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 -----
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)
