[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

HOwever even then any and all changes to that free fall can and will be 
detected even by a mass on a spring......
[PD1] Rubbish. The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb 
casing.

Careeeful Paul..  If a body is in free fall (accelerating in other words,)  and 
a side wind or an up draft or a magnetic electric force field is met, the 
spring will notice the change in speed due to these extraneous effects.. 

However I agree with you, any change of gravity to a falling body caused by the 
orbit of the sun, ie either to the sun or away,from it would not register on 
the sprung mass because all elements would feel the change simultaneously.. 

Allen is on Methodone with this one..  
"....just as in the gravitational explinations of planitary bulges" 
Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:17 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


  Allen D
  Interspersion time again. Closing comment at the bottom of this post.

   
  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Sunday, 16 March, 2008 4:42:27 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


  Paul,,
   1. I stated accelerometer and even specified a particular kind of which your 
question dose not address.....?
  [PD1] I checked out quantum accelerometers at your suggestion. I gave you a 
reference. I asked did this meet your specifications. You responded that it 
did. I stated that, while it was very sensitive, it amounted to a mass on a 
spring. I asked if you differed from this view. You did not respond. I thanked 
you for your agreement. You raised no objection. I am entitled to infer that 
you agree that it is indeed a mass on a spring.
   2. YOU GOTA BE KIDDING!?...If you do an experiment as you shown in your 
diagram with a bomb and a mass on a spring you will most assuradly without 
question be able to measure the acceleration....You should try it 
sometimes??????.....Most any highschool physics student has performed that 
experiment before ....It works on the vomit rocket too.....free fallllllllllll  
..!?
  [PD1] I don't believe you. In free fall, the reference mass will be 
accelerated at the same rate as the bomb casing and will take up a middle 
position having no displacement.
  3. The only time you could not detect the acceleration is if you 
  A. reach terminal velocity first then attempt to measure using a mass on a 
sping, then eveything is free falling together ......
  [PD1] Terminal velocity is a specious issue. I specified zero friction thus 
velocity is without limit -- excepting relativistic effects. Yes I know the 
bomb has fins -- don't get picky! However -- in passing -- if the bomb casing 
reaches terminal velocity ie there is drag, the mass will show acceleration. 
  or
  B. Try to measure the acceleration rate of the free fall itself once you are 
in the free fall...
  [PD1] Well that is the point isn't it? That's what happens when the string 
breaks.
  HOwever even then any and all changes to that free fall can and will be 
detected even by a mass on a spring......
  [PD1] Rubbish. The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb 
casing.
  so take the acceleration rate of the bomb first put it in free fall then 
measure  the rate...you cannot with the mass on the sping......however now 
change that rate of that free fall as in the case of the earth around the sun 
it is always changing.......either a positive accleration rate change (eg 
toward the sun.) or a negitive accleration rate (eg away from the sun)... 
  [PD1] Rubbish. The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb 
casing.
  Although we should not expect to detect the acceleration rate of the body in 
free fall as long as the rate NEVER CHANGES.....
  [PD1] You still won't detect a change because the mass is being accelerated 
at the same rate as the bomb casing!
  but the rate must change for a orbit....gravity does not pull on all parts of 
the earth equaly if it did then you could not have things such as weather 
patters and planitary bulges explained by non gravitaion!?................
  [PD1] Neither of these phenomena have gravitational origins -- real or non.
  However in the case of the earth since the freefall is toward then away from 
a mass there is a postive accelration curve and a negitive acceleration curve
  [PD1] Agreed. Both the mass and the bomb case will equally be subject to 
changing accelerations.
  ....just as in the gravitational explinations of planitary bulges
  [PD1] No! 
  ...and tides?????....ummmmmmmm
  [PD1] I don't understand tides well enough to comment.
  [PD1] The rest of this is so disjointed I cannot comment.
  .....changes in acceleration/ rate and pull of Gravity can be measured 
because the acceleration rate of the mass on the earth is in constent change 
througout the earths orbit and roation......IF AND ONLY IF the acceleration 
rate never changed and gravity pulled on all parts of the earth equaly then and 
only then would you not expect to measure any accelration since everything 
would be acceleration at a terminal velocity in free fall at the same rate with 
no changes ever.....but then again you would not be able to appeal to ties and 
bulges as effects of gravitaion for thoes are do to un-equal gravitaional 
forces on a mass.......Your argument must either accept that gravity is both 
acting on all mass simoltaniously or it is not....If it is qual to all parts 
simoltaniously then you have no explinations for tides/ planitary bulge,  if it 
does not then you have no arguemnt for a freefalling objects in a gravitational 
field........because a free faling object in a gravitaional feild has no 
fundimental differnce then the ocean water that is free falling toward the sun 
at the same rate as every other particle of mass on the earthis....UMMMM...Wake 
up!  

  Again....any change in inertia is and can be detected free fall or not??  
...This holds true for a bomb suspended then  relesed to free fall or in a 
orbiting body unless the orbiting body maintains a constent acceleration or 
reaches a terminal velocity, where no more acceleration or changes in velocity 
are taking place... that is not the case with the earth or the bomb....and 
gusse what it holds true not matter how many "inertial frames" you attempt to 
create.

  
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  This problem can best be resolved without muddying the waters with tides and 
oblateness of orbiting bodies. Place the bomb with embedded accelerometer in 
Earth orbit at Lagrange point 2 where it will be accelerated and decelerated, 
just as the Earth was a little earlier in time, and explain how you believe the 
mass on a spring will behave relative to the bomb casing.
  If you accelerate the bomb casing in this situation with an attached rocket, 
then the mass will be displaced because it is not being accelerated, but if the 
casing and the mass are both being accelerated and decelerated, eg by gravity, 
then there will be no displacement.
  I acknowledge one weakness in my argument. If a body is placed in orbit at 
Lagrange point 2, then I perceive that the distance between the body and the 
Earth will increase slightly on the journey from aphelion to perihelion and 
conversely it will decrease from perihelion to aphelion. My perception may be 
in error, but if it is not, then is this the effect you claim you can measure 
on the Earth?

  Paul D
    
  
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:59:40 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


  Allen D
  I should have known better than to ask supplementary questions so I guess I 
should have expected a detour which fails to arrive at the point at issue. That 
point is -- "How does a mass on a spring indicate acceleration in free fall?" 
I'm not interested in how muddy your strange logical contortions can make the 
waters, I just want an explanation of how a mass on a spring can be used to 
measure acceleration in free fall. I'm not interested in what "mathpages" says 
about ring lasers, I'm interested in hearing from you, how you would use a mass 
on a spring to measure acceleration in free fall. And anyway, why should I be 
interested in a site that has been derisively dismissed as having value only as 
a source of humour by your confederate Robert Bennet of GWW fame. Please stop 
posturing and demonstrating to everyone just how much cleverer you are than I 
and answer the simple question -- How do you use a mass on a spring to 
demonstrate and/or measure acceleration in free fall?
  Feel free to use the accompanying illustration in your explanation.
  Paul D



  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 4:00:54 PM
  Subject: [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 you’ve 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 don’t 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. 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 


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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 15/03/2008 
2:36 PM

Other related posts: