[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper

  • From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:02:23 -0400

On Behalf Of Allen Daves

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
From aether to visible matter.
The resistance to motion, inertia, is a property of the aether.  When the
motor is first run, the inertia of the aether is decreased ? the aether is
(partially) dragged along, as proposed long ago by Cauchy and Stokes.  The
inertia is restored within 1 minute by the replacement flow of surrounding
aether . This tells us the flow rate of aether within the motor
A linear test of the Aspden effect:   Each time a gun is fired HORIZONTALLY
WITH THE SAME MUZZLE VELOCITY,each bullet will travel slightly further than
the prior one.
If fired vertically, each bullet will go a little bit higher than the
previous one.
Each bullet drags a little aether with it, reducing the inertia along the

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".
Allen, you have enamored of that film clip of sandpiles on an acoustic
board, ever since I posted it.  But I still don?t get your application to
aether waves.
The board transmits in 2D the vibrations of the amplifiers at the edge. The
sand piles up at the acoustic nodes and is swept away from the anti-nodes.

The cosmic analog would be aether wave generators at the boundary of the
universe creating 3D waves that cause resonances  in the aether, with Earth
at center.
The orbits of celestial objects would be the aether wave anti-nodes, since
gravity is maximum at the orbital distance.  Applied to the solar system the
anti-nodes should correspond to the Titus-Bode law for planetary spacing.

Is this what you are proposing?

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

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)

This assumes the MS Hubble law is valid ? distance is proportional to red
shift and all of the red shift is due to recession.

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
??  = A Virtual Gravity Machine ??

Other related posts: