[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:44:07 +0000 (GMT)
Allen D
OK -- I looked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect and it confirms
my understanding of Sagnac Effect (at least that part which I understand does
-- the maths is beyond me) and I can't see why you would quote this in defence
of your assertion that a quantum tunnelling accelerometer will indicate
acceleration in free-fall.
You did not quarrel with my simplification that ' ... it is still a mass on a
spring!' so I discern your acceptance. I still want an explanation from you as
to how a mass on a spring in a falling bomb case can indicate the local value
of g (friction = zero).
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 13 March, 2008 6:19:44 PM
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.
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
