[geocentrism] Re: Gravity and Aether

  • From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:59:29 -0400

Universal Gravity as a function of the Aether.
A developing alternative analytical exploration,  as it affects the
All are encouraged to participate in this development, adding to or taking
away, within the prescribed guidelines.

For the purpose of this analysis, without precluding a revisit to any of
them, we will presume the following.

1.       That though the universe may have any shape, we may assume it to be
spherical. Cylindrically symmetric about the polar axis would be sufficient.

2.       That it has finite size. It is not infinite.

3.      That there is no external influence .
It would seem that the universe by definition is self-contained, but there
are issues.

What of the revelation by Christ that ? the Father works, and I work??
Or ?My Father raises the Sun to shine on the just and unjust, and makes the
rain to fall on both the good and evil???
Certainly contrary to the Deists, who think the Creator abandoned the world
He created.
Modernists will pass over the above as allegorical and symbolic, but the
Magisterium demands that all of Revelation be first taken literally, unless
there is strong reasoning otherwise.  (This is the core belief behind the
Galileo ruling).  There?s no reason to forego the literal sense in the above

Most telling is Dan 7:9:
 ?and the Ancient of days sat: his garment was white as snow, and the hair
of his head like clean wool: his throne like flames of fire: the wheels of
it like a burning fire. 10 A swift stream of fire issued forth from before

What was the stream of fire? What did it do? Where did it go?   Possible
answers are found in the visions of blessed Hildegard,  as detailed in Chap
11 of XXX. [ for all who care to know]

For now I call the  swift stream of fire the third aether form ? a
post-creation external flow of energy into the universe from the Father?s
throne, properties TBD.

4.      That there is an aether which can be considered analogous to a
liquid excepting  that,

a.       It is non-material. i.e. [has no physical properties normally
expected of matter.]
Over the top, I think. The aether will only be observable to us by its
effects on matter (and radiation/light) .  Analogs are ways of building
knowledge bridges between the known and unknown.  Ruling out properties of
matter that are equal to or similar to matter ? like density,
compressibility, viscosity - is a bit premature.
Won?t you please reconsider, Philip?

contains no ordinary (koine) matter: electrons, nucleons, etc.
But the aether could contain anti-matter?
What about Simonyi?s aether model: a matrix of alternating electrons and
positrons, containing koine and anti-matter?
Or Dirac?s model of the quantum vacuum:  a sea of positrons filling all
available negative energy states?
If aether is all anti-matter, then it should have ALL the properties of

b.       It can vary in intensity of its effect. (synonomous with density)
Which may be  influenced by
(i)                  the position a point lies within the universe, and
(ii)                proximity of matter, and
(iii)               permeation within matter

b.      It is confined within the limits of the physical dimensions of the
universe of 2. above.
The boundary of the universe is the Water Above the Firmament(WAF)?. Right?

d.   As it permeates all of space, it may influence and effect the
properties of matter, even to the point of being the primary cause.

?. the fact that RF propagates through water at a different speed* to a
vaccuum does not prove there is any ?less? aether permeating water, but
rather that the presence of water modifies the aether effect.

EM propagation in water supports both hypotheses, and ?proves? neither.

 Take our use of ?density? in 4.b. Density is usually expected to be a
factor of compressibility, I am not implying that the aether has more or
less of ?it? in different specific locations. We state in 4.(a) it is non
material. Thus I would rather say that its effects may be compressed or
rarefied  i.e. The intensity of its ?effects? is variable, and it is
influenced in its effects by environmental factors or even perhaps its
position in space. Specifically it ned not have a universal constant.
Why not just state the last 2 sentences, and not even mention density?

5.      As far as is possible, the accepted or proposed theories should
conform to Scripture, and certainly not be in contradiction with it. I
insist that Scripture, and all that flows from Scripture should be allowed
within the context of this exploration. It cannot be separated from it. For
example. At the time the Aether was rejected, science historically was
riding on a wave of anti-religion, which meant ant-spirit. So strong was the
scientific  argument for an aether, that there arose at that time  a
parallel science of spiritism that also opposed mainstream religion,
especially Christianity. It was the age of Mesmer. But for rational science
the aether smelled too much like a spirit, that pointed to a God. Some other
way HAD to be found. That is still the mainstream philosophy.
Alleluia, bro.

Better brains than mine have baulked at this. But I have no trouble seeing
why they always fail. And fail they do. There is no need for an aetheric
wind in our philosophy.
For aether type 3  I say yea.

This is the weaknes of the expectations of Michelson, Morley and others. No
one can reasonably state that their experiments proved the aether either
MM did not get a null result ? meaning no fringe shifts ? but much less than
expected for 30 km/s motion.  Because of their shielded setup they received
a weak aether signal,  which Miller amplified by careful experimentation. He
did definitely show the aether exists, as all know who have read XXX.

Perhaps there is room for further investigation into what these
experimenters really achieved, and why and what caused the regularity of
Dayton Miller?s follow-up exps for example.
We already know this?

Yet all of physics may well be subject to its effect, including gravity,
such that nothing even matter itself could exist without it.
We also know this to be true, when all three aether types are included.

Before anyone says Lines of force emanating, forget it. Lines of force are a
fictional non material entity used to graphically represent the existence of
a force, whether it be electrical, magnetic, or even gravitational. To
detect any such lines of force as a ?wind? by physically moving through them
would be as impossible as the original MM experiment. It is stated that by
spinning the magnet so that its ?lines of force? cut a conductor and thereby
generate an EMF that we prove their existence. Such is no more than a
theoretical assumption used to justify the result. Move the conductor
through this field parallel to the alleged field and no voltage is
generated. The line of force is as illusive as the aether, and I say that
the existence of this ?force at a distance? is direct proof of the aether.
Lines of force are just graphic ways of picturing the effect of the force
field on test particles.

Despite the general aversion to math in this forum, I suggest we introduce
an aether field ?  a function of space and time in a Galilean GS reference
frame ? A(x,y,z,t). This will quantify theoretical predictions for exp.

That one particle of matter gravitates to another in a vacuum is proof of an
aether. No one has ever demonstrated by practical experiment the existence
of lines of gravitational force. Someone has posed the assumption that such
exists simply because matter does gravitate, and it looks like attraction.
I don?t know anyone who thinks force lines have real existence?.  But I have
led a sheltered life.

I propose that we examine gravity between material objects as being a force
caused by the ?pressure? or similar influence, of the aether. The  LeSage
theory of pushing gravity, could be one starting point, although as it is
expressed below I could think of important modifications within the
electrical concept of Aspden. This would overcome the major objection why
the theory was declined, primarily for thermodynamic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics>  reasons because a shadow only
appears in this model if the particles or waves are at least partly
absorbed, which should lead to an enormous heating of the bodies.
Major objections to this major objection.
1.      Absorption is not required; scattering and reflection are sufficient to
cause a shadow.
2.      Assuming absorption is occurring, why presume enormous heating?  This
assumes aether transfers energy to matter when absorbed, violating your rule
4 a) above.  There may be no Xfer of energy during absorption, or very
3.      Russian deep drilling found that the core temps DROPPED after 5 km down.
This upsets the MS Fe molten core theory, but experiments never convince
hard core geology speculators anyway.
This does support surface absorption of aether, conversion to heat and
release as magma in volcanoes and in deep ocean, as well as IR radiation
into space.  Geothermal power may be generated by aether absorption.

Robert B

Other related posts: