*From*: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>*To*: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:10:41 -0800

Bernie,

These are perfectly valid points by Dr. Regner, of course, but unusual inasmuch as he displays obvious courtesy.

Yes, the relationship would be an inverse square on the assumption that the force of gravity is produced by, and emanates from, the World. This is indeed the basis of my paper, "Stellar distances and the age of the universe," where such a relationship is utilized in attempting to determine the maximum distance to a sixth-magnitude light source (star).

There are two problems with this. The first is that both masses would produce their own field, such that the relationship between them would become far more complicated than a straightforward application of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. They would both have to interact about a barycentre.

The second problem is that Robert, Martin, Allen, Philip and others (including myself, as you will notice from my tentative first steps in the Plenum Aether section of my updated "Geostationary satellites in a geocentric universe" paper) suggest that the gravitational 'field' is not produced by the World, but rather by the aether's interaction with the World. It is this point that addresses Dr. Regner's query about other celestial examples of gravity.

My thanks to you for your fine efforts in opening up this debate! All the hassle you get from people who are far from polite is hopefully completely negated by one reply of the quality of this one.

Neville

These are perfectly valid points by Dr. Regner, of course, but unusual inasmuch as he displays obvious courtesy.

Yes, the relationship would be an inverse square on the assumption that the force of gravity is produced by, and emanates from, the World. This is indeed the basis of my paper, "Stellar distances and the age of the universe," where such a relationship is utilized in attempting to determine the maximum distance to a sixth-magnitude light source (star).

There are two problems with this. The first is that both masses would produce their own field, such that the relationship between them would become far more complicated than a straightforward application of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. They would both have to interact about a barycentre.

The second problem is that Robert, Martin, Allen, Philip and others (including myself, as you will notice from my tentative first steps in the Plenum Aether section of my updated "Geostationary satellites in a geocentric universe" paper) suggest that the gravitational 'field' is not produced by the World, but rather by the aether's interaction with the World. It is this point that addresses Dr. Regner's query about other celestial examples of gravity.

My thanks to you for your fine efforts in opening up this debate! All the hassle you get from people who are far from polite is hopefully completely negated by one reply of the quality of this one.

Neville

-----Original Message-----From:bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxxSent:Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT)To:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:[geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!

wrote:RegnerDear Bernard Brauer,

Thanks for your reply and the link to the answers to my

questions. It took I while to find those answers on your very

large and monolithic web-page. Some structure would be helpful.

Your answer to "Do you believe in gravity?" seems to be "no".

Instead you construct a functional form of the force that doesn't

contradict experiments conducted close to Earth, but which is applicable

to Earth only. As far as I could gather, that hypothesis does not say

anything about what happens in the rest of Solar system or in the rest

of the Universe for that matter.

There is a very sound reason for the inverse square laws of forces

like gravity and the Coulomb force (interactions between electrically

charged particles): These forces are so-called central forces that

only depend on distance from the source (e.g., direction is immaterial).

All points with the same distance to the (point-) source form the surface

of a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is A=4*pi*R^2. The logic goes,

that the same force (from the source), whatever the distance is, is

distributed over that area, only depending on distance, R. The further

away from the source, the larger the area (by R^2), and hence, the weaker

the force (by 1/R^2). The exact same effect is at work with the attenuation

of sound or light as you move away from the source. This simple logic

obviously doesn't work with your model.

The inverse square law has been demonstrated in the laboratory using

cannon-ball sized metal spheres, acting on marble sized test masses. A

newer and more sophisticated experiment is described by

Kapner et al., 2007, Phys. Rev. Letters, Vol 98, p. 021101, "Tests of the

Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length Scale".

That experiment confirms Newtonian gravity between masses other than Earth,

at the 0.1mm to 1cm scale.

Regarding another important point in your argumentation;

please tell me why your collar would flap on a moving Earth.

Kind regards,

Regner

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Work:

Dr. Regner

Department of Physics and Astronomy,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quoting Bernard Brauer:

> Dear Regner,

>

> Your questions are all answered at

> http://earthdeception.googlepages.com

> and its links.

>

> The sun spiral orbits the Earth.

>

> See paper by Dr. Neville T. Jones

> on gravity at www.geocentricuniverse.com .

>

> If you are standing on the roof of the train your

> collar will flap.

>

> Would you like to join Dr. Neville Jones'

> Geocentric Discussion Group?

>

> Kind Regards,

> Bernie Brauer

> --- Regnerwrote:

>

> > Dear Bernard Brauer,

> >

> > So what is the Sun then? - and how far away is it?

> > Do you believe in gravity?

> > Does your collar flap when you travel at 200km/h in

> > a train

> > (if you have ever done so...)?

> >

> > Kind regards,

> >

> > Regner

> >

> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> > - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> > Work:

> > Dr. Regner

> > Department of Physics and Astronomy,

Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.

**Follow-Ups**:**[geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!***From:*Neville Jones

**References**:**[geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!***From:*Bernie Brauer

- » [geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!
- » [geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!
- » [geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!
- » [geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!
- » [geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!
- » [geocentrism] Re: Moving-Earth DECEPTION!