[geocentrism] Re: spinning wheel
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:30:39 +1100
I noticed this correspondence about my question about a spinning wheel
is under a completely wrong subject - -which makes this forum very
hard to navigate...
Anyway - this experiment has nothing whatsoever to do with proving
whether the Earth is rotating or not. The effect of a moving Earth is
far too little to be relevant in this experiment. But you are also wrong
about what will happen, when you give the wheel a jerking twist.
This experiment is about whether you can trust your intuition.
I'll give you some more time to ponder the experiment, before I reveal
what happens - you should really try, if possible...
Kind regards,
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Bennett
> To: 'philip madsen'
> Cc: 'Martin G. Selbrede' ; 'Neville Jones' ; geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
> 'Robert Sungenis' ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 8:13 AM
> Subject: RE: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: philip madsen [mailto:pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:23 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Sungenis; Robert
> Bennett
> Cc: Martin G. Selbrede; Neville Jones
> Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> [Robert Bennett] Of course - inertia is the aether's resistance to relative
> motion of matter through it.
>
> 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.
>
> [Robert Bennett] Energy is required to put a satellite in orbit... not to
> keep it there.
>
> 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..
>
> [Robert Bennett] Energy was needed to spin the flywheel from rest and drag
> the aether into a vortex within it. At 1500 rpm there is no longer any
> resistance to motion, because THE AETHER IS CO-MOVING WITH THE FLYWHEEL!
>
> I know they talk of centripetal force, which has no energy input.. Is that
> why they call it a fictional force??
>
> [Robert Bennett] Maybe you're thinking of the centrifugal reaction force
> that acts on the object causing the circular motion. or maybe not?
>
> Newton's inertial forces are often called pseudo-forces.
>
> You can divulge your intellectual property now as I have paid for my copy.
> Cant wait for it to arrive. LOL.
>
> [Robert Bennett] Great news.Scrooge has broken out the piggy bank. Now I
> can buy a BMW and move to the islands.
>
> Bob Sungenis has a special edition for all the Aussies - the book is printed
> upside down.
>
>
>
> But I cringe to think that you will examine every word and give us your
> opinion in a thousand words or more. J
>
>
>
> Now some other applications.
>
> Remembering Aspdens theory and experiment, I tend not to complicate the
> aether with Scripture.
>
> [Robert Bennett] The truth isn't complicated. The mind of man makes it so.
>
> 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.
>
> [Robert Bennett]This is just a form of Mach's principle - the relativity of
> rotation.
>
> But we know more than this. There are many experiments - misinterpreted or
> ignored by MS - that support GC and disprove HC/AC. See your new GWW.
>
>
>
> Therefore the aether would be spiraled out from the world close to it, due
> to its relative rotation to the earth.
>
> Let's say aether is dragged around within the rotating mass , and some of it
> is dragged around outside the rotor (Aspden and Sagnac exps.) in a temporary
> boundary layer. This shows self-interaction within the aether.
>
> 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..
>
> Or an induced aether vortex, yes.
>
> Unique to Earth ?? The vortex will be induced anywhere in the universe where
> matter rotates in aether.
>
> I think you're confusing the natural firmament vortices with this vortex,
> artificially induced and much weaker.
>
>
>
> The Michelson-Gale exp. can be modified in 2 ways;
>
> 1. Use a small ring laser gyro to detect the aether's rotation around
> the Earth.
>
> 2. Put the laser at the center of a large massive centrifuge. As the
> centrifuge speeds up, the laser will respond to the centrifuge's vertical
> axis of rotation, showing that the rotation is affecting the aether around
> it.
>
> Another demo of the induced vortex.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> The fixed firmament ends at the Earth's surface water, but little is revealed
> about the dynamic aether of Daniel 10:7.
>
> Another aether test: repeat the surface tests in a deep-sea submersible.
>
>
>
> The aether does not rotate at the poles, nor at the geostat distance.
>
>
>
> Enjoy GWW.
>
>
>
> Robert B.
>
>
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: philip madsen
>
> To: geocentrism list ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx ; Robert Sungenis ; Robert
> Bennett
>
> Cc: Martin G. Selbrede ; Neville Jones
>
> 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 -----
>
> From: Robert Bennett
>
> To: sungenis@xxxxxxx ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Cc: Neville Jones ; Philip ; Martin G. Selbrede
>
> 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.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Allen Daves
>
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:37 AM
>
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
>
>
>
> uh yea ..im at a loss here to phil........how does that prove HC
> again..?
>
> Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> OK Philip,
>
> What's the relevance, please explain?
>
> Jack
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: philip madsen
>
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 PM
>
> Subject: [geocentrism] Regner concedes?
>
>
>
> If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of
> geocentrism Jack asked Paul?
>
>
>
> Jack, Regner never will concede such a thing..
>
>
>
> He 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.
>
>
>
> I told you all this yesterday..
>
>
>
> We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate..
> I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
>
>
>
> Philip..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1119 - Release Date: 8/11/2007
> 5:55 PM
>
Other related posts:
