[geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:45:15 +1000

Wasn't the answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved in a
dialogue between Philip and Robert?

Well it has been theoretically answered, but not in any way observable as a 
fact..  The washing machine plenum poses a possible solution, but it has not 
been demonstrated in fact....  

Wasn't the GC answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved by
considering rotating distant masses (Mach's Principle) or the plenum
(rotating firmament)?  The former is scientifically provable; the latter is
theologically consistent, as well.

Why? Your case has parallels in our courts of law..  We can all understand and 
see a fingerprint... We have to take the word of an elitist to accept genetic 
evidence, both in its reading, and its application

Can you reduce Machs principle to an observable practical experiment? None of 
the sites I visited it did any more than show how confused the believers were.  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Bennett 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 12:44 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed... 

  Philip and all,

  Speaking of the Tower of Babel, why are old topics being rehashed in a
  different and confusing language?

  Wasn't the answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved in a
  dialogue between Philip and Robert? - use Freelist archive and keywords:
  washing machine, plenum

  Wasn't the GC answer to all HC claims of a rotating Earth resolved by
  considering rotating distant masses (Mach's Principle) or the plenum
  (rotating firmament)?  The former is scientifically provable; the latter is
  theologically consistent, as well.

  Doesn't the analysis of pure vertical motion from the Earth in a GC model
  have to include either of the above?

  Doesn't one conclude that the GC model predicts the same westward drift as
  the rotating Earth, so the experiment is meaningless?

  If not, how can one explain the geostationary satellite, without MP or the


  Didn't NASA state/claim/allege/lie [choose your personal favorite] that all
  Moon trips were launched from Earth orbit? use Freelist archives and
  keywords: Robert orbit launch Moon

  Since the launch could take place anywhere in orbit, doesn't that mean that
  any direction could be the launch angle?

  Why discuss the vertical launch from the ground as if the trajectory were
  directly to the Moon, when the trip was not directly to the Moon nor was the
  launch angle from orbit vertical to the ground?

  Pax Christi,


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
  > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:43 PM
  > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  > Subject: [geocentrism] peripheral speed...
  > Gary and all.
  > Today I had another look at what I proposed as an experiment that
  > should show whether the earth rotated.. At least in appearances,
  > and ignoring theoretical plenum effects ..  I expanded on it,
  > taking in Nevilles figures.
  > I know this peripheral speed and momentum  can get confusing. So
  > I dreamed up this word picture to help..
  > Recall I said that we must deal with it above the atmosphere, as
  > winds in the atmosphere can cause too many variables. Of course
  > they always try to launch in windless still air.  Let us take 150
  > km altitude to be above the atmosphere..
  > Draw a circle for the world, and mark it as having A MEAN
  > EQUATORIAL RADIUS OF 6378 km. giving it a speed towards the east
  > at the surface of 1670 km /hour. Draw a line from the earth
  > centre to the surface launch pad Now extend this line out into
  > space for a distance equal to another 300 km. Call this the tower
  > of Babel.
  > For a perfect vertical launch we will assume for the sake of
  > simplicity, that at the height of 150 km the rocket will still
  > have a sideways momentum of 1670 km/hour towards the east, and is
  > thus momentarily still above the launch site.
  > If we calculate the peripheral speed of Babel tower out there,
  > at the 150km height it will come to 6378 + 150 = 6528 X 44/7
  > divided by 24 or 1710km/hour.   Take away 1670 and you can see
  > that if the world is rotating, the rocket will slip behind and
  > appear to move west at 40km hour.
  > Now if it continues firing till it reaches the altitude of 300Km
  > where the peripheral speed of our Babylonian tower will be 1749km
  > hour, it will be slipping behind at an even greater rate of 79km hour.
  > Thus I can see no reason why this simple rocket to 300km with a
  > stabilised vertical thrust will easily show if there is indeed
  > any rotation of the earth and its babylon tower. More if allowed
  > to run out of thrust and allowed to turn and fall back, it will
  > fall even further towards the west of the launch pad..
  > If the world is stationery, which we say it is, then babylon will
  > not move, and the rocket will return falling the exact same path
  > by which it left. again neglecting the effects of the wind, which
  > will not be a factor in those critical 150 km above the atmosphere.
  > For those pursuing the moon. lets look at it first from NASA's view.
  > If they they were aiming for the moon, and if they were correct
  > in that the moons orbit is 28 days, not near 24, then lets see
  > what our rocket needs to be doing toward the east at  say
  > 385000Km. distance.
  > First the moon s speed 385000X 44/7 over 28 x 24  = 3, 601km hour
  > towards the east...   Our rocket rising straight up will still
  > only have an easterly momentum of 1,570 km hour. 2000km hour too slow.
  > However it is feasable to expect that when the moon approaches ,
  > before our rocket gets that high if the timing is right, for it
  > to be captured by the gravity of the moon either into orbit or a
  > crash landing.
  > A more favourable result would be achieved if the rocket was
  > aimed  slightly eastwards, which we are told is done, to increase
  > this original "earth speed" closer to the moons speed.
  > But and this is the big but. Neville has shown that if the world
  > is stationary, and I say "if" merely as a conditional factor, not
  > becuse of any doubt;   that the mooons speed would have to be
  > very much higher than 3,600km hour.  385000 x 44/7 over 24  which
  > is of course 28 times the speed or 100, 828 km hour..
  > I have always concurred and never refuted Nevilles conclusion,
  > that this puts a verry different exercise in dynamics for
  > achieving a moon landing. I do differ only in that I have yet to
  > be proved that it is a big lie. I am not forgetting though, the
  > big millennium hoax lie, and would not be in the least surprised
  > if this also was a great hoax.. After all the entire world
  > cooperated and participated in the millennium hoax, which says
  > much about the world conspiracy power, and its god, the prince of
  > liars. .
  > That said and assuming they did land on the moon, then I am left
  > with the dilemma of trying to show how they could have done it.
  > And I have to do that with due consideration of the power/energy
  > requirements presented by Neville, and I need to try to do that
  > within normal Newtonian physics without resorting to any exotic
  > alternative theories.   So lets get back to the launch pad, away
  > with the tower of Babel.
  > We have mr moon coming over the horizon at over 100,000 km hour.
  > Neville has shown that it is beyond any current rocket technology
  > to get up to that speed. But has anyone thought about what would
  > happen if we did it this way.  And I am still on peripheral
  > speed.  We launch to the east. The only thing missing in our
  > geocentric position is we do not have any earth push. But we do
  > have to factor in something else. For the moon to still have the
  > orbit it does at this phenomenally increased speed, the gravity
  > between the two bodies must be much greater. The earth G  we
  > know, so the moons Gr would have to be much greater than the
  > sixth G  given it.   This being the case, the figures are beyond
  > me, let others more competent do it, the balance point would be
  > closer to the earth   Does anybody agree that for this orbit
  > period g would have to be greater?
  > Just for the exercise, let us make them equal, which would place
  > the balance point say half way, at 190000km. I am ignoring for
  > the moment the pandoras box this gravity change will open up.
  > At this distance the rocket would only have to reach a speed of
  > close to 50,000km hour, which would put it parallel to the moon
  > and having the same angular velocity. The moons gravity would
  > handle the rest... Which then brings Pandora into the picture...
  > Landing and leaving the moon is not going to be that one sixth of
  > the energy requirement NASA talked about. Or is it?    I cant
  > help feeling that in the geocentric system, all their
  > calibrations based upon false assumptions, for g , weights of the
  > heavenly bodies, etc would have to be re calculated...
  > Enough food for though for one post...
  > Philip

Other related posts: