[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

No Phil   Allen is rattled.. he is shouting..  it doesn't work.. see I turned 
the volume down..  

"niether Paul nor you have demonstrated in any fasion the differnce between an 
acceleration in any direction and a change in oreintaion to any 
direction..which by deffintion requires an acceleration to that direction!? The 
dishonesty here is with thoes who say..." etc

There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the 
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an 
application of a force or forces. .. full stop. 

Simple vector diagrams of  applied forces explain both the direction and 
magnitude of change of velocity of the motion of any mass. We were/are 
discussing the effect of the application of just one type of force.. gravity.   
 The application, Allen not the theory of whys or wherefores..  The application 
of gravity effects every molecule in a given space equally, on the sprung mass 
of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the vehichle containing it.  As 
far as I know,  gravity is the only force that can do this. 

If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by 
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the 
passengers would not even know the turn had been made..   Isaac Asimov. 

The rest of your post was beyond garbled. 

Philip.  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:19 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


  The issue hinges as it always has on absolute motion or not...as of yet 
Regner, Paul nor you have demonstrated in any fasion the differnce between an 
acceleration in any direction and a change in oreintaion to any 
direction..which by deffintion requires an acceleration to that direction!? The 
dishonesty here is with thoes who say The gyro will not detect linear 
acceleration. It cannot be truely called an accelerometer. 
   Other then baseless and empty assertions on confused and self contridictory 
statments made in relitivity no one has been able to show certainly not 
demonstrate the or any differnce between linear and circular accelerations! 
Merly asserting a thing does not make it true.......!? I have taken 
MS/relitivities own precepts and shown your and all these argument wrt 
accelration false.
  you keep invoking logical contridictions as well as contridictions in terms 
themself as validity for your, Pauls and Regners postions.....you should be 
happy but your not????? 


   
  ----- Original Message ----
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 4:07:09 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

   
   What on earth are you thinking....if "regner disqualified" whay cant "i 
disqualify"...Philp you are not making any sense......the argument must stand 
on its own as of yet they have not demonstrated a arguement that can stand on 
its own they like you just wave your hand and declare "it is thus so" or "thus 
invalid" Allen

  You cannot "disqualify" Allen because you support your argument by false 
physics,"like you just wave your hand" either your own when required or modern 
relativists when it suits you to use it as a weapon...  And its a war you are 
making ..   

  And it is false physics to declare, 4. Inertia is by defintion a change wrt 
the grav feild..

  All of yours below was an attack at war , and you never once acknowledged or 
even attempted to counter, the few simple truths I mentioned. ie 

  Paul, and  Regner,  have specifically excluded a gyro, acknowledging that it 
will detect curved orbital motion, and you know it, or you have wittlessly not 
read the posts. The flywheel action is not a gravitational effect. ..  It can 
detect curved motion, which is acceleration. 
  The gyro will not detect linear acceleration. It cannot be truely called an 
accelerometer. 

  You are dishonest by trying to say that they were speaking of a gyro when 
detecting free fall..  THEY DID NOT...

  Philip. 


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Allen Daves 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:37 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


    Philip

    1.You can use a effect that works at one scale to define things for a 
differnt scales everyone including MS knows does not work....!?

    2.Yes Philip if you would bother to pay attention you would see that for a 
fact they do detect accelerations even in free fall in the real world of 
rockets not the imaginary one you and they keep appealing to in your head 
because you don't understand how it could..!???  I even explained why and how 
in real world terms, applications and experiments not your imaginary thought 
experiments, just becuse you cannot detect the change in a 100' vacum drop not 
mean there is no change...!?

    3. Philip See also attached.....You cannot have a detectable change in 
oreintaion around a grav body while in free fall and not have a accerleration 
by defintion wrt that same body..!? We are still waiting for Regner to show us 
how he plans to do that..where have you been! Just because Paul and Regner 
excluded by what contrived authority do they do such..logiec NO observation NO! 
Experimence NO!.. So the fact that "they excluded a gyro 
means...what?!..NOTHING except they cant answer the chalenge! Philip where are 
you???

    There is no difference between a change in direction( acceleration) within 
ones own radius and a change external of ones own radius!...we call on a orbit 
the other is a spin. A a gyro cannot demonstrate a detection of change in 
direction/ within its own radius wrt  a body in free fall but at the same time 
not be able to detect a change in direction outside its own radius wrt that 
same  body/grav field ....that is a logical contridicion.....and cannot be 
demonstrated anywhere in the universe wake up! 

    4. Inertia is by defintion a change wrt the grav feild..how on earth can 
any inertia exist anywhere in the universe (even in deep space where Einstine 
equivicates it to a free fall in a grav field) if you cannot detect the change 
of a body in elitpical orbit in free fall....PHIL .. that is by defintion a 
change wrt the grv field!?....You cannot calim inertia is a change wrt the grav 
feild but have no detectable change wrt to that fieild, becuase a eliptical 
orbit is not any differnt then any other motion wrt any other field in 
space!......Inertia & grav are  either exist or it does not but you cannot use 
them in a self exclusive and contridictory way! it is there but you can only 
detect inertia when there is a change wrt grav feild in free fall or (deep 
space)   but have no detecable change wrt a grav feild......

    5 Simply making assertions about what Paul and or Regner and or Relitivity 
state proves nothing and deomnstrates nothing! Most importaintly, it certainly 
dose not negate or somehow nulify my arguments! What on earth are you 
thinking....if "regner disqualified" whay cant "i disqualify"...Philp you are 
not making any sense......the argument must stand on its own as of yet they 
have not demonstrated a arguement that can stand on its own they like you just 
wave your hand and declare "it is thus so" or "thus invalid". I puit forward 
arguments claiming my argument is invalid because your theory makes certain 
claims is logical..?!? That is the whole point for the decusion to evaluate 
their claims and ours!!! you cannot make an evaluation of mine by assuming 
theirs is true! that is not a evaluation that is a circular falicy! You siply 
amaze me you at times see to understand then latter you get confused agin by 
the circular logic of relitivity and its proponets...????

      



    ----- Original Message ----
    From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 7:02:42 PM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

     
    that principle only holds true at certain scales...and i have already 
stated scale is the problem .....????????  Paul and I were not into those 
scales..  We were in the scale range where in practical terms as you say "the 
principle holds true.."   

    An accelerometer specifically  the spring type, but I add any type no 
matter how sensitive,  will not show any reading during any accelerating state 
caused by gravitational forces, which for example the geostationary satellite 
is doing..YES IT WILL, IT DOES AND THEY USE IT in space!?

    Yes they use it and No it won't measure accelerating state caused by 
gravitational forces... They use it to measure acceleration due to their own 
local powered movements obital corrections etc. 

    If you have a super duper laser accelerometer that would work in this 
situation, Send it to Nasa   It'd have to be worth millions. This gets to the 
whole motion & acceleration issues.....Any Sagnag gyro will show any motion 
free fall or now wrt earth/bakground stars.......and thanks but NASA already 
has and usese it so dose DOD??? ..there is a difference between what the text 
books espouse and what works in reality, have you been keeping up the post this 
is a demonstratable fact.....!?

    Hang on now..  Paul, and  Regner,  have specifically excluded a gyro, 
acknowledging that it will detect curved orbital motion, and you know it, or 
you have wittlessly not read the posts. The flywheel action is not a 
gravitational effect. ..  It can detect curved motion, which is acceleration.
    The gyro will not detect linear acceleration. It cannot be truely called an 
accelerometer. 

    Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Allen Daves 
      To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:02 AM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


      Blue...


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 5:50:53 PM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

       
      We are not discussing a ball and a feather we are discusing how gravity 
works not just on the small scale but large scale with planets and suns 
ect.....All bodies and a universe all interacting at once with 
eachother......Allen

      No we are not!  You might want to.. Paul merely stated a working 
principle that works in real experiments, proven yes, and related to the 
feather drop experiment..  Again that principle only holds true at certain 
scales...and i have already stated scale is the problem .....????????

      An accelerometer specifically  the spring type, but I add any type no 
matter how sensitive,  will not show any reading during any accelerating state 
caused by gravitational forces, which for example the geostationary satellite 
is doing..YES IT WILL, IT DOES AND THEY USE IT in space!?  or the Space 
station. Those guys have no instruementation available to them, laser or 
otherwise that would tell them what their acceleration was or even if they were 
accelerating.  

      The sun the moon or the stars passing would perhaps change the 
rate/direction of acceleration, but such changes not register on any 
accelerometer of even be felt by their inner ear..   the most sensitive 
accelerometer I have. Even if they looked out, their eyes would deceive what 
their brain told them as they gazed upon the spinning ball called earth, and a 
sun or moon speeding by.

      If you have a super duper laser accelerometer that would work in this 
situation, Send it to Nasa   It'd have to be worth millions. This gets to the 
whole motion & acceleration issues.....Any Sagnag gyro will show any motion 
free fall or now wrt earth/bakground stars.......and thanks but NASA already 
has and usese it so dose DOD??? ..there is a difference between what the text 
books espouse and what works in reality, have you been keeping up the post this 
is a demonstratable fact.....!?

      Philip. 

      I drop my worthless bit of comment into your questions below
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Allen Daves 
        To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:22 AM
        Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


        Phil, 



        1. How does a ball and feather drop prove gravitational theory and 
demonstrate that with planitary mechanics ....???  the discussion was not to 
prove any theory. It was confirming Pauls assertion concerning the working of  
an accelerometer. The reality of what happens, has happened is happening and 
which you deny. The above drop experiment proves that gravity acceleration , 
what ever its source, or however it operates , acts on every single molecule 
equally without preference. regardless of its mass, and thus cannot be detected 
by any mass object within itself.  The hit at the bottom of course is a 
different equation altogether. Likewise any drive source using internal energy 
on part of the object/s. 

         If the above experiment were long enough a drop, then any large mass 
placed close to the tube say half way, the deviation on the feather and the 
lead ball would be exactly equal. and undetectable by any onboard instruements. 
But I believe laboratory positioned observers can read the effects. 

        2.Even MS openly admits the inverse square law breaks down and is not 
absolute....??? As above this does not even come into the discussion re 
accelerometers function. I'd say, So what!  Where I placed the single planet 
and satellite, for your discussion, it was so far away that the gravity of the 
universal mass , inverse square law value not withstanding or zero value , 
meaning both zero, close enough, you did not want to play..  Because that was a 
fair experiment, where you could not bring in "diabolical" distractions. 

        3. The fact that it breaks down so much so that they have to create 90% 
of their universal modle built with "dark matter" and "dark energy" that is 
only knowable by vertue of the fact that their model would not work without 
it....!?  Well I doubt Paul or myself intended taking any accelerometer that 
far out..This is just another mental distraction where you cant keep your mind 
on the main point of discussion as I showed above.  You are guilty of 
*diabolical* obfuscation. All three,

              1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.  
              2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with 
extraneous information.  
              3. to darken.  


        4. We are not discussing a ball and a feather we are discusing how 
gravity works not just on the small scale but large scale with planets and suns 
ect.....All bodies and a universe all interacting at once with 
eachother......This should have been at the top of your list ...  No we were 
not being large scale..  Paul merely stated that the spring loaded 
accelerometer cannot detect acceleration from inside the body acted on by a 
gravitational field in orbit around the sun or earth. This is proven in 
practise at least around the earth. The ball and feather experiment 
demonstrates it on the ground, and should give you a clue as to how and why 
without any large scale galaxies coming into it.. 

        I would remind you that this inverse square law was discussed by 
Neville and others some time ago, and even if the law failed with regard to the 
earth way out near Pluto, the figure would be so negligible as to be non 
existent. Matter out there would come under the influence of Pluto or what 
ever. .  However I think the astronomers of long past and the most recent, have 
shown that this inverse law of gravity has maintained great accuracy as regards 
the deviations of the planets and their moons for our solar system in general, 
and our own moon in particular.  

        Allen you are not doing a very good service to the geocentric cause.by 
ignoring  the difference between theoretical concepts, and real material 
experiments.  Keep your subject threads separate please..  I will try to do 
likewise..  

        Philip. .  

        His head, like a smokejack, the funnel unswept, and the ideas whirling 
round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with fuliginous 
matter. --Sterne. 


        Clouds of passion which might obfuscate the intellects of meaner 
females. --Sir. W. Scott. 

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 2:31:45 PM
        Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

         
        Allen!  My experiment was not a thought experiment game but a real 
mechanical question..  so I'll try enother highschool one..  

        If I drop a feather and a lead ball ten times the weight from a height, 
down an inclosed vacuum tube, at exactly the same time, which will hit the 
bottom first?  

        Philip. 
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: Paul Deema 
          To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
          Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:35 AM
          Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


          Philip M (and any others interested).
          It might have been interesting but in the face of such sophistry any 
further effort would just be wasted effort.
          Paul D



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Sent: Friday, 4 April, 2008 3:24:26 PM
          Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


          Guys we are not descusing nor can we experinace/demonstrate a 
universe with one sun and one earth in it!?.....You simply cannot creat in your 
heads some imaginary universe with only two bodies in it and extropolate the 
physics of the curent real universe neither did Newton or Einstine base their 
conclusions on such absurdities....The conclusions of their theories and even 
in their thought experiments was based on all the bodies interacting with each 
other................without absolut knowledge of what gravity is in the first 
place your disscusion realy will be nothing more then a "game" not any 
meaningfull discussion on inertia or detectable accelerations......... MS does 
not claim the physics of the universe to work on a two body system!.......Thus, 
it is not even remotley posible to mimic the real universe except in the  
imaginations of your heads and even at that assuming  gravity is what you think 
it is in the first place!?  I not interested in pursuing that kind of "game". 
Start with what you have not with what you do not have..We have observations 
that show not imagine that what you suppose is not true from the get go!..Why 
persue a conclusion we already know to be false?!.....If it were true that you 
could not detect accelertions in a free fall around in a grav feild then simply 
the tides cold not exist as per MS.....Guys I'm not interested in pursuing your 
thought experiments that are based on false assumptions.  You dont see your 
whole problem is you are so indocrinated with your idea of gravity  that is 
actualy not even correct in MS but you insist on it so much that you refuse to 
see that your "games" are not based on any reality they are based on your lack 
of understanding of MS......???




          ----- Original Message ----
          From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 12:05:38 AM
          Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

           
          Yeah...Wwork from a basic setup .. Nothing in the universe but a 
stationary sun and a planet orbiting around it at a great speed..  There is no 
need to bring in the butterfly principle that fluttering wings in Adelaide 
makes it rain in New York. 

          Even Allen must accept, geocentrism or not, that we can lay down 
ground rules for our lab in space experiment..  Another sun another planet all 
alone in the void. 

          OK  now I am all the way with PD that no accelerometer on that planet 
no matter how sensitive,  will detect the acceleration of that planet as it 
circles that sun at a constant velocity in a perfectly circular orbit..  .  

          That will do for starters so as not to complicate the maths with 
elliptical variables and barycentres..  

          After that when Allen finds that we is true, we can bring in other 
variables due to elliptical orbits where the velocity varies, so that we will 
have two different accelerations, created by the same force.. and why again the 
accelerometer shows nothing..  

          Of course it doesn't on my kitchen table, but Allen cops out on that 
one because the table aint moving. Its geocentrism see.. But the guys in or on 
the space station  will not feel anything on their table either..    Let the 
game begin// 

          Philip.     


          ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: Paul Deema 
            To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
            Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM
            Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs


            Allen D
            What I've always wanted to discuss but from a seeming auspicious 
beginning starting at (Item 2, second paragraph, beginning "However, I will go 
this far.....").
            "New game" in this context means "Put aside all previous baggage 
and make a fresh start concentrating exclusively on the accelerometer, the 
elliptical orbit and the Sun".
            At the outset, I acknowledge that every atom in the universe 
influences every other atom in the universe but take the view that it is not 
necessary to go to this level in order to gain an understanding of the basic 
mechanisms involved.
            Paul D




            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
            To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
            Sent: Thursday, 3 April, 2008 7:59:37 PM
            Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs




            "New game. Are you interested in detachedly discussing 
accelerometers?"

            What would you like to discuss?  





--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 


            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG. 
            Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date: 
3/04/2008 6:36 PM





----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 


          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG. 
          Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.6/1360 - Release Date: 
4/04/2008 6:02 PM





        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG. 
        Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date: 
5/04/2008 7:53 AM





      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG. 
      Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date: 
5/04/2008 7:53 AM





    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG. 
    Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 6/04/2008 
11:12 AM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 6/04/2008 
11:12 AM

Other related posts: