Dear Glen, Thanks for your letter. I did read your reply about Focault's pendulum and I do and are prepared to listen to and consider what you have to say. The ideas I am presenting are far from the current view and are quite difficult to come to grips with (for me also) but the fact is ancient Indian astronomers used this model to successfully explain and predict to a great degree of accuracy the workings of the universe. They were plotting the courses of the planets, predicting solar an lunar eclipses and so many other things before Western astronomy even existed. So this system must at least provide a model which predicts the workings of the universe.. Whether the universe is actually like this, that's another question, but from a scientific point of view it should be interesting to explore the model. The "missing-link" which I am having difficulty communicating which when understood makes everything clear is this. There is relative movement between the earth and the universe (the system of fixed stars and planets moving within it.) Your model states the earth is rotating and the Vedic model states the whole universal structure is rotating, but the effect, relatively speaking, is the same. From within the structure you can't tell. Movement has to be taken relative to some point of reference. If you take the earth as your point of reference the universe is rotating. If you take the fixed stars as your point of reference the earth is rotating. The point of reference for the Vedic model is the earth and the point of reference for the Western model is the fixed stars. > > I mentioned to you a few days ago the effect of Focault's pendulum. > That alone is proof positive that the earth is rotating. If the earth > was stationary (mounted on turtles or something) while the rest of the > universe rotated around us, then the pendulum would not turn, but it does. > Pay attention. There is a huge force in the universe pulling the whole system around the pole-star. That force doesn't effect only the stars and planets in the sky but also effects objects on earth. It is described to be driven by solar winds and it is strong enough to cause your pendulum to rotate. (after all the pendulum is, more or less, a body in space like the sun or any other heavenly body so the same forces act on it.) > > Example 2: The movement of large air masses is affected also. > A quick run down of air movement goes like this, air at the equator is > uplifted because of heating. This causes air near the equator to tend to > move towards the equator to replace this air. Ie: the air from the south moves north and is heated and goes up to be replaced by more air from the south and similarity air from the north moves south and then up. So the direction is north-south and up/down. > Similarly, at the poles, cooling causes air to sink and move _away_ from the > poles, while air at higher altitudes moves in to replace it. > If the earth was fixed, then air movements would be totally in north/south > directions. << you have only described the are as moving in north-south direction and up/down so I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean it wouldn't move up and down?>> Why? We still have poles, they are still full of ice which is cold causing air to sink and higher altitude air to come in and replace it. Because the Vedic model has a mountain range at the circumference of the earth (the south pole) the air will be forced back the way it came. Things will work at the north pole in exactly the way you have mentioned. In the Vedic model the sun is still over the equator and it is that fact which creates the updraft, not the shape of the earth. > However, what actually occurs is more complex. The air at the poles is > indeed fairly stationary, while at the equator it has a speed high enough to > rotate around the circumference of the planet (along with the ground) once ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you mean stationary relative to the ground. If it moves "along with the ground", in your model it is not moving at all (relative to the ground). > per day. I can't say I understand this fully but the Vedic model has the whole universal structure rotating around with the pole-star in the centre. you could imagine it as a huge cone shaped thing with a very broad base and the point of the cone pointing to the equator. The whole structure circumnavigates the earth in 12 months while it turns 360 degrees in 24 hours. This means there would be a strong force moving the air focused on one point of the equator at any given time but moving around the whole equator in 12 months as well as a general rotating force caused by the universe rotating every 24 hours. This would cause turbulence in opposite directions in each hemisphere, however it seems it would be seasonal. Is it? > This is a couple of hundred miles an hour easterly movement. > As this easterly moving air mass moves towards the poles, it moves eastward > relative to the slower moving ground at the higher latitudes. > Similarly, the air from the poles appears to be moving in a westerly > direction once it reaches a more lower latitude that has a higher ground > speed. Same explanation as for the airplane is valid. In the Vedic model everything (including the air) except the earth is rotating (from east to west) once every 24 hours and in the Western model the earth is rotating once in 24 hours but relatively its the same. I don't have the data or the knowledge of how the air is moving. (I suspect it cannot be fully explained or predicted even with our current model of the universe as there are other influences we don't know about.) The main point is the relative movement is there in both models, in the rotating earth the movement is the earth relative to the universe and in the rotating universe the same relative movement is there and the effects on the movement of the air will be the same. > This is why the weather where I live happens to always come in from the > west. > In the southern hemisphere, the rotation of the earth causes air masses to > be deflected towards an anti-clockwise direction. Opposite in the northern > hemisphere. > One more proof positive that the earth is rotating. This could also be caused by the force I have previously described at the equator.... perhaps it needs an expert scientist to prove or disprove it. This is coming to the edges of my knowledge of the Vedic model. There is so much data on it in the ancient texts but I have only scanty knowledge. > > This is also seen in the differing directions of rotation of > cyclones/tornados in the north and south hemisphere. > ditto. > It is also the reason that aircraft flying in a north/south direction have > to take into account the differing easterly velocity of the ground under > them. ie: an aircraft takes off from a site in the southern hemisphere > that is moving east at 100km/hr. He flies north twards a site that has an > easterly movement of 120 km/hr. Given a flying time of 1 hour, if the > pilot travels in a northerly direction, (the sites are at the same > longitude) he will not find himself over the second site, but 20km west of > where he expected to be. > In the Vedic model as soon as the aircraft enters the sky it becomes another body which rotates with the universe. This gives it relative motion to the [stationary] earth. So you see it works out the same. If he takes off an steers his plane directly north as you have described there will be another motion involved, he is also moving towards the west with the Sun, Moon and all the stars [while the earth remains fixed]. > > Example 3: launching satellites into orbit. > It is preferable to launch satellites from > a) Near-equatorial locations. > b) Towards the east. > Both of these are a direct consequence of the added "kick" that the rotation > of the earth gives them. > In a stationary earth scenario, it wouldnt matter which place or which > direction satellites are launched. > I am very interested in satellites, particularly what orbits are possible. Do you know? <<I haven't thought out the "kick" yet but I'm sure if you do it you will find the flat and stationary model gives the same results as the rotating globe model. > > > Your example of the two trains (linear movement) is _NOT_ the same as the > angular acceleration of the objects on the surface of the earth. > A better example (or hang on, perhaps it the one you mention anyway) would > be where the two trains are stationary and one starts to move. > You _CAN_ tell which one has started to move off if you care to try dropping > a tennis ball. If you are accelerating away from the station then the > ball rolls down the aisle. If it is the other train, then the ball just > bounces to a stop under your hand. > Of course that's true, but, even in your model, the earth is not accelerating -- it is moving at a constant speed and if I put a ball on the ground it doesn't roll down the passage because of the earth's rotation. I am not a great physicist but I don't think this disproves the rotating earth model. If you put the tennis ball on the ground of a train moving a constant speed would the ball roll down the isle. If it does you are in trouble! > > Get it? got it? good. > -- Madhudvisa dasa | | S H E L T E R I N T E R N A T I O N A L |____________________________________________ Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.