[geocentrism] Re: RT Discussion - offsite

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:06:39 +1000

Bernie, you evaded his key question and where it was leading.. At least 
Marshall did..  here.
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 

If the world was moving in space, there would still be no headwind or comets 
tail, no matter even if it were a million miles per hour. 
 he was about to prove this with Jupiter but you all ran away from the 
question, and so you should have. 

If the sun is moving around the world as you observe, and as it obviously is 
composed on the surface of an atmosphere of flaming gases , and in our 
geocentric scenario it would be circling the world at an enormous speed, then 
where is the suns comets tail behind it to the east???  

Your insistence on an atmospheric drag destroys both scenarios..  simply put MT 
says it all...  In the vacuum of space there is nothing into which the earth or 
sun is plunging that could push the tail on to the atmosphere..  

It might be well worth you noting by the way, the tail of a comet is not 
directed behind its motion, but sometimes even in front of it, due to the 
gravitation of the sun, much as like our water always tails toward the moon...  

Philip. 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bernie Brauer 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:49 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] RT Discussion - offsite


  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 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. 


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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 19/09/2007 
3:59 PM

Other related posts: