Geocentrism

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Geocentrism

If all the bodies in the Solar System are connected by Birkeland currents the we would have all sorts of possible angular intersections between currents. What happens if two intersecting Birkeland currents are travelling in opposite approach each other? What happens if two Birkeland currents travelling in the same direction approach each other? What happens if two Birkeland currents travelling at right angles approach each other?

The implication, if the previous statement were true, would be that each node on a planetary body would have multiple Birkeland currents using it, entering/leaving for multiple destinations.

Exactly.

More importantly, what IS a Birkeland current?

How do four billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere (the Earth) if terrestrial gravity is not an attractive force, and is caused by electrical forces?

What if Birkeland currents are not possible within a heliocentrical context?

If true, the existence of Birkeland currents would mean, immediately, that the heliocentric orbital mechanics of motion (for the planets) would have to be modified.

It takes a deep knowledge of bifurcation theory (nonlinear dynamical systems applied to celestial mechanics) to understand that the heliocentrical hypothesis and the ether hypothesis/Birkeland currents are totally incompatible.

It is assumed by modern astronomy that the set of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (with initial values) which describe the orbital motions FORM A HAMILTONIAN.

KEPLER MOTION

In an appropriate coordinate system, the motion of a planet around the sun (considered as fixed) with the attractive force being proportional to the inverse square of the distance /z/ of the planet from the sun is given by the solution of the second order conservative system with the potential function -/z/^-1 for z =/0.

A mechanical system without friction can be described in the Hamiltonian formulation.

Heliocentricity requires A FULL VOID (totally empty space).

Ether = friction/damping terms.

Here is what damping terms will do to the longtime behavior of the solutions (using the simplest case possible, a linear ordinary differential equation with constant coefficients):

http://web.mit.edu/jorloff/www/18.03-es ... topic5.pdf

This is the reason why ether/aether theories are totally excluded from celestial mechanics: the existence of ether will mean that FRICTION/DAMPING TERMS (no matter how small) will have to be added to the Hamiltonian formulation of the nonlinear ordinary differential equations; the stability of the heliocentrical solar system would be disrupted immediately, friction terms will cause the orbits of the planets to decay leading to collision with each other and with the Sun.

Homoclinic tangency, Lyapunov exponents, KAM theory, chaos theory, longterm stability of the solar system:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1774581

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1935048

One also has to take into account the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1707290

Ether/aether theories can only be used in a geocentrical context, exactly as envisioned by the original quotes attributed to Newton:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity of the planets/stars was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

For terrestrial gravity, Newton had in mind A SECOND GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, a force of ether pressure.

GEOCENTRIC BIRKELAND CURRENTS AND WHITTAKER POTENTIAL WAVES:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1995773

Dark flow = dense dark Birkeland currents

Dark matter = dark Birkeland currents

The Whittaker longitudinal helical waves form the scalar potential which in turn create the magnetic fields and the Birkeland currents.

The torsion spirals of the Whittaker bidirectional waves become visible plasma.

I am no scientist and my last formal education in electrical matters was over 50 years ago in high school

Yet, you were able to come up with some of the most pertinent questions as they relate to Birkeland currents.
Sandokhan

Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Geocentrism

Sandokhan wrote:Ether/aether theories can only be used in a geocentrical context, exactly as envisioned by the original quotes attributed to Newton:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity of the planets/stars was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

I don't see any reason why aether theories require a geocentric context. The assumption of an aether implies the existence of a preferred frame, which makes it necessary to reinterpret special relativity. But this doesn't lead to geocentrism.
silvanelf

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Geocentrism

But you should.

Aether/ether = gravitational pressure theory

Then, heliocentrists have to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere. Terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, and is not attractive.

Gravitational pressure is incompatible with an Earth in the shape of a sphere.

The Sagnac effect is caused by the potential (proof comes from advanced topology), by the ether. Since the orbital Sagnac is not being recorded/registered by the GPS satellites, it means that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at all. That is why you need geocentrism to explain the existence of ether. Ether theories only work within the context of geocentrism, a fact that yet has to be fully understood by anti-relativists.

Topological considerations of the Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2039636

Magnetic reconnection hoax: this process HAS TO BE accompanied by gravitational reconnection as well; elements lighter than Hydrogen: Koronium and Newtonium:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2057945 (Koronium: three part series)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2064764 (Newtonium: two consecutive messages)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2066035 (comet 17P/Holmes calculations with solar radiation pressure and solar wind: a total defiance of Newtonian mechanics)
Sandokhan

Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Geocentrism

Sandokhan wrote:
Then, heliocentrists have to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere. Terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, and is not attractive.

Gravitational pressure is incompatible with an Earth in the shape of a sphere.

What are you talking about? Flat Earth??
silvanelf

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Geocentrism

I would highly recommend this mans works.
.....
Robert Lanzas biocentrism.
Where consciousness at all scale is the creator of all.

It is an advancement to geocentrism thinking.
http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/

No religion involved, just a method of creation with electrical implications at all scale.

kevin
kevin

Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Geocentrism

Flat Earth?

The global Aharonov-Bohm was discovered in 1903 and 1904 by E.T. Whitakker: a method to produce macroscopic effects at very large distances, or scalar potential interferometry.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1994059

The most mysterious phenomenon of the etheric electric universe is ball lightning.

N. Tesla discovered that he could create huge ball lightning spheres at great distances using the bidirectional scalar waves whose existence was proven by Whitakker.

N. Tesla:

My apparatus projects particles which may be relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey to a small area at a great distance trillions of times more energy than is possible with rays of any kind. Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that nothing can resist. This wonderful feature will make it possible, among other things, to achieve undreamed-of results in television, for there will be almost no limit to the intensity of illumination, the size of the picture, or distance of projection.

Tesla said his transmitter could produce 100 million volts of pressure with currents up to 1000 amperes which is a power level of 100 billion watts.

If it was resonating at a radio frequency of 2 MHz, then the energy released during one period of its oscillation would be 100,000,000,000,000,000 (1016) Joules of energy, or roughly the amount of energy released by the explosion of 10 megatons of TNT.

Such a transmitter, would be capable of projecting the energy of a nuclear warhead by radio.

This is how Tesla was able to cause the Tunguska explosion on June 30, 1908 (7:15 local time).

New York Times, Dec. 8, 1915, p. 8, col. 3

TESLA'S NEW DEVICE LIKE BOLTS OF THOR

"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732 recently granted. With transmitters of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in peace and war. Through the universal adoption of this system, ideal conditions for the maintenance of law and order will be realized, for then the energy necessary to the enforcement of right and justice will be normally productive, yet potential, and in any moment available, for attack and defense. The power transmitted need not be necessarily destructive, for, if existence is made to depend upon it, its withdrawal or supply will bring about the same results as those now accomplished by force of arms."

NIKOLA TESLA

Not only this, but Tesla was able to see from thousands of kilometers away the actual trajectory of these ball lightning spheres:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1994713

The Tunguska explosion was seen instantaneously from London (also Stockholm, Anvers, Berlin).

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

The flight paths of the two ball lightning spheres created by Tesla, complete details:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1995026

Where consciousness at all scale is the creator of all.

Geocentrism = biocentrism

“The universe is more like a giant thought than a giant machine and the substance of the great thought is consciousness which pervades all space.”
Sir James Jeans

This is what our universe actually looks like:

http://www.oneism.org/images/INCA_TREE_OF_LIFE.jpg

http://www.oneism.org/images/createzoom.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3%5B1%5D4.jpg

Where is our universe actually located?

What is the scale of our universe?

Where is the only place a universe could have been created?
Sandokhan

Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Geocentrism

Sandokhan wrote:If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

I don't have the patience to debate Flat Earth nonsense, sorry.
silvanelf

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Geocentrism

silvanelf wrote:
Sandokhan wrote:If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

I don't have the patience to debate Flat Earth nonsense, sorry.

With respect,
Do not be so arrogant as to assume You KNOW differently.

I consider that the spheroids are creations of multiple flat projections, where to those created within such are naturally believers in what their senses and telescopes reveal to them , but what our limited senses can detect provides a false projection of what is at play .

The pyramids provide a good clue into all of this as they built to FIT to the local flat projections angles to resonate in tune with that location.
None of this resides in our limited normal senses parameters, but it is detectable by living organisms, ALL devices such as microscopes and telescopes are dead, at rest materials with this planet.
it requires life to recognise life as it is, not how We have known it (assumed it) to be.

This is the basis of the huge problem that anyone trying to describe an electric universe faces.

Kevin
kevin

Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Geocentrism

I don't have the patience to debate Flat Earth nonsense, sorry.

And yet.

NO curvature across the English Channel:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1651777

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

38:28 to 38:35

From the same spot, a splendid photograph:

https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/1309 ... 63fa_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#

No curvature whatsoever, just like the image in the video itself.

No curvature across lake Ontario:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1616955

More photographs across lake Ontario:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1969076

No curvature across lake Michigan:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/in ... msg1591587

Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: 465 km and 560 km distances to Tunguska:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg1676400
Sandokhan

Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am