
"come together" when you get to the conclusions paragraph ....I think.....:)
1. The aspeden motor takes less energy to spin up after stop within 1 min
then the initial energy did the first time.. The most consistent & demonstrable
explanation is feedback
2. I would argue the mot obvious and only demonstrable & reproducible
mechanism capable of explaining why a spinning gyroscope in a vacuum resist
change in orientation is for the same reason that a spinning gyroscope in a
fluid would resist change even above and beyond its vacuum resistance ( this
should be verifiable) namely there is a vortex created in the fluid and a
change in orientation is actually an attempt to change the flow of the fluid
against itself. The most consistent & demonstrable explanation is feedback
3. A spinning projectile is actually heavier then a non spinning one ..in
fluid dynamics this can be explained as a spinning drill bit v a non spinning
drill bit effect?? resistance is decreased. The other possibility which is far
harder to demonstrated is a combination of the interaction of a standing wave
form in a dynamically active fluid?.take the sound board with sand on it
..particles/ objects spinning in/ that medium will move differently then ones
that do not..in part due to resistance of the medium as in the dill bit
direction of drilling action) example; the particle size and also affected by
the direction of rotation of the soundboard itself (aether /the universe) and
the Frequency and intensity of the vibration of the board itself. The particles
will still "gravitate toward each other they will behave differently then non
spinning particles. This is a very complicated combination of fluid dynamics
and harmonics?.similar to Global weather modeling that is why
it is going to be difficult to "nail it down".
Notwithstanding, I believe in any case and even if I am totally right or
wrong about this that we are going to have to start with I would argue very
logical but basic assumptions based on what we have, not what we do not have??
1. Macro or broad general:
A. Regardless of what the aether is in reality, to date all the phenomena
that could be assumed to be ethereal in origin & or determination make perfect
sense and are consistent with a fluid dynamic process, which individually are
demonstrable and reproducible. I would argue there is no other D&R environment
that could explain those phenomena?..I argue to start with what we have not
with what we do not have. It may be the case that in the end it is something
entirely different but we have to arrive at that from a logical path not just
the fact it could be?.if if quacks like a duck then for now at least lets just
call it a duck, so to speak, as time and O&E move forward we can then determine
if it walks like a duck too?. But up to this point in time I would argue that
all phenomena are consistent and only most consistent with a "fluid"
environment. I suggest we must begin our model with a universal fluid and in
terms of Fluid dynamics..
B. Gravity for all the independent reasons given in many other early post, I
would stonily argue most resembles and can only be demonstrated at this point
as a vibration, as such should be modeled in terms of harmonics & harmonic
effects.
On the macro the interactions of this supposedly fluid of plank density ( any
density proportions/ ratios are the key here not actually measurements of plank
or aether particles) and objects of observable/ deduced size need to be able to
describe the necessary vibrations in this medium to accommodate large scale
structures observed in the universe ( distribution of mass on concentric shells
separated by 420 mega parsecs I think ( or relative distance to the size of the
bodies that form those shells)
2. Mico
Once the range of ratios of size density and frequencies are determined for
the macro structures then and only then could we begin to look at how the
dynamics of individual bodies most of which spin in this rotating medium
(aether) in one of those very large structures interacts ( out to the geo sat
alt) on a scale so small as to be nearly in-perceivable to the rest of the
universe could even start.
We must start broad and general and work to the small and specific. Sure we
can take some measurements of the effects of gravity and describe it but we all
know the difference and relevance of a description of something to its
explanation?..I believe this is why MS keeps chasing rabbits down holes that
are in fact "bottomless pits" of ignorance??.. At one time they started with
the most general O& E they had and moved to specifics. However, as time moved
forward and more General o&E became available rather then backing up and out to
the most general and working back in again they just insisted and forced the
new general O&E data to be conformed to the specifics that they had already
concluded with the limited general data from earlier. In short they did not
stop back up again to see the big picture. They just keep going down the same
tunnel vision they had at the beginning regardless of how wide the road got
latter.
Conclusions: In short before we can accurately module something so small in
the universe as a geosat, perhaps the approach of looking a gravity on a small
scale first(Newton?s apple) rather then on the maco scale first ( large scale
structure) may be all backwards from what we should be doing. The current
approach is the MS Strategy (Newton?s apple to Cosmos) ? We should be looking
at the cosmos to understand Newton?s apple? It is this approach that may and I
would argue is in fact the only real "black hole" (of real progress) that
exist. Having said that looking at geosats is a good way of perhaps taking the
necessary measurements for the force of gravity ( which we will need) on small
scales that will come in handy after evaluating the various frequency, aether
and mass combinations need to produce the large scale structure first. Then and
only then will we be in a position, I argue, to see how those combinations
might interact to reproduce what we observe locally on
very very small scales such as the earth and geostats?.?. THE KEY: AVGM
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Your ideas are interesting,
Allen. If we can tie down just what this aether has to do, then I, too, would
be excited to attempt to model it.
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
Jelly?.....fluid?......Well I point out that the observable effects in
nature strongly suggest to me a fluid like aether and that gravity is a nothing
more then a vibration in the aether. It is important to note that the Firmament
aka aether is firm weather or not it is a fluid or solid/jelly but the best
analogy as to its actual interactions with mass and mass in turn to it to me
most strongly resembles fluid like properties.... Having said that it is
important to realize that in water if there was no disturbance in the water and
no other external forces that something placed in water could not/ would not
move at all it would just be fixed in the water it is only the wave action or
disturbance of the water that enables free floating objects to move around in
water..and except for drag and such if you push a boat in the pond it will
almost always keep moving till it reaches the other side ( inertia) ...I would
argue, the only difference is the properties of the fluid
not the fact that we are indeed looking a fluid aether perhaps the most basic
fluid of them all with no forces external of it ( save God himself) to act on
it .. Further, in fact it is why fluids act the way they do they are just a
subornate form of...
Now take the ocean for example there is wave/current action there too and
those waves/ current traverse the entire ocean (universal) but the interaction
of any given wave on a large or small vessel is not going to have an effect on
any other boat unless it is close enough to it to have an effect such as coming
into contact with another ships wake or the curent it creates when a ship
sinks....Currents can be created by large objects but also affect larger
objects differently then smaller ones but all of the basic dynamics can be
described in term of fluids...surface tension itself is a local effect who?s
origin rest universally in the fluid......Now weather or not it is a fluid the
dynamics being similar it seems to me the best approach to pursue it as since
if it is something so exotic that cannot be compared too then it will be
infinitely more difficult if possible at all to develop any meaningful and
demonstratable nature. I think there is still a lot more that needs to
be looked at and examined but i firmly believe that we can more accurately
describe the actual mechanics of the gravitational force itself in terms of
vibrations (which would also include currents) I suggest the Feedbck
description I pointed out in observable experiments i think would be a good
place to begin in exploring the properties of aether or whater this fluid like
thing is....
On the maco larger bodies are arranged in the patterns observed(accurately at
least to some extent) in mass distribution of the macro universe ..in smaller
bodies the vibrations would have the same effect as they do in the ocean a
large swell might move a small boat but would leave a small piece of trash
relatively unmoved just bobbing up and down in the water ..it all depends on
the size frequency of the waves in the fluid ..the fluids viscosity/overall
Properties.....the size of the boat and the size of the trash in the water but
the basic asymmetry still holds true for larger and smaller objects.......I
believe that if you use the spacial distribution of mass in the universe with
the relative sizes of the bodies in the universe along with observable
phenomenon such as the aspeden motor and others along with the satellite
maneuvering data we should be able to Extrapolate some more basic properties of
the aether and the frequency and intensity of the gravitational
vibrations so as to reproduce what we see in the observable universe......
Again, i would like to point out that even MS is startled by the fact that
large scale structures of the visible universe appear to be fractal......this
modeling i know would be complicated and i don?t even know if it could be done
outside of a Cray supercomputer like RED STORM which is used for global weather
modeling ...I don?t mean to be a downer but although I think we can deduce much
of it philosophically, however, the smallest nuts and bolts are going to
require a lot more brain power then the math I can muster...........having said
that,however, i'm more then willing, eager and excited to let Nevile,
Robert(s), Selbrede and crew crunch the big numbers...:)
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear Dave,
This is almost beyond me but your analogy with a ship moving through the sea
is easy to understand. Are you suggesting that the aether is acting like a
jelly and that any gravitational effect close to a body or mass is gradually
dissipated through some kind of 'slip' taking place in the aether?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:15 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
I think we are not as far apart as your conclusions might at first suggest,
with a little "tweaking" .......... It is/could be possible to
explain/describe a localized only gravitational effect who?s ultimate cause is
still "universal"... In this way there would be no need to through out
instantaneous action at a distance or deep space travel or inertia as
classically defined.(how it is described not explained)
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 28/06/2007 5:57
PM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 28/06/2007 5:57
PM
Other related posts:
