[geocentrism] Re: De Palma

Thanks for all of that..  You made me fell a little more sane, or a little less 
mad ..one way or the other. 

I might as well explain to all here, Martin especially. I knew you were not a 
QM advocate Martin. so .  I am probably unfair in lumping all mathmaticians , 
rather mathmatical physics professors, especially all those of the Einstein 
era, Plank Saagen et al into the quantum basket..  They just aint like Tesla 
and Faraday and Edison etc. These guys do the real work, and along come the 
theorists, who would not know how to hold a pair of pliers, or even a hammer .. 
 

Sorry, but  I run from them. Not because I do not appreciate the input that 
such analysis might advance in an understanding of reality in some cases, like 
the developement of the bomb for example, but because most of it is Godless, 
almost mindless, based upon dreams synonomous with Startrek, which was/is my 
favorite show by the way. But I know it is fantasy. I no longer believe it to 
be the reality I was educated into believing.  

We could have done without the BOMB by the way, as well as the BIG BANG theory.

Philip.     
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Bennett 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:46 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: De Palma 


  Philip,

  On Behalf Of philip madsen
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:06 AM
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: De Palma 

   

  The gyro drop experiment is listed on De Palmers site but it was not his work 
apparently. I still thought it interesting..  
http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

  Note all the math..  

  Do you mean the data analysis? Just straightforward experimental statistics. 

  This happens in the MS explanation of the flywheel and is one reason I 
suspect they do not know why?? Philip. 

  Sorry, don't follow. ' What' happens in the MS flywheel explanation??  None 
of this math is speculative. 

  The force increment is the unknown force needed to get the results measured. 
A similar constant acceleration is needed to explain the anomalous deviation 
from Newton's laws found in the 2 Pioneer space probes.  

  The experimenters draw no theoretical conclusion, as the deviation cause 
could be many things: GR curvature, MOND, or aether(which it actually is!) 

   

  FICTITIOUS FORCE INCREMENT

    

  A hypothetical, fictitious force increment which would have to be applied to 
the non-rotating gyroscope to impart the increased acceleration noticed in its 
rotating mode, was calculated for comparison purposes. 

  Force increment: F = (FR - FNR ) = .024 lbs. = .38 oz.

   

  DATA



  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

  Value for Student's "t" Test: 

  t = 2.3980 

  p = .0275355685 (18 degrees of freedom)

  On the basis of the Standard Deviations of the data from this experiment, one 
can say with a 97% level of confidence that a fully encased, spinning gyroscope 
drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall 
along its axis. " unquote..

   

   

  This 97% level of confidence is why I did not entirely trust the experiment. 
Why not have it done over a greater distance?  

   

  Now I see the problem. Level of confidence is a statistical test that 
measures whether random variations in the measurement variable, time, can 
account for the observed data.  If the gyros were really different and were 
compared/dropped 100 times, 97 of those times we would expect to see the random 
variation as measured.

  This has nothing to do with the subjective assessment of the results by the 
experimenters. 

   

  A greater distance would add another variation source. Repeating the drop at 
constant length is better;  the law of large numbers says the sample mean 
converges to the true/population mean as the trials increase. 

   

  Philip. 

   

  Are we on the same people?  Bruce De Palma of gyro drop etc fame deceased ... 
 http://depalma.pair.com/

  Yes

  by Bruce DePalma 

  The description of the Primordial Field is imaginary but that is precisely 
why it is correct. The best instrument for the exploration of this question is 
the human mind.
  Of course we disagree with his reliance on reason alone ; the best instrument 
is Revelation.  
  The mumbo jumbo below is a good reason to disconnect from Mr. DePalma.  If 
this is the reason you reject his ideas, I agree with you - I had only read the 
experiment above, not the purple prose beneath.
  So it seems it is Kenneth Gerber, M.D., Richard F. Merritt, and Edward 
Delvers that I agree with, the experimenters - not Bruce D.P.

  Thanks for pointing this out. 

   
  The representation of reality within our conscious persona is constructed out 
of the myriad chemical reactions to the sensory stimuli of "external reality". 
On this basis the sensory image is living and we could speculate the external 
reality was non-living unless we knew the self-evident proposition that all 
reality was alive.
  Nothing could exist unless the organizing force were more powerful than 
destructive & dissipative effects. Consequentially we can view the organizing 
force as transcendent and that destruction and dissipation are facets of the 
constructive energy.
  The most profound manifestation of the creative force in material form are 
the thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are modifiers in the direction and 
application of Force. We arrive at the idea that the primordial field is a 
field of pure Force.
  The detection of an isotropic field consists of distorting it and noting the 
force isotropys.
  On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the 
primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of 
my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of 
my discovery.
   ..  

   

  By the way, I do not really accept quantum physics as real physics..  It also 
is open to dreamtime .....and is ensconsed in similar secret jargon to 
kabalistic Newton.s sideline of alchemy

  Quantum facts are .. well, facts. But quantum theory is a bizarre 
interpretation of said facts that is doomed to division, along with other 20th 
century physics paradigms: SR, GR, BB,  Old earth...   Scientifically the last 
century was a waste.

  Robert



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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 25/04/2007 
12:19 PM

JPEG image

JPEG image

Other related posts: