[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:04:45 -0800

Philip,

And here we run into a problem, because Robert B has not come back onto the forum, so how can he answer? This is why I seldom allow postings from anyone who is not currently a member. To get a dialogue going under such circumstances is very awkward.

It's not your fault, I'm just making the observation clear to all.

Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:23:24 +1000


Robert.  Given that you theorise that resistance to flywheel axial rotation is due to aether density? if we can call it that, would you think the same rule would apply to any acceleration in a straight line?
 
There are a couple of questions that come out of this where MS call
 
acceleration any change of velocity or direction of motion due to the application of a force. .
 
In the case of angular motion, when a car cuts a corner, at constant speed, I can concur that extra force/energy is applied during the turn.
 
In the case of a satellite, yes again force g is applied to cause the curved motion. which may represent an input of energy.
 
However in the case of a flywheel, at say1500 rpm, on frictionless bearings in a vacuum, no force is needed to keep this angular velocity in momentum..  Is this not an inconsistancy..
 
I know they talk of centripetal force, which has no energy input.. Is that why they call it a fictional force?? 
 
You can divulge your intellectual property now as I have paid for my copy. Cant wait for it to arrive.  LOL.
 
Now some other applications.
Remembering Aspdens theory and experiment, I tend not to complicate the aether with Scripture. From Aspden, it seems that the inertia of mass in rotation causes the aether in the vicinity to spiral out away from the mass. This spiral relationship can be positive or negative..  By that I mean, the same effect would occur if the mass was revolving in the aether, or the mass was static and the aether was revolving around the mass. As is the case we proposed is happening in the geocentric system.
 
Therefore the aether would be spiraled out from the world close to it,  due to its relative rotation to the earth.Call this an aether rotating induced centrifuge.  Is this the vortex to which you are referring?  This situation would be unique to the earth. Satisfying Genesis. With the other worlds rotating, it would be mass rotating induced centrifuge.. 
 
I cannot see that this necessarily means that inertia would reduce to zero at depth, but the thought certainly raises many posibilities about what may really be happening in the core. Then what about the poles?
the aether density must be higher there.
 
Phil.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

Good stuff Dr. Robert. They could never explain other than by a mathmatical concept why a body rotating at constant velocity was called acceleration...  not to my satisfaction anyway.
 
You just did. You could have left out the scriptual reference though.. Science has no need of that...  little grin.. 
 
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

R&M,

 

Classical physics use angular momentum and rotational inertia to empirically describe the bike wheel exp.  But MS physics has no underlying causal mechanism that explains inertia, the resistance to a change in linear or spinning motion, nor can MS explain how the wheel knows/senses that it is moving (and with respect to what?).

 

A truly loyal Aetherian would not run from this issue, but say that the inertial component of the aether resists the attempt to change the vortex induced by the original spin-up of the wheel.  

 

If the aether is causing this effect, then removing or reducing  it should remove or reduce the effect.

1.       The definitive answer to the location of aether is in Genesis: the firmament is sandwiched between the waters below and above (it).

2.       Miller’s exps  have shown that the aether can be partially shielded by the steel and concrete in buildings and increases with altitude, implying that the firmament boundary with the earth’s surface is gradual, not sharp.    

 

The question is: how much shielding is needed? How deep must the exp. be buried to see a measurable reduction?

MS physicists use abandoned salt mines to reduce cosmic ray background; perhaps this would be deep enough.

But Russian deep drilling for oil indicates the shaft temperature falls after ~8 miles down. This implies that the aether has been fully absorbed  at this depth.

 

Nevertheless there should be a decrease  in the aether and the bike wheel’s resistance to axial motion with depth. The same would be true for any gyro motion, or the oscillation plane of the Foucault pendulum.

 

Robert B

 

 

 

From: sungenis@xxxxxxx [mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:51 PM
To: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

 

…….

philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Repeat for Jack and Allen;

 

Regner asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways.. 

 

In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.

 

Newtons laws are demonstrable and satisfactory for dealing with motion, if not the reason why, at least the properties as experienced.

 

Hold the axel firmly  with wheel edge in front of your nose whilst the wheel is spinning rapidly. Now try to rotate your body.

 

A spinning flywheel is stable and resists angular rotation around its axis of rotation . You can test this principle as Regner suggested. .

 

The bicycle depends on this principle to work.

 

A bicycle wheel that is suspended vertically and powered to rotate continuously, with the axel pointing east- west. in a frame having no resistance to rotation in any direction , (set in gymbol bearings) will maintain it orientation vertically for ever, except , because the earth is rotating one revolution per day, this frame will not turn with the motion of the earth.

 

Consequently if you are looking at this wheel edge on from the North, you will see the frame with the wheel turn slowly clockwise , making one complete turn per day.  If it was vertical on 12 oclock at noon, it will be pointing at 1 an hour later, and so on.

 

If the world was not rotating with any angular movement, this flywheel would remain in the vertical orientation .

 

We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep running away from it? Long range ballistic missile computers  using inertial guidance systems must program in this rotation to stay on course.. 

 

 

Philip.

3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Preview
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2007