[geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.

  • From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:56:03 -0600

Wow, Robert, you did an indepth anlysis on the evolution (using a proper
sense of the word) of my thinking here.   Yes you did.    Thank you for the
work put forth in this post.  Just Wow.  To have read all of the pages of
posts on BA and extracted even a semblance of a followable line of my
thinking shows real editing ability...good job.  My thinking did change with
each new thing I learned.  In fact, the title of the original post I made
"Relative Motion Fails When Applied to Planes" would never have been my
choice knowing what I learned about halfway through the whole BA experience.
I have a few replying comments below.

To sum up my learning on the Bad Astronomer Bulletin Board, it would be that
I feel like the H view is intimately wrapped up with Relativity and Newton's
First Law.

[my comments interspersed below]

Thanks again Robert for the effort of this post.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.


> Gary,
>
> A review of your BA dialog follows. Hope this helps the next time you
> venture into no man's land.
>
> ...........................................
>
> Edited transcript of Gary at the Bad As site:
>
>
> GS: ......and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or
"carry"
> the plane because it is a gas.
>
> BA: Where do you get the notion that a gas cannot push or carry an object?
> That is what aerodynamics is all about!
>
> RB: Yes, a misstep, Gary
>

Gary writes:  Yes, Robert, a complete ignoring of Newton's First Law here.
The atmosphere is turning as a whole.  My thinking at the time was as if it
were not.  This, of course, was not the concept that the BA finally
inculcated into me.

> BA: .....The air inside a fast moving train moves along with the train
> (unless it is accelerating), and if you jumped right up you would land on
> the same spot (not hit the rear wall). You maintain the train's and your
> original velocity even when you left the floor. This is also the case with
> Earth's atmosphere.
>
> RB: Yes,if the plane is in inertial (straight-line unaccelerated flight).
> but you don't land on the same spot if the plane makes a turn.
> But the air parcels in the atmosphere have a net circular motion, so they
> are always turning. So the straight line train motion is not a valid
analog
> to the atmospheric motion. then how to explain this continuous CIRCULAR
> motion of the atmosphere in the HC view?

Gary writes:  Robert, I can see your point, a bit, but I think the not
acknowledging of Newton's First is what put me down a whole plethora of
wrong paths.  I never used this argument you are describing.  I would use
something as caveman-like as saying that the train's interior atmosphere was
not analogous to the earth's atmosphere because, duh!, the train has roof
and four walls as it rolls down the track.  The earth's air has no such
"cage" holding it in.  Well, needless to say, that didn't fly.  Newton's
First struck again!  The "duh!" I felt with them originally came back to me
with a passion during this point of the exchange.  I now concede all the
Newton's First arguments, just as I do the relativity ones.
>
> BA: Otherwise, you hint at having the common misconception that you must
> apply a constant force to keep an object in motion.
>
> RB: again a misstep


Gary writes:  Yes, the omnipresent Newton's First once more.


>
> alternate BA: and RB: here........
>
> A) What's the cause of the coriolis effect?
>  The rotation of the plenum


Gary writes:
Robert, is the "plenum" you speak of the same as the "aether"?


>
> B) How do birds fly?
> A net upward force with each wing beat, caused by vertical pressure
> differences across the wing
>
> C) What causes the winds?
> Differences in pressure between 2 air parcels (temperature and density are
> equivalent sources)
>
> E) You imply that air doesn't apply pressure, so how do I feel the winds?
> Air does create pressure
>
> F) Explain stellar parallax.
> See http://users.rcn.com/robert.bennett/GeocentrismRJBv1.doc

Gary writes:
Robert, I didn't know you were a doctor.  Is that a Phd?
I'll have to catch up to you later on the site.  It's big; I couldn't find
the parallax on first look.  But I'll find it and read it.  Thanks.


> BA: Even if your ideas on the nature of fluid dynamics, Newtonian
mechanics
> and the non-existence of viscosity were correct, how do they help your
> Geocentrist cause when they equally apply to the atmosphere of every other
> planet?
>
> RB: The current laws of gravity, inertia, thermodynamics and statistical
> mechanics are sufficient to explain the N to S atmospheric circulation but
> insufficient to explain the Earth's total atmospheric circulation,
including
> the E-W rotation in an HC model (surface rotation at equator > 1000 mph),
> while GC is sufficient to explain the E-W anomaly (surface rotation
> everywhere = 0) . The other planets with atmospheres exhibit the effects
of
> absolute rotation wrt earth; their patterns require detailed knowledge of
> the plenum's effects on each.

Gary writes:
Robert, I do not have a grasp on your position here.  Is it explained on the
site?

>
> GS: Now we know that nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum, and
> that, that speed is 299,792,458 m/s.
> This gives us an upper limit for the edge of the universe, a sphere which
> has an equator equal to the distance light can travel in one day (because
> nothing can travel faster than that.)
>
> RB: But what if light's speed increases with distance from earth?  An
aether
> with greater tension, perhaps.  There's no proof otherwise, only
> extrapolation of light's solar system speed to the whole universe.  This
> doesn't even disagree with relativity.

Gary writes:
Robert, is it not commonly accepted that the speed of light is slowed by
gravity?  That is, that when it travels between galaxies it moves much much
faster than we experience it here?

>
> GS:  It also means that there is a huge conspiracy in the space industry
of
> all the space going nations to hide this all. As you can see, once you
start
> trying to apply a Geocentric and non-rotating Earth idea to the universe
you
> either hve to redefine the entirety of physics as we know it, or the idea
> very quickly falls apart on you.

Gary writes:
Robert, I didn't say this.  I don't recall who did.


>
> RB: Don't get carried away. The HC and SR views are Satan's work - it's
> gullible man who turns from God's Word and listens to Satan. The
conspiracy
> isn't NASA (cover-up of mistakes notwithstanding) but the plot of the
> legions of demons.
> "My name is Legion, for we are many"

Gary writes:
Yes, Robert, I believe the whole of our earthly experience is a spiritual
battle against spiritual forces not simply flesh and blood.



> BA: One peculiar thing though (out of many peculiar things). Looking at
this
> from a geocentrist point of view, the only stars that could be described
as
> moving around the Earth would be those on the celestial equator. When the
> paths of all other stars are examined, their centers of motion are
> positioned somewhere other than the Earth. As stars are located farther
from
> the celestial equator, their diurnal motion becomes less and their centers
> of revolution are farther and farther from Earth. And in the case of stars
> near the north and south celestial poles, which show very little diurnal
> motion at all, their centers of revolution are very distant indeed.
>
> RB: This is the Ptolemaic model, not the current Tychonian model, where
the
> stars are centered on the Sun.

Gary writes:
Robert, I think they do have a point here and I think you have brushed past
it too quickly.  Now, I would have naturally postulated that the firmament
was a spherical shell shaped thing on the Bad Astronomer, but I am not
certain that explains everything out there.  If the orbits of heavenly
bodies are somewhere out and away from any kind of center around the earth,
as is put forth above, can we simply say that these bodies have their entire
orbital paths ("as a whole", like the atmosphere as it were) circling about
the earth?

Gary writes:
It seems to me that this brings up the nature of the heavenly firmament or
plenum.   How would it be that a heavenly body could orbit a center far
removed from the earth and yet also have the simultaneous revolutionary
movement about the earth?  The heavenly bodies are not, I then assume, stuck
in the firmament (or plenum?) like points of light just painted on a canvas;
there is freedom of movement upon said canvas apparently.

Gary writes:
I think this is the same factor involved that would allow the sun and the
moon to have different angular velocities about the earth while both
revolving in the same firmament (or plenum?)  It's obvious that we don't
have a simple firmament (or plenum?) moving about the earth with things
simply imbedded in it.

> BA: Case in point. Let's look at the "orbit" of Polaris by examining a
> 6-hour time exposure of the "North Star". This star will describe an arc
> that is 1/4 of a circle whose diameter is 1 degree, 28 minutes. The center
> of Polaris's revolution is obviously 44 minutes from the diameter of this
> circle. And this center of revolution is a long way from anything on
Earth,
> including Earth's center of mass.
>
> RB: This incorrectly assumes GC asserts spherical rotation about the
Earth's
> center. GC model says the rotation is cylindrical, about the polar axis as
> extended indefinitely into space.

Gary writes:
As I said just above, Robert, I would have argued for a spherical shell
description of the heavens.  You know, we are a globe within a shell type
setup....


> BA: Objects need to have at least one other mass in order to establish an
> orbit. Otherwise there's a translational velocity, but no orbit since
> there's no two-body system.
> Therefore the paths of >99% of all stars demonstrate that the concept of
the
> stars revolving around the Earth is false. And, for me, that's enough
> thought about geocentrism.
>
> RB: This shows that Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold for the stars -
> there's no central object for each stellar circle.  The plenum laws must
> provide for the observed rotation.

Gary writes:  ??  I believe I asked something pertinent to this above in the
question about movement within the firmament.  I need to have you explain to
me in basic terms the diff between the firmament and plenum, Robert.
Thanks.
>
> BA: Now, according to Newton's Laws, less massive objects orbit more
massive
> objects.
>
> RB:  No, objects rotate around their common center of mass.  Integrity
> requires that all objects in the universe be included in computing the
> center of mass.

Gary writes:  What do you think of barycenters, Robert?


> BA: As with its predecessor the relativistic geocentric position
completely
> fails to provide any kind of explanation for the observed daily paths of
the
> stars.
>

Gary writes:  Isn't the "relativistic geocentric position" a textbook
strawman?  Who holds to both relativity of Einstein and geocentrism?


> RB: The observed paths are the effects of the plenum acting on the objects
> in the plenum. Locally the plenum is approximated by Newton's laws. In
space
> outside the solar system, the effect is not Newtonian, but has not been
> modeled yet.
>
> Maksutov wrote:
> The point of the OP was reconciling observed data (daily paths of the
stars)
> with claims of geocentists. So far there has been no data offered to
provide
> this reconciliation by either the "old school" geocentrists or by the
> relativistic geocentrists.
> The point, once again, is that both Earth-centered views purport that
> everything in the universe revolves around the Earth. The daily paths of
the
> stars refute this.

Gary writes:
This was out of the "Thinking about Geocentrism" thread that Maksutov
started.  He made this last statement and then said tersely also that "he
didn't want to hear anything about 'crystal spheres' in response to it", so
I didn't push my spherical shell notion at all.


> RB: New DATA is not offered by GC but a new GC INTERPRETATION of the
diurnal
> star paths due to the effects of the (presently sub-visible) plenum, which
> fills all space and has visible effects - like the star paths - on
celestial
> motion. These plenum effects are known to mainline science as the laws of
> gravity, inertia and Mach's principle. The cause of gravitation is not the
> gravitating bodies themselves, as Mr. Newton thought, but the plenum in
> which the bodies are immersed. It is this plenum which generates the
> attractive force between bodies proportional to their masses and inversely
> to their separation squared.

Gary writes:
I must learn more about this plenum theory.


> GS: This might be a good time to point out that the stars aren't part of
the
> solar sytem as is commonly defined. I was specifically contrasting a local
> geocentric model, where the sun and planets revolve around Earth, which in
> turn is not itself static, to a universal one, which is the one you're
> discussing.
>
> RB: The plenum seems to separate into three domains with different
> intensities/strengths of gravity and rotational inertia.
> 1- the deep space zone of the stars and galaxies, which is dominated by
> rotational inertia
> 2- the middle zone of the Milky Way stars, which are subject to an annual
N
> to S oscillation (the seasons)
> 3- the near zone of the solar system, where gravity and rotational inertia
> are balanced, to produce the various orbits of Sun, Moon and planets.
>
> Pax Christi, Gary
>
> Robert

Gary writes:
Thanks so much, Robert, for delving in so deeply to those posts of mine.
I'm sure that took quite a long while to do.  But, it raised some good
issues.  I'm going to repeat the links to those two threads we have been
discussing in case anyone else wants to check them out.

 "Relative Motion Falls Apart When applied to Planes"
 http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16726&postdays=0
 &postorder=asc&start=0

or

 "Thinking about geocentrism"
 http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=350240&highlight=#350240

Thanks, all the best.

Gary Shelton




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2005