[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:26:10 -0800 (PST)
P.S. I used a totaly useless, worthless auto spell checker........you know,
to save some time in typing and all.......... and as usual ....well what can I
say..?????????....Resistivity = Relativity :-(
----- Original Message ----
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:16:49 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Regner: Sorry this is long but this will be one of my last before i leave the
country for a while .......i think when you get to MM & MG sagnac it will
become more obvious particulary as we move along in the 5 points and other
stuff... ..........
Everyone else , it is long but.....quit complaining! ..lol :-)
full context at bottom of this post....
If i say the earth is motion less and at the center of the universe that is
falsefiable. I could demonstrate/prove its motion and velocity through space.
If it were the cetner of the universe i might expect all other mass in the
universe to be centered on it. If the earth were at rest i could prove that it
is not at rest not with just a theory but some fact that demands it’s motion.
GC is falefiable. But all attempts to falsify it have failed. All attempts to
prove its motion have failed, the distribution of mass, double galaxies,
quasars, gama ray burster you name it...in deed all red shifted objects in
space demonstrate them selves aligned in concentric shells as view from the
earth....
Resistivity claims there is not frame at rest and thus not center
motionless...Relativity claims that all the experimentation and observations
that show the motionless earth centered in the universe don’t infact
demonstrate that because the laws of physics are so strange and the universe is
so strange..I can live with that....but Relativity cannot by definition prove
any motion or lack thereof it is simply a assertion of relativity that all is
just relative motion with no absolute frame to measure from.....It is not a
provable or falefiable premise by its own definition!?...Yes the universe could
be so strange as not to be able to take the experiments and observations at
face value but and this is the key there is absolutely no justification for
doing that without first assuming it is true...that is called a circular
fallacy. Resistivity can be falsified but not by anyone who attempts to use it
as proof for itself. That is what its adherents
do...Example light is not isotropic experiments show that to be the
case...however when it is show to relativist they invoke not some other
demonstratable or proven observation but another theory called lorenz
transformations..... when you show them light is not isotropic they appeal to
lorenz but lorenze was invented to support relativity you cannot use relativity
to prove lorenze transformations then use lorenze transformations to validate
resistivity. When you do get to MM MG & SAGNAC you will see that is all there
is to the validity of all of resistivity. That is not validity that is a
circular Fallacy. Resistivity and HC which is now propped up by relativity is
not falesfiable coz when a effect is demonstrated to contradict it just makes
up a new theory without any observations or experimentations to back it and
patch it up. Then the claim is that resistivity demands the new theory ( which
is true otherwise resistivity would be shown false) but it
is the new theroy that proves resistivity...it is pure circular nonsense. I
don’t have a problem with things not being as they seem but there are a awfull
lot of things that are exactly as they appear...so if i see something ;i need a
valid reason for why they are not what they appear, now just some abstract
theory that cannot be proven or validated outside of a circular falicy.......
Relativity is a metaphysical philosophy not logic observation and experience.
Relitivy is only evaluated with logic observation and experience as long as the
"facts" are always interpreted within it. That by nature as well as it’s own
constructs make it completely unfalsifiable. What in the world are you talking
about when you say
"On the contrary - it is falsifiable and has withstood falsification for a long
while.That is it's strength."
when? where? At every turn the theory morphs and creates new even more exotic
theories ( without any observation or experience or logic other then relativity
demand it..the very thing we are trying to falsify..!?) to explain how and why
what was demonstrated was not realy what it demonstrated...!?
And if all motion is relative then it cannot disprove GC and thus there is
Absolutely no good or valid reason for not taking GC which is face value other
then philosophical reasons. Therefore logicaly the most valid and most logical
position to hold is the GC not the HC. HC cant prove anything anymore then GC .
HC has to keep morphing to patch its holes. It would not be so bad if it’s
predictions were exclusive to HC or relativity but even the ones it gets right
are just a valid in GC but GC does not have any holes it must patch in terms of
contradictions. Sure you can hold on to Relativity for ever and it will stand
the test of time but only because it can never be falsified as long as all of
its patches and changes are built on other theories that have no other purpose
then to explain how it was really not falsified. Light is not isotropic and
there is no experiment anywhere that proves that but there are plenty that show
it is not. But if you are
going to just claim that it does not falsify relativity then what in the world
could ever falsify a theory that claims any and all falsifications of
relativity’s premises actually prove "just how strange it all is"!? Sure it
could be but the logical explanation is that it is just wrong. To add insult to
injury it’s proponents actually believe that folk like me are anti science that
it is we who are more interesting in feelings and philosophy then they are
about the facts......LOL
Do you want to measure the difference of Earth's inertia between apogee and
perigee? I am puzzled here.....
This is so weird, Allen.
The only thing I am saying, is that you cannot use single atoms to define
your coordinate system.
What has 3d coordinates got to do with inertial ref frames?......and if it does
and a atom is in 3d space with dimension (iner and outer) there is nothing in
relativity that prevents, in fact it demands that it is abut one of a infinite
possible set of inertial reference frame. MY POINT IS....Where do you draw the
line for reference frames...at the molecular level how big does something have
to be..? You are only attempting to hide relitivities inertail decriptions
behind scale...your argument with free falling objects in inertial reference
frames is moot, not just because you cant realy appeal to earths inertail ref
frame while ignoring the suns or galexies or even of the individual atom but
because the only actually demonstration about interia is that it can be
measured with respect to free falling objects even within earths inertial
reference frame...In GC we don’t have your problem...There is only one inertial
reference frame. There is only one
absolute reference frame and all others are just relative to each other wrt
the ARF
Take a ride on the vomit rocket ( plane that free falls to simulate 0 gravity)
if you calibrate the accelerometer to 0 while in a free fall then if you
accelerate move from that 0 freefall condition /accelerate as noticed by your
position relative to the inside of the plane, now you have just "detect(ed)
acceleration of an object free-falling in a gravitational field"....ummmmm your
explanation is only valid in relativity but relativity is a philosophy not a
absolute truth as shown in experiments that plainly falsify it.... free falling
at g’s terminal velocity is no different then travailing at 50 or 100 or 1000
miles per hour however until you reach that terminal velocity any point in the
acceleration curve that the instrument is zeroed to will show the changes in
acceleration. We do it all the time here on earth withing the earths inertial
gravitational field. There is no difference here......the inertial
gravitational field is the solar system
...so why can we not measure it...."because relativity says you can’t"..true
but it offers no good and valid reason for such a claim. On the other hand
since you "know" relativity is true then the fact that you cant measure the
acceleration "proves" that relativity was correct ...Wrong! It proves there is
not motion and relativity is nothing more then a philosophy that claims "if im
shown to be wrong im not really wrong because you can’t prove me wrong coz all
attempts that proved me wrong only show you did not understand what was shown
in the first place.....Ha"....!? A theroy like that (relitivity) cannot be
show falsifed, ever, becuase when convicted it just turns aroudn and puts its
judges and jury on trial.......think about it......
GC does not have this "character flaw"....
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:56:59 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Regner Trampedach in red.
allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Purple.........
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:52:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Regner......This is the problem with the equivalence principle argument.
1. It can only be proven to be false it has never been positivly proven...
That, Allen, is the problem with all theories in physics, as I have said
repeatedly
in the past. But all physical theories are also disprovable - i.e., you can
measure
things that does not neccesarily agree with the theory, thereby proving it
wrong.
This is in contrast to, e.g., religion, where an almighty God can do anything
she
pleases. All the physical laws that we see enacted in nature, could of course
just
be staged by such a God to look like that but in fact be something quite
different.
In science, Okham's razor comes in and says that the physical laws are a much
simpler explanation for what we see, compared to having an omnipotent sentient
being stage everything to look the same. Where would this God come from?
What does she consist of? Does this God exist within our outside our Universe?
Is this God restricted by any laws of (other) physics? - are there any laws of
physics? - and why do they seem to work anyway?
Since the laws of physics seems to work, and science has no way of addressing
the question of God, we use Okham's razor to say that the laws of physics are
real.
That is the working assumption of scientists - and it works because that is
what we
observe.
Notice that this does not exclude the existence of a God.
Im not arguing the existance or non existance of God here..? you miss me all
together..
I am not either - I was telling you that physical theories are not provable but
falsifiable, and I was giving an example of something that is not falsifiable,
and therefore can't be addressed by science.
On the one hand a sound theory must be falsefiable to be valid but the strength
of the the theory you employ is that there is no way to falsify it...!?
On the contrary - it is falsifiable and has withstood falsification for a long
while.
That is it's strength.
It cannot be falsefiable cause there is no absolute frame of ref from which to
falsify it against, all is just relatives.......
With Newtonian gravity, and a rest-frame free-falling in that gravitational
field,
that rest frame is an inertial frame. That is both observed and comes out of the
(simple) calculations.
Somebody in a free falling elevator would not feel any force (until hitting the
bottom) - if the elevator is transparent, however, the acceleration could be
measured,
by seeing how things race past.
The equivalence principle states that all physical experiments performed inside
the
elevator would give the same results as if the elevator had been sitting in the
empty
space between galaxies (well, anywhere with no net gravity), traveling at any
constant velocity. You can only measure that velocity with respect to something
else,
i.e., no absolute measurement of velocity, but you can measure whether it
changes
i.e., an absolute measurement of acceleration.
People on board the space station can see their acceleration (orbit around
Earth)
but fell no forces acting on them - they are weightless. The centripetal
(gravity) and
centrifugal (fictitious) forces obviously balance out.
Free floating inertial frames (zero net gravitational force acting on them)
will have to
travel at constant velocity in order to be inertial - relativity says there is
no absolute
zero-point for that velocity - or, conversely, an inertial frame stays
inertial, no matter
it's velocity.
Relativity is works flawlessly in its construct and explanations...... but only
if you allow it to play both sides of the testability/validation fence! Your
explination has no vlaidity outside of itself.....it does not work without
assuming that it works first that is the whole point to what we have tried to
get accosss to you MM MG SAGNAC all Demonstrate this fact.....?
I don't think they do... But I will investigate that soon.
...only assumed.
That is not correct. That their has been no proof against a particular physical
theory,
through a century of experiments and observations, really makes it a very solid
and
robust theory - far from a mere assumption.
2. The solar system itself is in free fall around the galactic center and thus
the solar system is a inertial ref fame that we should be able to measure
within just as the earth is with the solarsytem and we can measure inertia in
earths inertail reference system.....
Correct, the Solar system's orbit in the Galaxy, and the Earth's orbit in the
Solar system, are
both cases of free fall - which means we cannot measure them dynamically (by
means of
extra fictitious forces showing up in our experiments). We can measure them
kinematically,
however, that is by means of observing motions.
So you cant hid behind the equivalence principle for a lack of detection of
inertia any more then you could with a car or a airplane in free fall on
earth.......inertia is still measured against all free falling objects in every
case. If you could not detect the earths inertia then you could not detect any
inertia from any object in space or on the earth......
Inertia is easy to measure: You measure how much force, F, is needed to obtain
a particular
acceleration, a, of a specific object: F= m*a, m is the inertia or mass.
This can be measured (and is unchanged) whether the object is in free fall or
not.
This is obviously a bit harder to do with the Earth, so instead we need to rely
on Newton's
law of gravity a_G = G*M/R^2
and the radius, R, of Earth coupled with measurements of the local acceleration
of gravity, a_G... The gravitational constant, G, can be measured in the lab,
leaving just the
Earth's mass, M, as unknown.
No all we have to observe is a change from appogie to parigee not the actual
values....we are only interested and measuring change not
absolutes.....relitive changes not absolute values....being a relitivity guy i
would have thought you would appreciate that fact.....
I don't quite know what you refer to here..?...
Do you want to measure the difference of Earth's inertia between apogee and
perigee? I am puzzled here.
3. All ref frames are equivalent in relativity...you can have any number or
pick any sections for your reference frame....
True.
individual atoms are inertial reference frames!?
A reference frame is a 3D coordinate system
-There fore Atoms do not exist in 3d space ...?
I don't know why you needed to make that up.
That half sentence of mine, that you quoted, says nothing about that.
so you need both a position and two directions
in order to specify a reference frame.
you are only attempting to hide behind scale ...?
Where do you get that from?
Position: Most atoms would be close to other atoms, and would constantly
collide with
(feel the electric forces) of these other atoms - our atom would therefore be
accelerated
constantly and randomly. In a gas or a liquid, this is know as Brownian motion.
Not an inertial rest frame at all.
A lone, free-falling atom could be an inertial rest frame, but read on.
Orientation: Some atoms are spherical (no directional indicators are avaiable)
and others
are non-spherical in various ways (some would be able to indicate two
directions). But
atoms are governed by quantum mechanics, and the orientation of an atom can
therefore
only be known in some (well-defined) statistical sense. The same goes for it's
position.
Conclusion: You cannot use single atoms as inertial reference frames.
all you are attempting to to negate coordinate systems based on scale..this i
particulay funny coz atoms are not the smallest scale.....?
This is so weird, Allen.
The only thing I am saying, is that you cannot use single atoms to define
your coordinate system. Of course you can use coordinate systems on
any scale you want. When analyzing collisions in a particle accelerator
you choose a coordinate system that is aligned with the beam of particles,
i.e., the tube of the accelerator - that coordinate system is defined by
macroscopic objects, but is used to handle sub-atomic particles. There
is no problem here.
You seem to agree with the rest, so I'll sign off here.
Regner
Philip...........What we are measuring is not the velocity of the earth in its
orbit but its change in velocity, in the same way that a change in velocity is
felt/ measured when you either put the brakes on a car or you give the car some
gas...
...or you turn a corner.
I have the distinct impression that Philip understands all of that.
you may not feel like your moving 100 mph but if you either put on the brakes
or give it some gas you will feel the change even as small as it is.....
Excellent Allen.
A very good summary of Newton's 1st law.
You don't feel velocity, but you do feel accelerations = forces, relative to
an inertial rest frame.
That's the reason we don't feel the 30 km/s speed of Earth in it's orbit
around the Sun.
However, there is that acceleration of 0.3776 cm/s2 to keep Earth in it's
elliptic orbit.
If Earth was a cart traveling on a track that kept it in orbit (that is, no
gravity from
the Sun), then we would all feel a centrifugal force (we would weigh more at
noon
than at midnight), because the force of the tracks would work on the Earth and
only
through it, on us. This is analogous to your example of a car.
In the actual case, where the centripetal force is caused not by a track, but
by
gravity, the centripetal force (gravity from the Sun) works on every atom of
everything, and exactly balances the fictitious centrifugal force. The result is
that we do not experience any net force from the Earth travelling in it's orbit.
Exactly as Philip wrote.
Regards,
Regner
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:10:40 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Exactly, Philip.
The Earth, and we with it, are in free fall around the Sun, with the
gravitational acceleration
by the Sun (and towards the Sun) keeping us in our elliptic orbit.
Without careful analysis, I actually thought that you might be able to
detect it, but you
are right, Philip. This is also stated in Einsteins equivalence principle which
states that
a free-falling reference frame is an inertial reference frame, and there will
therefore be no
fictitious forces (centrifugal-, Coriolis- and Euler-forces). The equivalence
principle
means that the orbit of Earth can just as well be seen as the Earth traveling
along a straight
line in a curved space - the two are equivalent - and the latter is described
by general relativity.
As a partial reply to your (much) earlier post on pseudo forces, I will note
a few facts
on them here - and there is nothing dubious about them.
Pseudo forces, more often called fictitious forces, arise when your
reference frame is
being accelerated. Let's say you set up a laboratory inside a container on a
trailer truck.
* The truck drives along a turn in the road.
* A ball is dropped from the ceiling of the container.
Imagine the container turning transparent, so that your colleague can record the
trajectory of the ball, as seen from the roadside
* your colleague will see the ball follow a parabola determined by the speed of
the truck when the ball was released, and the local acceleration of gravity.
Only one force, gravity, acts on the ball: F_obs = F_grav.
* You, however, will see the ball being acted upon by another force, since the
ball (and you...) will be accelerated towards the side of the container:
F_obs = F_grav + F_fict
This force is entirely due to the truck accelerating iin the opposite
direction,
towards the inside of the bend in the road, and we call it a fictive force.
Fictive forces are trivial (but often cumbersome) to derive as the opposite of
the acceleration of your (non-interial) reference frame.
Regards,
Regner
philip madsen wrote:
re Alan and Regners figures.
On this business of "feeling" acceleration, whilst I do not pretend to having
had enough interest in checking the figures, I still reason that its a matter
of how forces are applied, as to whether you feel anything.
In a suddenly braking car you get flung forward... because the force is at the
wheels.. But if the breaking force was applied to every molecule of the
vehicle including you, then I concieve no effect to be "felt"
If I take the orbiting space station as an example, the people inside and even
ouside are all exposed to the same accelerating forces.. They follow the orbit
of the vehicle.. when the man steps outside, he does not get flung off on a
merry plunge towards the sun or the earth for that matter. He would not "feel"
any movement. Yet he is circling the earth every few hours. Thats travelling a
fast corner.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:59 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Alan,
Thanks for your calculation, but I'm afraid you made a mistake - it's easy to
do with all those
crazy units Americans juggle with. You forget that your velocities are still
per hour, while
you have the change of velocity per second, so your result is actually:
(1) 11.43 cm/(hour*s) = 0.003175 cm/s2 (cm per second squared)
The actual change is:
(2) (30.29e5 cm/s - 29.29e5 cm/s) / (year/2d0) = 0.006338 cm/s2
We agree on the velocities and the difference in velocity - I just use
centimeter-gram-second (cgs)
units. One year is 365.26 days * 24 hours/day * 3600 s/hour = 3.155693e7 s.
The change happens during half a year (I divide year by 2, in Eq. [2]) so you
would actually
have underestimated the change (as you can see from my correction, Eq. [1]).
It is always a good idea to put your result in perspective by comparing with
another relevant
quantity - the gravitational acceleration at the surface of Earth is about
g=9.8 m/s2 on average,
which means that the acceleration along Earth's orbit is
(3) (0.006338 cm/s2) / (980 cm/s2) = 0.000006467
times the average gravitational acceleration at the surface of Earth, g.
or conversely, the acceleration along Earth's orbit is 154600 times smaller
than g. I don't
think you would notice that!
But that is obviously a tiny component of the accelerations actually involved.
Remember that (in HC) the direction of the velocity has also changed over the 6
months
and the velocities in the two instances will be exactly opposite. We can get a
rough estimate
of that acceleration by just adding the two velocities in Eq. (2), since
a-(-b) = a+b, to get:
(4) (30.29e5 cm/s + 29.29e5 cm/s) / (year/2d0) = 0.3776 cm/s2
which is then 2595 times smaller than g. Absolutely measurable, but it wouldn't
exactly
knock you over.
Regner
allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Try to move 4.5 inches within one sec without feeling/ (being abel to detect
that using current technology) it. This demonstrates the crux of the problem
with earths inertial motion. Appealing to some imaginary reason why you could
not detect it in the earth but you could with anything and everything else is
not going to work untill you can first prove that your imaginary reason exist
in reality. NO one isarguing it could be, but if we are to arive at a
conclusion and proclaim it logical we have to prove the variables along the way
not make them up as we go along. that is the fundimental difference between GC
& HC. GC accepts as proof only the effidence presented as it goes along through
the discovery process.....HC makes it up as it goes along to save it's
conclusions.....
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:38:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Here it is ..quick & rough....
18.5 miles per second average speed * 60 sec for min * 60 min for MPH =
66600MPH or
The ~ avg change over the course of a year is 3.4%* 66600= 2264.4 / 365.4
days=6.2038 MPH per day /24 hours = .25840166 MPH change per hour
/60min=.00430819444 MPH change per min ……There are 5,280 feet in a mile
.0043081944 MPH = 22.747266432 feet ( or 6.933366807864
meters) per min /60 to convert to seconds = .3791 feet per sec/ per second
change ( or .11554968 meters per sec per sec). This is a change in velocity of
~4.5 inches per sec/ per sec Or 11.43 centimeters per sec per second
There is now way to consider this amount to be inertial change negligible. The
effect rate of change regardless of how fast the earth is supposed to be
traveling because only the rate of any change from the effective inertail 0 is
measured.
This means that the velocity change of the earth going around the sun is not
just moving 4.5 inches ever second but changing by 4.5 inches per sec. During
the earths closest approach to the sun (such as traveling in a moving car)if we
experience 0 velocity change because we are traveling with the earth then
whatever the current velocity is would be felt as 0. However, the rate of
change just as in a moving vehicle would be changed if we "give it some gas"
and in this case the rate of change would be a increase ~4.5 inches every sec
every sec. This is to say we on second one we increase by 4.5 sec on second two
we have increased to 9 by second three we have increased to 13.5….the rate
makes for a exponential distance traveled curve. In any case this is the rate
of change. Assume for the sake of argument that your body could not detect
that change rate, current instrumentation however ( acelerometers) are able to
detect that amount of inertial change
to almost infinite amounts, and they are not "aetheraly" depemdent).
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not me.
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Since the earth changes its speed throught it's orbit, has anyone out there
ever calculated the actual acceleration force changes to the earth as it moves
back and fourth through its apogee and perigee elliptical orbit around the sun?
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at
www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.8/1235 - Release Date: 21/01/2008
9:39 AM
Other related posts:
