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