[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

Again there is difference between acidemic rhetoric and real world 
applications.......The experiments were done with a cirular mirrors such that 
the emitters and the micros did not rotate wrt each other (works even in a 
vacuum no molecules to bounce around) so the moving mirrors or molecules in the 
"laser cavity" explanation is.... well quite silly
 
This is my favorite statement in the whole weki explanation..."In the case of 
ring laser interferometry there is no need for calibration. (In a sense one 
might say that the process is self-calibrating). The beat frequency will be 
zero if and only if the ring laser setup is non-rotating with respect to 
inertial space." .......LOL....although they are right about no need for 
calibration...the underlined portion is quite laughable!.......You can take any 
ring laser turn it off wait and go to some other "INERTIAL SPACE"...LOL.. 
......say the sun...... then turn it on.....and it will still  give you the 
motion wrt the earth......ummmmmm ;-(

Clue: "Inertial space" is a Relativist term & concept not only has it never 
been proven but it only has any validity whatsoever in GTR/STR!....if GTR and 
STR are wrong then there is no such monsters..period!...............You cannot 
use a relativistic axiom (statements of faith in GTR & STR) to claim an effect 
is a relativistic effect (because youʼve put your faith in that axiom & in GTR/ 
STR)then use that effect to prove relativity is Valid!?..You must first prove 
the axiom is true first external of relativity is true before you can use it to 
prove resistivity!!!!...Resistivity does not bother to do that ...why? Because 
they are stupid...NO!..Because the Axiom is self-evident!......What do we mean 
by self-evident?.......IF IT WERE NOT TRUE THEN THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE WOULD 
BE FALSE....ummmmmmmm.........I thought that is what we were trying to prove 
one way or the others.....?????? ..What part of circular nonsense do you not 
understand?

Final clue: Relativity is wrong! ....wikipedia's explanation is based on 
relativity, therefore it's explanation is........... wrong!

Science has many underlying assumptions..nothing wrong with assuming some 
things we all must....but...you would do yourself a big favor by looking for 
those and asking the question why do we assume that?.....The reason should be 
clear by now......without the Copernican principle as a underlying assumption 
there is no GTR?STR.....NO GTR/STR then absolutely no explanations for why the 
universe only looks centered on a stationary earth....

This is why at the end of the day folk like Fed Hoyle & Hawking must appeal to 
"Modesty" ...still donʼt get it?.....let me put for you in simpler 
terms.......Hawking knows a lot more physics then you do....wait for it that is 
not the punch line....here it comes..........and he fully understands that 
Relativity cannot be proven and if cannot be proven can only be assumed but 
only for philosophical reasons... 
back to wekipedia.........You see as with a lot of "popular physics"(ignorance) 
the commonly touted explanations are not only wrong but even MS Science does 
not believe that junk although you have to do be a PhD candidate or do some 
serious research on your own to find what MS really thinks/ explains it.........

Paul, you would have done far better if you appealed to mathapges, far better 
more detailed formal and "scientifically acceptable" "proper" MS 
explanation....... but I will wait for that one.........:-)


----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:44:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


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.

Other related posts: