[geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Physical Phenomenon are only pro HC if you assume ther rest of HC's theroies
about everything else in mechanics first.....
I would argue that the nature of gravity would be important for answering
that question regardless of GC or HC/AC .......even in the the AC construct
they don't claim to know what causes gravity they only claim to understand how
gravity works but the explanation is only valid and reasonable if the AC
construct is true ..to simple make observations of what happens does not tell
us how it works although it can indicate such but even then that is limited
depending on what overall construct to subscribe to....A gravity that pushes
obviously works differently then one that pulls AC assumes a pull model where I
would argue that the only logical conclusion that can be made based on actual
O&E is a push model. Further, I would also suggest that O & E favor gravity as
vibration within the firmament itself where at 22 thousand miles from the
approx center (earth) is a ring node just as in the case of the ringed patterns
of sand on the sound board..i would also point out that in
last weeks NS the problematic discovery for MS that the universe appears to
conform to fractal geometry and distribution ......fractals have meaning in
terms of design as well as music and in this case vibrations within a ridged
medium...........ummm ..I am convinced that is what gravity is.. That model is
a completely different model of gravity then Newtonian which as Martin so
eloquently pointed out that it is known to be in error by, more exactly, 1.11
part in 300..so what gravity is does have a major Bering on how gravity works
which in turn would determine whether or not the trial and error or
observations of certain phenomena are indeed conforming to HC or to something
else altogether ?I would argue that although one can view GC in terms of
Newtonian gravity via berry centers and such the O& E favor a completely
different model altogether ..However, in any case the Newtonian Gravity model
only favors HC is you assume the rest of HC as true as well. That?s the
questions that get begged?. The thing is that in order to break the HC/AC
hold we are going to have to address the universe in whole not in just
individual parts and attempt to argue part for part because the parts
individually can be interpreted from both HC or GC and in some case may seem to
favor GC or HC but the real problem is making them all sing together
harmoniously as one chorus of O&E ??not merely a bunch of individual
parts??..The nature and Mechanics of Gravity is the glue that holds the whole
universe together.. Gravity is the Key! Particular when you consider the fact
that within the GC framework the concept of the Ether & or firmament from our
perspective describe bodies that are placed in a ridged frame work not just
free floating in space and bound by some abstract Newtonian gravity. Sooner or
latter we are going to have to address that head on and pick sides not just
assert Mach?s principle if we are to hold true to the creators word. This would
be to
our great advantage since it is in consistent with O& E. Again that is a
very basic foundation that holds us together as a group namely a Ordered/
structured universe originated by a designer ( and his word) not merely a
random set of variables that coalesced together to produce order?.Having stated
that I must stress that frames of reference are the issue and gravity is the
key to understanding/describing an proving accurately as possible what we
observe in things such as GC sats as well as fractal distribution of mass and
ultimately proving the nature of the universe itself?. That cannot be done
external of a correct and proper understanding of Gravity not just the fact
that the nature of gravity determines those effects but how and why they work
that way. I believe we started and have a good foundation to work from based on
O&E , at least far more O&E then the simply assertions for pull Newtonian
frameworks. I believe we are going to have to attack the issue of
Gravity first at least foremost in the short term if we are going to be able
to explain why and how galaxies keep their spirals external of DM and DE, which
if we do not address will themselves become just one more set of weeds in the
way,?as well as why GC Sats stay up and the fractal nature of the observable
universe??. Gravity will be and is the KEY to all of this especialy RFs.
In short GC stats stay up there because gravity does not work the way HC/AC
describes it in the first place. At 22k miles high is a vibrational ring node
just like the ones we saw in the video.. Notwithstanding, even if gravity
worked according to HC/AC Mach?s principle applied to Newtonian gravity in
HC/AC would equivocate the two models although it is easier to justify a
Godless random construct in that model. Where within the firmament vibrational
model of gravity the HC/AC construct would be more difficult to justify an
equivalence in terms of a random Godless universe. Although this would fall
short proof for many it would affect the important but very subtle issue of
bias for most. It would in any case be more consistent with O&E as well as His
word.
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry, why does the geosynchronous satellite NOT simply "fall down" in a GS
universe?
Allen and Philip,
Gentlemen, I feel that your discussion is drifting. In my opinion, the
essence of your debate is contained within the following:
[P - red] We don't need to talk about frames of reference. keep the
discussion on basic mechanics..
[A - blue] Well gee..if we take that approach we dont even need to talk about
mechanis in order to discover the reasons why and what the mechanics are either
? Frames of refernce are what the whole HC/AC myth is built on to explain why
the sun only looks like it is moving accross the sky but it is realy an
illusion.....Gee wiz what relevant O&E do you want to talk about in this
discovery process?...this is about as basic as it gets in terms of HC/AC V
GC......Lets just There is only one reference point.. Its here. That?s my
point! and if we hold to what you suggest here then H/AC can't appeal to
multiple RF...... if it cannot ................well even they would admit the
whole HC/AC thing would fall apart real quick............If you want to stick
to that great! ....I'll even let Phil Platt and or Einstien himself make the
case........I suggest you read Mach's "The principle of mechanics" and
"Principles of Relativity" the whole point is to define Multiple equivalent RF
so as to, among other things, make light Isotropic in the universe so as to
explain the Sagnac, MM, MG, whcih were and are "real" O&E, away.. .....RFs are
not a side issue they are the issue........ Relative v Absolute.......
Your methodology is damaging to the cause, because it lacks credible thought
processing and smacks of flat earther reasoning. plm
No because you can actually O&E earths roundness......you can't actually O&E
the universes isotropic nature...although you can imagine that ....
You have both made some good points, but is not the core of this the
identification of some physical process that tends to favour the HC/AC model
over the GS (geostationary) model?
I believe that many observations favour the GS model, but I also see one such
physical phenomenon that supports the HC/AC position, and that is the
geosynchronous satellite. For, whatever gravity is caused by and whatever
equation you want to describe its effect with, why does the geosynchronous
satellite simply "fall down" in a GS universe?
Best wishes,
Neville.
---------------------------------
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your
email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
Other related posts:
