[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
- From: <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentric" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:57:04 -0400
Thank you for the informations. It is heavy stuff for me. If you find the
distance to short between the 2 trains to use a laser beam, you just have to
expand the distances.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
Sent: 30 juillet 2007 14:08
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
Marc V
There are very significant differences between a ball and a laser beam so I
think using one as an analogy for the other is likely to to be counter
productive.
Regarding the ball. First instance. The ball has no E-W motion and the angle
that it is deflected W will depend heavily on coefficients of friction.
Second instance. The ball has motion W-E but relative to the stationary train
it seems to me the situation is similar to the first instance and it will
deflect W as you state, relative to your moving train. Friction will again be a
significant parameter.
If you repeat this with a laser however, the physical position is quite
different. There is no friction to start with and the travel time is enormously
reduced. You wouldn't detect any deflection is my guess, but this is just a
guess -- I don't have the tools to grapple successfully with this problem.
All that aside, there is a major difference between the LRRR-Luna experiment
and your train analogy. The LRRR experiment relies for its success on the
reflectors used. They are 'cube-corner' reflectors -- accurate cubes (of quartz
if I remember correctly). A beam of light shining into the cubes at within +/-
45 deg of a line through opposite corners will reflect directly to the source
regardless of the angle from which it arrives. To achieve the same effect with
the ball and train experiment, you would need to cover the reflecting train
with vertical surfaces at 90 deg to each other (like throwing an 'o' at a lot
of BIG 'W"s. (This is a two dimentional approximation but I think that is
sufficient in this context).
In the case of the real object -- the Moon, reflectors, Earth origin and Earth
destinatiion, we are concerned largely with angles. I've tried to illustrate
what I'm thinking in the attached drawing. In the geostatic case, the
laser/camera remains on a fixed bearing, but must lead the target by some small
angle so as to hit it when the Moon moves into the laser pulse just as it
arrives. Then the beam is returned along the same path from the point where the
reflector was hit and the camera is waiting directly in line. In the
heliocentric case, the laser is rotating but as the Moon is not, it does not
need to lead. (Strictly it needs to lead but only by less than one fiftieth
part.) However, as the laser/camera are offset from the Earth's centre of
rotation, during the out and back transit time -- some 2 1/2 seconds -- they
have also moved away from the line of fire. If the signal strength and the
detector sensitivity were equal to the task, theoretically this should be
detectable but sadly they seem not to be I suspect that an array of detectors
strung out along the path of the reflected signal and analyzed statistically
would tell the story.
Paul D
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts. Find out more.
Other related posts:
