Allen, Philip, et al.,
Thank you for your input following my request for thoughts on the aether.
It seems that our starting point should be the effects that are well known and accepted. For instance, Michelson-Morley (as reviewed by what's-his-name, the other American guy?), Michelson-Gale, Sagnac.
Sungenis and Bennett have already done this in GWW, but I suggest that we get some consensus here, as to what we would all accept, as a first step towards understanding how the aether must behave. In this regard, I would tend not to use Harold Aspden from the outset, but rather see if his work fits in later on. It could be, for example, that he just did not express his findings and views too well. We do not want to argue over secondary material.
Perhaps I should draw up a list? For starters, I'll make the following statement and leave it open to question/refinement/denial/elaboration :
It is possible that an aether exists and that Einstein's Special Relativity is therefore incorrect.
Feel free to play Devil's advocate if you want.
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paperThanks 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 feedback2. 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 feedback3. 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. MicoOnce 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
