[geocentrism] Re: Accelerometers

I understand what you are saying, but I dont think you understand or fully 
appreciate the significane of the point i have been making....The earth/oceans 
are ineffect one bigg acceleromter by vertue of the fact that the tides are 
accelerated differently wrt earth and sun/moon in the same way that any other 
accelerometer demonstrates it's accelerations with a mass and sping. there is 
no differnce between your mass suspended elasticaly and the earth with its 
elastic tides......the two issues are not separte they are one and the same 
thing, one and the same issue.......Nor was I the one who keeps chaning/ 
creating  the names of these threads but as the saying goes "a rose by anyother 
name is still a rose"

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:00:21 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Accelerometers

Allen D
Yes I'm sure you do but there is a separate thread for Tides. Why don't you use 
it and reserve this thread for Accelerometers?
Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 12 May, 2008 4:01:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Accelerometers

There are a couple of points I could make here but i realy want to focus you on 
only one....the earth is in "Free fall" toward the sun ,so you say.....the 
tides are caused by an acceleration toward the sun........Thus, we detect that 
acceleration in free fall!......
PS If Regener wants to attempt to reduce the daily tides due to sun and moon to 
a "proportional effect" to the centrifical effects  & or only a 7 
mm difference, then you create a whole new problem with the centrifical 
force...The reason?....  because the for a orbit to be stable the forces toward 
sun must be balneced with the forces from the stars that create the centrifical 
force outward....other wise your forces are not balenced so even if you could 
maintain that orbit wihtout some additonal force to keep you int it.......you 
would not be in free fall toward stars and sun you would only be in free fall 
wrt the sun or the stars but not both and thus we should expect to detect the 
differneces................ darn you guys, just cant get around issue without 
robing somthing from Peter to pay Paul.......

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:42:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Accelerometers

Greetings several ...

Points relating to accelerometers have appeared under several threads so I 
thought that perhaps it ought to have its own. Hope 
this doesn't upset anybody.

Too many points have been made in the last few days to reply to each in any 
depth. Let me make a few comments.
Neville -

"Einstein taught us that gravity and acceleration are one and the same."
This is perfectly true.

Prompted by Philip's quotes from Wiki, I too read the same and other articles. 
I don't see that they are one and the same. I 
see that they are -- roughly -- equivalent. As Philip remarked, we are talking 
here about 'artificial gravity' and if you look 
more closely, it breaks down. Linear acceleration -- a rocket -- produces 
increased weight but no tidal forces ie every atom is 
affected identically especially those at the leading end wrt those at the 
trailing end. Radial acceleration will also produce 
increased weight but now we have Coriolis effects plus differential 
acceleration -- your feet will weigh more than your head.
It seems to me that MS reserves General Relativity as a sort of tool of last 
This strikes a chord with me. It also suggests that we don't have to bring in 
Relativity if Newton can solve the problem and so 
far as I can see, there is very very little in the Solar System which requires 
Einstein. Certainly the gravity and acceleration 
encountered can be examined adequately for our purposes here without recourse 
to relativity.
Allen -

I threw you a bone on two occasions but you apparently were too busy calling me 
a bonehead to notice. In any event you did not 
acknowledge them, so I'll explore that point here in more detail.

You have been absolutely resolute in your refusal to address my accelerometer 
proposition (the red sphere and the green sphere) so I'll propose something 
similar to which you may be able to relate. If a tap is opened and water -- a 
fluid -- is allowed to flow out to fall a great distance -- for convenience let 
us consider that gravity and therefore acceleration is constant over the 
distance of the fall -- the velocity of every drop of that water is different 
from every other drop. Those at the bottom are moving 
faster than those just emerging from the tap. In fact, what begins as a steady 
stream, shortly becomes a string of spherical 
drops as the stream of water stretches further and further until it becomes so 
thin that surface tension causes it to break 
into discrete portions.

Now let us take instead a long rod of metal -- a solid -- and suspend it into a 
gravity field whose intensity -- over the length of the rod -- varies markedly. 
If we release the rod so that it falls longitudinally, we will notice that 
there will be stress over the 
length of the rod due to the fact that the end closest to the centre of gravity 
is accelerated at a greater rate than that 
which is farthest. Theoretically at least, if the rod were to be divided at the 
centre and the two halves joined with a rigid 
strain gauge, the acceleration could be measured.

Taking it a little further, a very long spaceship in a very elliptical orbit 
about the Sun -- longitudinally aligned with the 
path -- would have its leading end subjected to greater acceleration than its 
trailing end on the inbound path and the reverse on the outbound. If we were to 
place an accelerometer in each end, then they would each read differently from 
the other (the spaceship being rigid) and the difference could be used to 
compute the acceleration. This satisfies your assertion that acceleration due 
to gravity can be determined during an orbit. How you would achieve this on 
Earth's surface we have yet to hear.

None of this however refutes the assertion that an accelerometer cannot detect 
its own acceleration when accelerating in a 
gravity field. It will only register acceleration if it is rigidly placed at a 
significant distance from the centre of gravity of the object whose 
acceleration we wish to determine and for all practical purposes you have yet 
to show -- with numbers would be convincing -- how this might be achieved (for 
example you have mentioned gravity assist maneuvers) within the distinctly 
limited confines of interplanetary exploration vehicles.
For a very relevant comment, see here - 
Finer points: At the top of this page is the question, "...what's the 
difference?" Well, of course with magnetism, the 
"spacecraft" BB doesn't have its own pull on the Jupiter magnet. The magnet 
does all the pulling. As it does, the Jupiter 
magnet feels a backward tug as it supplies the energy to accelerate the BB. 
Another fine point is that if you were to place an accelerometer on the BB, it 
would register acceleration as the boost takes place. This would not be true on 
a spacecraft. A spacecraft feels nothing but continuous freefall as it picks up 
a large increment of speed during a gravity assist. This is because of the 
balance in gravitational tug as the spacecraft pulls on Jupiter and vice-versa. 
[Emphasis added]
Paul D
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 

Other related posts: