[geocentrism] Re: Just a reminder of why we are here
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:26:50 +1000
Philip said that John Lienhard, of the University of Houston, had 'debunked'
the hollow earth idea, so I went to the link to eagerly read what Lienhard had
to say. Unfortunately, it was not worth the mouse click. Neville.
I agree .. I trusted Sepp, and thought the article by Lienhard was
supportive.. I should have read it first. Sorry.
Re tides.
Neville said in another post.
"I don't think that copying and pasting chucks of WickedPedia here is of much
help (have no objection about the name, but it is a quick reference to the
general level of MS thinking) and, as I said in response to Regner (tides) and
Allen (free fall question to everyone),
"you cannot have gravitational attraction concentrated at the centre of mass on
one hand and then split the force over an extended object on the other."
This statement seems to be split over two different concepts. Geometric centre,
and gravity centre. There is a multiplicity of force vectors which combine to
produce a resultant. An apparant centre.
I will for brevity sake stay with conventional attraction theory. (not to deny
the push not pull theory)
I can accept that the centre of gravity is the centre of uniform mass, when all
the vectors of its force of attraction are equal. However if the densities
through a Mass are of a varying kind, the centre of gravity will not be the
geometric centre of the body. The vectors of attractive force must show a
resultant to the real centre of gravity.
Thus I think I understand it correctly that from outside of the solar system at
a given instant, the centre of gravity as a whole is the vector resultant of
all the planets and the sun together , which may place it far from the centre
of the sun and could be even in space where no matter exists. I believe this to
be the mechanics of how one calculates what is called the barycentre, for
example in relation to the moon and the earth.
It is here that I get into trouble/confusion as regards the tides. If my
arguement with Allen concerning gravity as a force on every particle produces
equal acceleration, then I should expect the sea to also follow the variation
of the orbit of the planet around this barycentre, and their should be no tides
from the effect of the moons orbit. Everything should move together. As the
feather accelerates the same with the lead ball so also the water with the
solid earth.
So you can see why I am reluctant to tackle this problem.. I asked the
question in high school, why is there a high tide on the opposite side of the
earth, The answer did not satisfy then and still doesn't.. I must be missing
something..
My apologies to Regner if he has (as some indicated) posted something about
this subject. This is like a few of late that did not come into my inbox..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:05 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Just a reminder of why we are here
I decided to go back and read some of the postings that I had not opened and
I came across this one below.
Philip said that John Lienhard, of the University of Houston, had 'debunked'
the hollow earth idea, so I went to the link to eagerly read what Lienhard had
to say. Unfortunately, it was not worth the mouse click. Having ignored, almost
certainly through ignorance, most of the hollow earth models and ideas, he
confines his piece to only one, which he then dismisses out of hand. This is
neither reason, nor research, but entertainment for the mentally challenged.
I also found a recent non-forum e-mail where Robert Bennett refers to members
of 'geocentrism' as "GC forum kooks." He, too, references an unscholarly
diatribe in support of his assertion that anyone who disbelieves NASA landed
men on the Moon is a 'conspiracy nut.'
Dr. Bennett never managed to show that anyone here was a 'kook' during his
time on this forum, but at least he did contribute something, albeit with a
distinct hostility of any form of questioning or criticism of his own position.
This is the sort of religiously-biased belief system that we often
(justifiably) throw at evolutionists.
So this is just a little reminder of why we are gathered here on this forum.
It is to reason and to debate the issues that matter to us. If our ideas and
beliefs are already cast in stone then we are wasting our time and the time of
others.
We are not here to engage in name-calling of our present or former members,
nor to throw in rubbish articles that we maybe have not even read ourselves,
but to identify a particular issue and to debate it with reason, knowledge and
understanding.
The big advantage of a forum like this lies in the fact that we can explore
ideas and beliefs and reason on them for ourselves, in order to reach a
personal conclusion, if not a mutual consensus.
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 8 May 2008 00:37:15 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A DIFFERENT ASTRONOMY..
Goodness, I was just about to show you your chance to go on a trip to
discover the entrance for yourself, when I see its been cancelled!
http://www.voyagehollowearth.com/
Ah!, but good news!, I see the other participants have re-organised another
trip!
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/VoyagetoHollowEarth.htm
If you go, let us all know what you found!
Pete Charlton
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:30 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] A DIFFERENT ASTRONOMY..
Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets
This might interest Neville or Steven.. I have always been very
sceptical on the
Hollow earth anyone? but this article from Sepp who is usually reliable
, and conventional made me have a read.. I never rubbish anything till it
becomes a contradiction. Philip.
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/12/star_formation_reverse_whirlpo.html
The concept of a "hollow earth" has been around for centuries. Today, it
is debunked as a mere scientific curiosity, as in this article by John H.
Lienhard, from which also comes the following illustration by William Reed
published in 1906.
Is there any evidence for this and why haven't we seen it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 10/05/2008
11:12 AM
Other related posts:
