Comment:
Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion. I have to restate that simple definition by adding an imperative for our understanding of the cosmos. Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion relative to the aether. This is clarified in the physics classroom as, Inertia: the tendency of an object to resist accelerations. To which I add relative to the aether, keeping in mind that acceleration means change of velocity or direction ( +ve or -ve ). Thus we may write: Inertia of an object = mass x acceleration, relative to the aether. So that we may establish true motion and avoid the trap of different reference frames, the aether in which all matter is imbedded, surrounds the Earth and rotates with sidereal time. Take a hypothetical radian vector from the centre of the World and project it to the farthest star that can be observed. Let this be a fixed reference vector which is stationary relative to the aether and which rotates with the aether around the World every 24 hours ( nominally ). Any object in synchronism with this rotation above the Earth will have no centrifugal force, and must fall. Whereas any object on the World and not moving that is at the equator, indeed the World itself, which includes the so-called geostationary satellite, will experience centrifugal force because it is being cut by the rotating aether, based upon my amended definition above. Thus, all of Newton's laws work perfectly. We have merely changed the fixed reference from a fixed aether and a rotating World, to a fixed and stationary World with a rotating aether. Philip Madsen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.T. Discussion
Question: So what is the sun then? - and how far away is it? Do you believe in gravity? Does your collar flap when you travel at 200 km/h in a train ( if you have ever done so )? RT
Response: i The sun spiral-orbits the Earth. ii If you are standing on the roof of the train your collar will flap.
Question: Your answer to "Do you believe in gravity?" seems to be "no". Instead you construct a functional form of the force that doesn't contradict experiments conducted close to Earth, but which is applicable to Earth only. As far as I could gather, that hypothesis does not say anything about what happens in the rest of Solar system or in the rest of the Universe for that matter. There is a very sound reason for the inverse square laws of forces like gravity and the Coulomb force ( interactions between electrically charged particles ): These forces are so-called central forces that only depend on distance from the source ( e.g., direction is immaterial ). All points with the same distance to the ( point- ) source form the
surface of a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is A=4*pi*R^2. The logic
goes, that the same force ( from the source ), whatever the distance is, is
distributed over that area, only depending on distance, R. The further
away from the source, the larger the area ( by R^2 ), and hence, the
weaker the force ( by 1/R^2 ). The exact same effect is at work with the
attenuation of sound or light as you move away from the source. This simple logic obviously doesn't work with your model. The inverse square law has been demonstrated in the laboratory using cannon-ball sized metal spheres, acting on marble-sized test masses. A newer and more sophisticated experiment is described by Kapner et al., 2007, Phys. Rev. Letters, Vol 98, p. 021101, "Tests of
the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length
Scale". That experiment confirms Newtonian gravity between masses other than
Earth, at the 0.1mm to 1cm scale. Regarding another important point in your argumentation; please tell me why your collar would flap on a moving Earth? RT
Response: For the same reason that your collar would flap if you were standing on the roof of a fast-moving train. The equivalent scenario of standing inside a fast-moving train, is standing inside an underground cavern of a fast-moving Earth. The equivalent scenario of standing on the roof of a fast-moving train, is standing on the "roof" ( surface ) of a fast-moving Earth.
Question: Your collar flaps when exposed to a head-wind. What would provide such a head-wind in space? RT
Response: If the Earth were rotating at an equatorial speed of 1,000 MPH and orbiting a "solar system" at a velocity of 67,000 MPH then the Earth's atmosphere would be left behind like a comets tail. If the person's feet were somehow super-glued to the surface of the Earth his collar would flap for about one second before the atmosphere was gone and only space left. There would be no more problem of the collar flapping without a head-wind from an atmosphere, but there would be a new problem of finding air to breath to stay alive in space. A person now standing on the surface of the Earth and surrounded by the atmosphere is not the same situation as a person standing on the surface of the Earth surrounded by empty space.
Question: I am afraid you haven't answered my question at all. I will rephrase my question in terms of your reply: "What would cause the Earth's atmosphere to "...be left behind like a comets tail"? What are the forces, the materials involved, the momentum transfer, that would cause this scenario? What would give the Earth ( with it's atmosphere ) a head-wind? What is it, that the Earth is plowing into? These are all different versions of the same question, so one answer will suffice. RT
Response: These are perfectly valid points by R.T., of course, but unusual inasmuch as he displays obvious courtesy. Yes, the relationship would be an inverse square on the assumption that the force of gravity is produced by, and emanates from, the World. This is indeed the basis of my paper, "Stellar Distances and the Age of the Universe," where such a relationship is utilized in attempting to determine the maximum distance to a sixth-magnitude light source ( star ). There are two problems with this. The first is that both masses would produce their own field, such that the relationship between them would become far more complicated than a straightforward application of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. They would both have to interact about a barycentre. The second problem is that Robert, Martin, Allen, Philip and others ( including myself, as you will notice from my tentative first steps in the Plenum Aether section of my updated "Geostationary Satellites in a Geocentric Universe" paper ) suggest that the gravitational 'field' is not produced by the World, but rather by the aether's interaction with the World. In this case, the field does not emanate from the World, but from the aether, and the inverse square function is irrelevant. ( In exactly the same way, my own exponential function, as an alternative, would also be irrelevant and up for reconsideration. ) It is this point that addresses R.T.'s query about other celestial examples of gravity. Neville T. Jones, Ph.D.
Response: We know the reasoning against a collar flap involves the assumption that the atmosphere is velcroed to the Earth and is unaffected by a 67,000 MPH headwind...because, of course, Einstein erased the aether from his blackboard and there is no friction and no headwind. And, naturally, there is no 500,000 MPH headwind in the alleged orbit around the alleged Milky Way. Neither would the alleged exit from an alleged Big Bang near light speed be a factor. Personally, my purpose in using the "collar flap" imagery over 15 years ago was to call attention to the tremendous Earth speeds involved in the heliocentricity model in a Big Bang universe...which model is not only built from stem to stern on observation-denying assumptions, but also, as we can now know from plentiful documentation, is a model that is derived concept for concept from the Zohar/Kabbala holy book of the Pharisee Religion as an alternate "creation scenario" to the Biblical Geocentrism Model. Marshall Hall
Question: So it's the ether that provides a head-wind according to your theory. Another question, then: Do you agree that the surface layers of Jupiter are either liquid or gaseous? i.e. we can't see any hard ( e.g. rocky ) surface of Jupiter. RT
Response: With respect, you are missing the point not only about the "collar flap" but the whole matter of whether the Earth is rotating on an "axis" daily and orbiting the sun annually or whether it is stationary with the sun, moon, and stars going around as observed by every person who ever lived. We are all aware that the heliocentric model accommodates all the appearances. We should also be aware that the Geocentric model accommodates all the appearances. This presents us with a proposition that theoretical "science" despises, namely, only two options, one of which must be true and the other false. Black and white. No grey. This brings us to the definition of "science", i.e., from the Latin "scire", "To know". We know, for example, that we actually see the sun and moon rise in the east and set in the west...and all the stars go around nightly. We do not know
one single thing that denies what we see. We know that there is a
mathematical model which tells us that what we see is an illusion caused by
a rotating Earth. But do we know that the model is the reality? Do we
think of all the assumptions that are required to make that model work? Are
those assumptions "science" or hypotheses? Do we think, for example, that
the model requires the reversal of the moon's direction or the whole
construct collapses? Forget your Foucault and Geosynchronous "proofs" et al. There is no proof that the Earth rotates nor that it orbits the sun. Sir Fred Hoyle and other heavyweight scientists have recognized that fact. All heliocentric
"evidence"...all of it, is demonstrably based on assumptions that deny and
defy observational science, i.e., science which fits its definition. Therefore--and this doesn't begin to bring in all the fraudulent use of
virtual reality technology and the now known Religious source of the Big Bang Universe Model with its indispensable heliocentric component--it is not for me or Bernie or Dr's Jones, Bouw, Henry, et al ( and a host of engineers ) to wrestle with every point that comes to your mind which upholds today's textbook cosmology. Rather, it is incumbent upon smart, knowledgeable people like yourself to go back and wrestle with the basic assumptions upon which all of those points are merely fancy extrapolations. If the cornerstone won't hold, neither will what is built upon it. What a great opportunity for smart young men like yourself to really,
really, really make an impact on science and truth! Start with what is
known (science). Expose the hypotheses that contradict that science.
Remember there are only two models. One is science. The other is a very,
very clever deception. Then see what you come up with. Marshall Hall
Question:
You are writing far to much in your e-mail for me to address all your
points now, without our correspondance exploding. I will therefore ask
you just one question now, and then we can return to your other points
later. I do not mean to ignore any of your points, but if with each
question I ask, I get back 20 issues to address, I soon won't have time
for either eating or sleeping, much less work.
I am a scientist, which means I cannot choose to ignore observations
that don't fit into my worldview. You claim to be using the scientific
method as well, which means you have to adhere to that too. Therefore,
Marshall ( and Bernie and Neville), I would like each of my questions
answered. Since you didn't want to answer my last question, I'll pose a new one
for you guys:
When driving a car, is the car going forward, or the Earth going backwards? RT
Response:
If you think you have proof that the Earth is rotating on an
axis and orbiting the sun, please share it with me (us) and the world. I
believe we are aware of the relativity metaphysics which prove nothing, so
just give us something solid, preferably something that cannot instantly be
shown to be out of the Zohar/Kabbala "science" book of the Pharisee
Religion. Marshall Hall
Response: Your question [ When driving a car... ] is answered thoroughly and correctly in the Geocentric Comments by Allen Daves HERE
Response: The question about whether the car is going forward ot the Earth going backward? Isn't that just a variation on Einstein's thought experiment about the train station and the train? In other words, isn't it an argument based on his relativity concept? Marshall Hall
Response: You request a straightforward answer to your question. This is, as we all know, that the car is moving through the World's atmosphere. Neville T. Jones, PhD
Response: I liken this type of question to a parable on the nature of reality: One morning RT awoke from his sleep. Coming before his students, he said, "Last night I dreamt that I was a beautiful butterfly fluttering through the fields. Now I awaken. My question is this; how do I know if I am RT, who dreamt himself a butterfy, or if I am a butterfy, now dreaming itself RT?" Here is my answer to your question: The car is going forward on the surface of a geostationary Earth. "A motor car ( usually shortened to just car ) is a vehicle that moves itself rather than being moved. A wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor. The motor is an engine in which the combustion of fuel and an oxidizer occurs to perform the work of propelling the car."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Thanks for this [ one-pager on Geocentricity ]. It is, of course, complete nonsense. What, for example do you think of the fact that the local inertial frame in the absense of rotating masses aligns with the CMB ( Cosmic Microwave Background )? Alec
Response: Thanks for this. It is, of course, complete nonsense. What, for example do you think of the fact that the local inertial frame ( EARTH ) in the absense of rotating masses ( THAT IS THE ISSUE AT HAND... no rotating masses???? the Universe is the rotating mass! ) aligns with the CMB? Cosmic background radiation......
What does he think about the fact that there is no observable secondary rotation in the "local reference frame" around the annual axis and yet there is on the "local reference frame" on the daily axis..... nonsense is not a thought that is a feeling, I want a logical explanation..... or the fact that the distribution of all observable mass is organized on shells concentric to the "local inertial frame".. LOL....? What, for example does he think about the fact that no one has proven that there is such a thing as a "local reference frame" that is independent from any other "local reference frame"...... Envoking a theory to validate that theory's own conclusions is called circular fallacy. CMB/Geocentricity issue is also covered here: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no114/114.pdf Allen Daves
Response: "The absence of rotating masses"? Is this the character who wrote some stuff saying that general relativity is based upon the "equivalence" of a gravitational field and an accelerated platform ( it is well known that for large scales, the two are not equivalent ) and therefore the centre of the universe is irrelevant? If so, he made it clear at the end of his page that he did not relish the idea of any contradictory feedback. The pigeon droppings ( sorry, cosmic microwave background radiation ) were, of course, being looked for and anticipated. It is hence no wonder that a sizeable, theoretical structure is now built upon them. Neville T. Jones, Ph.D.
Response: I don't know what he's talking about. He apparently thinks "a local inertial frame" is a fact and not just a mathematical construct inseparable from the rest of the mathematical constructs which make up the heliocentric model and beyond all the way to the Kabbalist Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm. Marshall Hall
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World War One postcard from Italy: "I beat whoever resists me." Applied to cosmology and astronomy this could read: "I beat whoever resists heliocentricity."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EH Comment:
"Japan's Lunar Explorer KAGUYA shows photo of Earth ( below ). If the colors are correct, the blue atmosphere dominates. When the probe reaches the moon, an interesting issue will come up: what does the Earth look like to somebody at the moon?"
Interesting. Plainly states that the Earth "images" are all taken from LEO ( Low Earth Orbit, c. 200+ miles out... c. 3/8" off of a 12" globe ) and are computer-generated "illustrations"... which people think are legitimate pictures taken from deep space. The Japanese camera at c. 70,000 miles out could capture the whole globe. As for the questions about viewing the Earth from the moon, the first revelation that will come is that the moon isn't going West to East ( as it must do in the heliocentricity model ), but is moving East to West just as we see it do. Marshall Hall
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------