[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

Phil, 
1.I was not shouting...the font defaulted to 24 and i wrote those in a hurry i 
was busier then i normally am......no spell check or double check of 
anything......AS for STR and GTR you still don’’t apply GTR or it termonology 
or concepts consistently and you are right you "really know what it is"....... 
."Then I've heard of special relativity... I don't really know what it is. but 
it could be suspect."............
"I have heard of Einsteins general relativity I don't really know what it is. 
but it could be suspect. If its this, then I do not support it or ever proclaim 
it. Its an unproven theory you see. "
2.  Newton did not proclaim that a gyro cannot detect the acceleration in free 
fall!?............The theories you say you don’t know what they are (GTR STR) 
did that!, after real world experiments not just Newton’s thought experiments 
were actually performed and showed difficulties with understanding of motions 
in a HC universe????...........  I think it is funny you keep saying things 
like "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". SO What do You base this on what?! A Ball and feather?!..no one is 
arguing that a ball and feather in a vacuum chamber will appear to your supper 
scientific calibrated eye to hit bottom at the same time.....??? Neither will 
any HS student who has ever taken a accelerometer on a roller coaster or 
elevator ..or even a free fall from a
 hot air balloon claim that every molecule in that accelerometer had the 
gravitational force to act on every part of it equally such that it showed no 
acceleration !?..why?...because although the force of gravity itself is 
consistent...the materials that it acts on have different properties......oh 
you forgot to take into consideration that different materials transfer "FORCE" 
as you point out so cleverly here differntly.. 
"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". So if force is force then the 
difference must be in the materials that must emit that force but also how 
that/ any force is transmitted through all the materials...................wait 
for it phil...............since there is a interior and a exterior and the 
source according to newton is the masses then ......OH MY GOODNESS I THINK WE 
JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY!? Gravity even if though it is constant & consistent 
"force" must still traverse and even pass through various different materials 
that have various different properties wrt how they emit/transmits "forces"..we 
know that is true cos density affects "force transmision"  "in the lab" 
.......PHIL, .you know  all thoes "gravitons" or what ever it is in MS or 
"Newton’s universe" that causes  and transmits
 gravity....oh wait, Newton did not know what gravity was, so he never actually 
specified or even address that little issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????? 
......(that was as shout!)....now,  I'll tone it down an octive or 
two...........So ...you mean......"Gravity force"  whatever that is may not be 
the only variable to how gravity works in the real world?....Yes,  that is what 
real world not just thought experiments show...........ummmm......... what a 
novel idea!
3....If there is no difference in acceleration forces then you certainly cannot 
claim a gyro cannot detect a acceleration in free fall in orbit around a 
body...if the gyro detects a change in orientation wrt the body in the same 
direction as the orbit .....ta-da.... then it must have detected that 
acceleration (by definition of acceleration)!?...This is especially true if the 
rate of orientation change wrt the body is identical to the orbital period!? 
Phil not only do you keep invoking logical contradictions and inconsistent 
terminology of MS while claiming you dont subscribe to it but you insiste on 
holding me to the very thing you say you do not accept but use to make all your 
argument?
4. I dont have to mention problems with tides and inertia itself again ..just 
dont think i forgot about it.....
5. "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. " He 
bases this statement on what?! Maybe one day a moment of consistent & "sober" 
thought ;-) will pass by your way...when it does don’t just wave at as passes 
you by ...for heaven sake get out into the middle of the road highjack it and 
take all they got!........;-) LOL

----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 5:22:05 PM
Subject: [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: