[geocentrism] Re: Tides

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:36:10 +1000

Well Allen may have not surprised us by finding much to agree on in my post on 
tides..  As in many ways I was applying some of his outrighteous philosophy. 
However last night in the retreat of sleep, I not only come up with a faster 
design for a switch to bring on my emergency back up power, but I discovered a 
major flaw in my reasoning, concerning the tides. As you recall I wanted to 
retreat and work it through..  

In understanding why the water rose up under the moon, I went back to the 
simple method of using the U tube experiment to show different levels of the 
surface when one has a lighter less dense fluid on one side.. 

We use this principle in setting levels around a building site with a hose and 
a see through tube on the end , taken from a central bucket of water set at a 
known level.

Now if I wanted to do a level concrete pathway from Australia to South
America, (say some 90 degrees of the globe) ignoring the impracticalities , 
this method would give me a perfect level path, (providing no moon was in 

Everybody will notice that this method provides a perfect curved path , not a 
straight line, but level nevertheless..  

Now here is where the moon enters. Ignore the sea..  It aint in this 
experiment. Let the moon be directly over the South American end of this big U 
tube.  No Moon directly over Australia. 

The moon over SA will influence the gravity on the earth weakening it with a 
directl 180 degree opposing vertical vector ..  making the water in the tube 
here lighter. 

The moons gravitational force is not 180 degrees opposing at the Australian 
end, closer to 90 degrees. Therefore the net vertical effect is much less on 
the Aussie end of the tube..  The water is heavier there..  Hence the water on 
this side will force the level to be higher in South America. 

Isn't that how the tide works..  ?   Now even if my earlier concern, " If I was 
correct about gravity in the effects on free fall, affecting every particle 
equally in the space vehicle, then how can the water be pulled up separately 
and further than the rest of the Mass earth? "  was valid, and I still believe 
this to be the case, yes, the globe and water as a whole will be moved towards 
the moon and visa versa, This tide has nothing directly to do with the 
gravitational attraction of the water at that spot, 

Of course the moons gravity is responsible for the condition to occur, but the 
way I was looking at the application of it was wrong.

Contra thoughts.. Will the figures of weight reduction match the lift in ft. ? 
On scale, globally , the difference  % wise,  in levels would probably appear 
as insignificant as oil and water on two sides of a U tube in the lab. 

I still cannot see why the tide would be higher in Africa, 180 degrees away 
from South America. Here the water is influenced (attracted) downwards  towards 
the combined pulls of planet and moon, and from my reasoning above, be even 
heavier here. If I had a hose to this point this "U tube" level would be even 
lower than the level in Australia , by virtue of pressures as above. Thats what 
has me mystified? 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:10 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides

  There is much to agree on and look at here.....

  ----- Original Message ----
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:30:28 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides

  Though I have never ventured into the discussion on the tides, it being a 
mystery, outside my comprehension, I've decided to look at it. Some have 
claimed the moon does not cause the tides. Well this raises more questions.. If 
the moons gravity is not the cause, then certainly something related to the 
moon and its position above, is the cause. I'm going to  think on that. I  
would agree with you that it is related....just not as directly as many 
suppose..i explain my thoughts in greater detail further down  

  Also we have the anomaly of the pendulum under the lunar eclipse which NASA 
though claiming attention to it seem to be avoiding it, or have no answer.  
  What is importaint to note about this observation is that it is the best 
posible configuration for the sun an moon to exert a combined gravitaional 
influence on the tides....and yet rather then making the pendulums get lighter 
due to grav acceleration toward the sun and moon ...it does just the 
opisite...it makes them get heavier...thus we can see the only experiment to 
date that has ever been able to distinquish the effect of grav as pull or push, 
demonstrates a push effect not a pull effect. 

   Secondly: Note, that the tides themselfs do not corespond exactly with the 
suns/ moons timing although it is within 4 min but always lagging behind....If 
the tides were being pushed rather then pulled then we should expect to see the 
tides advance the sun/ moon not lag behind.... also even if gravity were acting 
at the speed of light ( i do not aggree) but even if it did....there is still a 
inconsistency in positions and the lag times..any solution would involve 
harmonic anylisis...ummm..well, why not start with that in the first place?

  Thirdly: The effect or the strength of the gravitational effect is certainly 
not strong enouph to push or pull the tides either way.....simply the detected 
gravitaional effect is too week to have any significant direct affect on the 
oceans to create the tides we observe...

  Further, in my own writings re gravity/inertia, to Allen, I find seeming 
contradictions about this whole business. Is it just a matter of scale and 
distribution.. I read others mathmatical analysis, and I acknowledge that I am 
not gifted in maths, and cannot comment specifically, but I have experienced 
enough to know that a mathmatical analysis is only as true as the data 
inputted.. Leave something out and it is in error.  And that is always on the 
cards.  A physicist who understands nature, should be able to explain movements 
without resort to complex formulae. 
  Absolutly correct! In fact it was Herbert Dingle that stated:"...in the 
language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and withing the 
scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the 
other. we can distinquish them only by experience or by reasoing outside the 
mathematics, applied to the posible relation between the mathematical solution 
and its supposed physical correlate"      Science at the crossroads pg 33 also 
found in volume 1 GWW pg 50 

  At this moment I am having doubts. If I was correct about gravity in the 
effects on free fall, affecting every particle equally in the space vehicle, 
then how can the water be pulled up separately and further than the rest of the 
Mass earth? Shouldn't the whole thing stay together and dance a wobble with the 
moon? Just a bigger spacedhip. YES

  Was it Regner, who said that the solid world is spinning under the tides? 
Someone did. I thought it at one time. This cannot be true, and I mean true in 
the conventional system

  The tide is like a wave form. Water flows to both sides of the crest of this 
wave. The ocean as a whole like the atmosphere must rotate with a general speed 
similar to the solid earth. Imagine the turbulence if this was not so. Agreed

  In geocentricism:
  Just a small final word , as regards geocentrism, and how far we can take the 
Biblical claim to the earth shall not move. If the earth is absolutely still, 
then the moons variations of the elliptic, must not cause any secondary 
orbital/translationary movement to the earth.  What that does to the 
barycentre, the math man can tell us. 
  But I feel, intuitively that if the earth was FIXED the moon would have to 
eventually form a true circular orbit. Wouldn't it. I think this gets to the 
aether as it rotates as a whole ...but with moving currents like currents in a 
streams..with individual edies and such even though the stream still has a 
overall direction of flow..?

  This is where the aether , the universe , and independent motions, (of the 
moon.) make a complex problem as regards dynamics. (from our viewpoint)

  One motion of the moon around the world almost daily, is not an individual 
movement, but rather a locked in with the "aether sphere" rotation, and 
therefore, not like a normal real independent movement as with similar orbiting 
moons around other solar system planets. In addition the moon has its own 
independent motion against this universal movement. What we see is the 
resultant. But what we feel inertially is the standard 28 day orbit. Just as 
what we feel inertially with respect to the earth, is a 24 hour rotation. The 
two systems are dynamically equivalent as regards inerial properties. 

  But the tide follows the moon, which means that the universal rotation of the 
stars, aether, and slipping moon, all contribute in some way to the tides. 
  I agree ..but since I think gravity is best explained by a vibration within 
the aether as sand particles vibrating on a vibrating membrane......I would 
tend to think of the relationships ( positions of sun/moon) in terms of how 
changing the postions of the furniture in a room will change the harmoics of 
that a room.... vibrations will squez as well as shatter and do all the things 
we observe but where the furniture in the room is will determine where and to 
what degree the effects are most and least noticable..... the gravitaionl 
vibration resonates in the aether but the aether is rotating around a fixed 

  I have much to retreat into my shell to think about..  

  comments welcome..  Guiding lights.  



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date: 13/05/2008 
7:31 AM

Other related posts: