[geocentrism] RT Discussion - offsite
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
http://earthdeception.googlepages.com/3
R.T. Discussion
Question: 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 200 km/h in a train ( if
you have ever done so )? RT
Response: The sun spiral orbits the Earth. If you are standing on the roof of
the train your collar will flap. BB
Question: 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? RT
Response: For the same reason that your collar would flap if you were
standing on the roof of a fast-moving train. The equivalent scenario of
standing inside a fast-moving train, is standing inside an underground cavern
of a fast-moving Earth. The equivalent scenario of standing on the roof of a
fast-moving train, is standing on the "roof" ( surface ) of a fast-moving
Earth. BB
Question: Your collar flaps when exposed to a head-wind. What would provide
such a head-wind in space? RT
Response: If the Earth were rotating at an equatorial speed of 1,000 MPH and
orbiting a "solar system" at a velocity of 67,000 MPH then the Earth's
atmosphere would be left behind like a comets tail. If the person's feet were
somehow super-glued to the surface of the Earth his collar would flap for about
one second before the atmosphere was gone and only space left. There would be
no more problem of the collar flapping without a head-wind from an atmosphere,
but there would be a new problem of finding air to breath to stay alive in
space. A person now standing on the surface of the Earth and surrounded by the
atmosphere is not the same situation as a person standing on the surface of the
Earth surrounded by empty space. BB
Question: I am afraid you haven't answered my question at all. I will
rephrase my question in terms of your reply: "What would cause the Earth's
atmosphere to "...be left behind like a comets tail"? What are the forces, the
materials involved, the momentum transfer, that would cause this scenario? What
would give the Earth ( with it's atmosphere ) a head-wind? What is it, that the
Earth is plowing into? These are all different versions of the same question,
so one answer will suffice. RT
Response: These are perfectly valid points by R.T., 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.
In this case, the field does not emanate from the World, but from the aether,
and the inverse square function is irrelevant. ( In exactly the same way, my
own exponential function, as an alternative, would also be irrelevant and up
for reconsideration. ) It is this point that addresses R.T.'s query about other
celestial examples of gravity. Neville T. Jones, Ph.D.
Response: We know the reasoning against a collar flap involves the assumption
that the atmosphere is velcroed to the Earth and is unaffected by a 67,000 MPH
headwind...because, of course, Einstein erased the aether from his blackboard
and there is no friction and no headwind. And, naturally, there is no 500,000
MPH headwind in the alleged orbit around the alleged Milky Way. Neither would
the alleged exit from an alleged Big Bang near light speed be a factor.
Personally, my purpose in using the "collar flap" imagery over 15 years ago was
to call attention to the tremendous Earth speeds involved in the
heliocentricity model in a Big Bang universe...which model is not only built
from stem to stern on observation-denying assumptions, but also, as we can now
know from plentiful documentation, is a model that is derived concept for
concept from the Zohar/Kabbala holy book of the Pharisee Religion as an
alternate "creation scenario" to the Biblical Geocentrism Model.
Marshall Hall
Question: So it's the ether that provides a head-wind according to your
theory. Another question, then: Do you agree that the surface layers of Jupiter
are either liquid or gaseous? i.e. we can't see any hard ( e.g. rocky ) surface
of Jupiter. RT
Response: With respect, you are missing the point not only about the "collar
flap" but the whole matter of whether the Earth is rotating on an "axis" daily
and orbiting the sun annually or whether it is stationary with the sun, moon,
and stars going around as observed by every person who ever lived. We are all
aware that the heliocentric model accommodates all the appearances. We should
also be aware that the Geocentric model accommodates all the appearances. This
presents us with a proposition that theoretical "science" despises, namely,
only two options, one of which must be true and the other false. Black and
white. No grey. This brings us to the definition of "science", i.e., from the
Latin "scire", "To know". We know, for example, that we actually see the sun
and moon rise in the east and set in the west...and all the stars go around
nightly. We do not know
one single thing that denies what we see. We know that there is a
mathematical model which tells us that what we see is an illusion caused by
a rotating Earth. But do we know that the model is the reality? Do we
think of all the assumptions that are required to make that model work? Are
those assumptions "science" or hypotheses? Do we think, for example, that
the model requires the reversal of the moon's direction or the whole
construct collapses? Forget your Foucault and Geosynchronous "proofs" et al.
There is no proof that the Earth rotates nor that it orbits the sun. Sir Fred
Hoyle and other heavyweight scientists have recognized that fact. All
heliocentric
"evidence"...all of it, is demonstrably based on assumptions that deny and
defy observational science, i.e., science which fits its definition.
Therefore--and this doesn't begin to bring in all the fraudulent use of Bang
Universe Model with its indispensable heliocentric component--it is not\u003cbr
/\>for me or Bernie or Dr\'s Jones, Bouw, Henry, et al (and a host of
engineers)\u003cbr /\>to wrestle with every point that comes to your mind which
upholds today\'s\u003cbr /\>textbook cosmology. Rather, it is incumbent upon
smart, knowledgeable\u003cbr /\>people like yourself to go back and wrestle
with the basic assumptions upon\u003cbr /\>which all of those points are merely
fancy extrapolations. If the\u003cbr /\>cornerstone won\'t hold, neither will
what is built upon it.\u003cbr /\>\u003cbr /\>What a great opportunity for
smart young men like yourself to really,\u003cbr /\>really, really make an
impact on science and truth! Start with what is\u003cbr /\>known (science).
Expose the hypotheses that contradict that science.\u003cbr
/\>Remember there are only two models. One is science. The other is a
very,\u003cbr /\>very clever deception. Then see what you come up
with.\u003cbr /\>\u003c/div\>",1] ); D(["mb","\u003cdiv
style\u003d\"direction:ltr\"\>\u003cspan class\u003dsg\>\u003cbr
/\>Marshall\u003cbr /\>\u003c/span\>\u003c/div\>",1] ); //--> virtual
reality technology and the now known Religious source of the Big Bang Universe
Model with its indispensable heliocentric component--it is not for me or Bernie
or Dr's Jones, Bouw, Henry, et al ( and a host of engineers ) to wrestle with
every point that comes to your mind which upholds today's textbook cosmology.
Rather, it is incumbent upon smart, knowledgeable people like yourself to go
back and wrestle with the basic assumptions upon which all of those points are
merely fancy extrapolations. If the cornerstone won't hold, neither will what
is built upon it. What a great opportunity for smart young men like yourself to
really,
really, really make an impact on science and truth! Start with what is
known (science). Expose the hypotheses that contradict that science.
Remember there are only two models. One is science. The other is a very,
very clever deception. Then see what you come up with. Marshall Hall
Question:
You are writing far to much in your e-mail for me to address all your
points now, without our correspondance exploding. I will therefore ask
you just one question now, and then we can return to your other points
later. I do not mean to ignore any of your points, but if with each
question I ask, I get back 20 issues to address, I soon won't have time
for either eating or sleeping, much less work.
I am a scientist, which means I cannot choose to ignore observations
that don't fit into my worldview. You claim to be using the scientific
method as well, which means you have to adhere to that too. Therefore,
Marshall ( and Bernie and Neville), I would like each of my questions
answered. Since you didn't want to answer my last question, I'll pose a new one
for you guys:
When driving a car, is the car going forward, or the Earth going backwards? RT
Response:
If you think you have proof that the Earth is rotating on an
axis and orbiting the sun, please share it with me (us) and the world. I
believe we are aware of the relativity metaphysics which prove nothing, so
just give us something solid, preferably something that cannot instantly be
shown to be out of the Zohar/Kabbala "science" book of the Pharisee
Religion. Marshall Hall
Response: Your question is answered thoroughly and correctly in the
Geocentric Comments by Allen Daves HERE
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Other related posts:
