OH yea one more thing dont get Einstines 1915 GTR paper confused with "relitivity" ..I'm using them it all as "Relitivity " and "GTR" visa versa.....the precise term I suppose would be Galeliean Relitivity...but by the 1905 enstine realy only consolidated not inovated.....we can argue that but, In any case......STR came in 1905 but .most all of the the "GTR" principles were already known and used in some form een before Einstine put them all together on one peice of paper even in the 1800's........and the 1905 paper was to explain the experiments of the 1800's..... ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:19:44 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs Paul.. a free fall does not prevent you from measruing an acceleration period. Who in the world told you that....an accidemic or a theorotician certainly not anyone doing pratical real work with free falling objects becasue we can and do all day long?....That is the point to Sagnac 1913 suggest you look it up.........That assertion is based on GTR it is and was proven wrong. alas but then came STR it was invented to explain why that was still true even though experiments using light showed otherwise.....it did so by attempting to create "Inertial ref frames" for eletromagnetic radiation as well....alas but...that too was proven wrong too!... The only ones who accept & invoke it as gosple truth are theoreticans and acidemics. However, since the only other alternitive is to admit a stationary earth ......GTR & STR are thus the stus quo and will remain so untill somthing else can be found more phylosphicaly acceptable to explain why the earth only appears at the center of a universe staionary and only appears to have the/any and only motion relating to the earth measured sidrealy not annualy. STR attempted such an explination by ignoring or denying that any motion at all was and is ever measured coz it is in free fall/ inertial fames....but anyone who actualy performs an experiment with acceleration of objects in freefall knows that is absolutly not true!?..........You don't see you are using GTR axioms (statments of faith) to prop up the GTR Conclusion but you must use the GTR conclusion to "support" the axiom. GTR and STR have absolutly no foundation to them whatsoever without invoking the "Coperican principle" that was the whole point of their developement by Einstine and crew in the late 19th and early 20th century...? The problem is you can't invoke the very principle you are trying to "prove" or hold as self evident as the foundation for the theory that supposedly proves your principle...... that is not proof that is a circular falicy built opon faith in the copernican principle. the experiments show that objects in free fall the acceleration can be measured w/ort to anything outside of that free falling object.....!? Proof is in the application not in the theoretical and acidmemic retoric..... We do it all the time.... you can take a gyro that is not in motion here on the earth turn it off then turn it on once the freefalling object reaches its terminal velocity and .............wholaaaa......... i can tell you for a fact what the exact velocity and accelertaion of that free falling object is.......take that same gyro in object turn it back off and now put it into space....now turn it on...I can tell you the same things... acceleration and velocity if any and the difference between what it was before........................ You guys don't realise you are confusing text book assertions with the practical appications..... ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:17:18 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs Allen D Concerning "Title:Quantum tunneling cantilever accelerometer" -- thank you for your agreement. My reading of this document tells me that it remains, for all its sensitivity, a mass on a spring. It may indeed register the tiniest of accelerations, but it will still read zero if it is not being accelerated. Wouldn't be much use if it did would it? As I don't have any idea how you expect it to read acceleration in free fall, why don't you favour us all with a short, concise, lucid explanation of how you understand this happening. I'm sure we'd all appreciate that. And as you raised the matter, a similar explanation of the uses of your favourite super-sensitive gyroscope would, I'm sure, also be appreciated by all. In case you have any doubts here, for mine, Regner said it all. Paul D Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.