[geocentrism] Re: Gravity and Aether
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:26:53 +1000
second response Robert said:
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?
response: I have elsewhere acknowledged analogy, and analogical properties
like density etc.. but we cannot say an immaterial entity has the same
properties exactly, which the word "normally" was meant to say.. You are
welcome to rephrase it.. Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gravity and Aether
Universal Gravity as a function of the Aether.
A developing alternative analytical exploration, as it affects the Universe.
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
verses.
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 him:
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
matter!
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 way.
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. testing.
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 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 little.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date: 21/07/2007
3:52 PM
Other related posts:
