[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:50:19 +1000
Neville I am waiting till I have read the relevant detail of GWW on the aether
before going any deeper. I do not expect Regner to comment on our dialogues
till Robert has submitted his remaining four points .
Thank you for this following clarification:-
"Philip's position, as I understand it, is that Regner proposed the rotating
flywheel in the (taken as read) absence of an aether as proof of heliocentrism.
Allen's position, as I understand it, is that the rotating flywheel is
explainable in geocentric theory.
I agree with both of these positions."
Of course you must admit that we have a difficult task ahead to explain the
flywheel action and "inertia" within a geocentric universe as to how and why
the observation of the earth movement is an illusion.
Allen seems to think this is self evident.
As regards the geostationary satellite, I am torn between the aether theory,
and the Universal gravity/rotating universe factor, but I have little
understanding of the latter, as so many variables are involved, including the
proximity of the sun and moon. For us to place doubt on the exactitude of the
masses of the solar systems sun and planets, moons etc, simply because of their
remoteness, requires us to doubt the existence of satellite probes of known
mass orbiting these bodies, and further, to prove it.
An aside.
Somehow I get the feeling that Paul has been merely stirring the pot on the
ecliptic poles star trails issue to create confusion, dissention, and diversion
to make geocentrism adherents look as stupid as he believes us to be. Notice he
has not responded or even made any reference to any point that I have made
that seems to support the HC position . Thats my second challenge to you Paul !
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
I have come round to the necessity of an aether, from both gyros and
geostationary satellites, via this forum. In particular, it was Philip who
always insisted to me that geostationary satellites could not be simply
dismissed, as I was inclined to do because of the association with NASA.
Because of this, I am attempting to consider alternatives to mainstream
physics at a fundamental level within the geostationary satellites paper. And,
in the process, revitalize the aether. Some progress has been made here, I
think.
We all, with perhaps only one or two exceptions on this forum, acknowledge
that the aether cannot be done away with just because Albert Einstein said so,
hence we do not need to get bogged down in a war of words about who means what.
Philip's position, as I understand it, is that Regner proposed the rotating
flywheel in the (taken as read) absence of an aether as proof of heliocentrism.
Allen's position, as I understand it, is that the rotating flywheel is
explainable in geocentric theory.
I agree with both of these positions.
Now, can we get back to what was actually requested of us: to furnish some
proof in support of our position? MM was furnished. Star trails about celestial
and ecliptic poles was furnished. But the one who asked remains silent.
The difference is that these two proofs are not explainable in the
heliocentric system, whereas the rotating flywheel is explainable in the
geocentric system.
Please, therefore, refrain from endless posts stating the same thing and
making out that the other guy doesn't understand.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:00:13 +1000
Allen said,
Phil,
you are still only giving us HC descriptions of why it happens not
proof...i can just as eaisly give you GC's descriptions of what is taking
place...descriptions only describe they do not prove !
One thing can be depended on allen you do not read the question hence you
do not answer it.
My question was in brown and I will dissect it..
I have said it before:as a possibility, there is no other explanation other
than to accept that the earth moves..
Notice I said nothing about a proof... I said " To those who do not accept
the aether " there is no other explanation than that the earth moves..
I was not saying that it was a proof to me or you or Neville.... I say
again, according to them, the gyro is ample evidence that the earth moves. If
you cant accept that then you do not accept the existence og gyro navigational
instruements.. That makes you a wacko!
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Spyware Off Your Computer - Protect your computer with Spyware
Terminator!
Visit http://www.spywareterminator.com/install and find out more!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 5/11/2007
4:36 AM
Other related posts:
