[geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:51:06 +1000
Robert said: "In this simple model the medium is air; in reality the rigid and
rotating
plenum either transmits or creates rotational inertia."
I respond: I never did doubt your stated case with regard to the plenum, and
its effect. However I do say, and still maintain, that the existence of the
aether or plenum has not been proven to the satisfaction of any physical
observer. It is still only a theory which can support the case for a still
earth surrounded by a rotating universal medium.
Robert :
"Know you also, that you
attempt to refute the testimony of the Word of God?"
Pax Christi,
Robert."
No! such an attempt would be futile. I attempt to make the evidence in support
of the Word, more credible to those with average physical/ mechanical senses.
Talk of MP and GR et al certainly does not fit into that category to my mind.
Nor does my aether time and 4 dimensional universe explanation.
I simply tempt you or another to prove in a practical way that the universe is
spinning not the earth. Any reasonable logical person recognises that what the
eye sees in relation to relative movements can be deceiving. People used to be
absolutely certain the earth was flat.
So far, in regard to this matter, we have not managed to prove to a non
biblical person the truth of the bible in any practical observable way, that is
any less theoretical than their own HC position.. Its a stalemate. Yet leaving
the Bible aside, the logic certainly favors the opposition in apparent common
sense. That does not make me happy.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:40 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:45 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: peripheral speed...
>
>
> 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....
>
RB:
Isn't the following Einstein's version of Mach's Principle(MP)theory yet to
be disproven, even by those Very Bad Astronomers?
"The Earth's inertia is the result of the interaction with the rest of the
universe. Every particle in the universe ultimately has an effect on every
other particle."
According to this relational theory, the Earth in an otherwise empty
Universe (like Day One)would feel no inertial forces and rotation could not
be observed. One would have to ask, "Rotation with respect to what?".
The Earth's inertial forces, like Coriolis, are caused by all the
gravitational forces from cosmic bodies such as the distant stars; rotation
only makes sense relative to the stars. In dealing with the origin of
inertia, MP demands that all dynamics be explained by interactions of
material objects. The existence of inertia is due to interaction of local
matter with all of the matter in the universe. The oceans will bulge due to
the relative motion of Earth and universe.
MP has never explained how the stars can have such an effect - what is the
mechanism and medium to transport the cause of rotational inertia through
space to the Earth?
But Robert's Principle has shown how the rotating plenum can satisfy
science's MP and also be compliant with Revelation - see archives.
For the observability and demonstrability of MP or RP, see next response.
> 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.
RB: How confused the GC believers are, O Lord !
We are asked to demonstrate the prediction of MP or RP, that the motion of
the universe has an inertial effect on the Earth, with an observable fact...
Now, every day and night mankind has witnessed the motion of the heavens,
since creation was completed. And the existence of inertial forces, such as
centrifugal and Coriolis, for a system with rotating periphery and a
stationary center has already been shown in fact for the washing machine
model. See Freelist/Geocentric archives.
To repeat briefly, when the center agitator (rotor) spins and the tub
doesn't, water and clothes exhibit a centripetal motion outward against the
tub. This is the HC cosmic model, where the center represents the Earth and
the tub the distant stars. Inertia is due ONLY to the Earth's rotation, not
the relative rotation of Earth and universe.
Heliocentricists must deny MP, else they agree that the universe could spin
while Earth could not. They must logically contend that the tub motion will
NOT effect the water in the tub, that the motion of a spinning tub with a
stationary central agitator (stator) would produce no inertial forces in the
space between.
Despite HC adamance that only the Earth can spin, many attempts to disprove
MP have not only failed thus far but have confirmed the principle (Sprechen
sie Deutsch, jeder?):
Thirring, H. Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen
Gravitationstheorie. Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33 (1918). [On the Effect
of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation]
Thirring, H. Berichtigung zu meiner Arbeit: "Über die Wirkung rotierender
Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie". Physikalische Zeitschrift
22, 29 (1921). [Correction to my paper "On the Effect of Rotating Distant
Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation"]
Lense, J. and Thirring, H. Über den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der
Zentralkörper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen
Gravitationstheorie. Physikalische Zeitschrift 19 156-63 (1918) [On the
Influence of the Proper Rotation of Central Bodies on the Motions of Planets
and Moons According to Einstein's Theory of Gravitation]
I. Ciufolini, E. C. Pavlis. A confirmation of the general relativistic
prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect. Nature 431, 958 - 960 (21 October
2004); doi:10.1038/nature03007
The experiment is left to the reader... are water and clothes centripetally
flung against the tub when the tub alone rotates?
Yes => GC is possible
No => Only HC is possible
In this simple model the medium is air; in reality the rigid and rotating
plenum either transmits or creates rotational inertia.
An experiment now in progress - Gravity Probe B - is intended to confirm the
frame-dragging effect of General Relativity, but it will also support the
existence of the rotating plenum !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Warning to conspiracists: this is a NASA program.
The correct question to ask of science is this:
"Demonstrate any experiment, observable in fact, which will refute the
testimony of our own eyes, that the heavens, rotating daily around us on
this immovable Earth, can produce local inertia. Know you also, that you
attempt to refute the testimony of the Word of God?"
Pax Christi,
Robert
>
>
> Philip
> ----- 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?
>
> #1
> 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
> plenum?
>
>
> #2
>
>
> 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,
>
> Robert
>
>
> > -----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:
