[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

Allen D
I missed the part where you calculated/showed how far the green sphere pulled 
ahead of or fell behind the red sphere from apogee to perigee and the amount 
the green sphere fell behind or pulled ahead of the red sphere from perigee to 
apogee. 
Paul D


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 3:34:16 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


Paul,
 
 
What are you talking about?..I have destroyed your argument 
completly....!?..where are you?
 
The same gravity force that acts on tides and accelerometers must acts on your 
mass/ spring for the same reasons in the same way in the earths inertial 
reference frame?.......what part do you not understand?
 
 
Does anyone else not get it?



----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:57:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


Allen D
Oops! Corrected copy below.
Paul D
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allen D
 
From Allen Daves Wed Mar 19 00:00:09 2008
OK..I said i would not, but gosh.......now that i think about it more ..this is 
just way too much fun to let die like this...... 
No sir, that will not work. You've dug yourself in too deeply for that -- 
you're going to have to dig yourself out.
 
One post earlier From Allen Daves Tue Mar 18 17:58:08 2008 you said 
2. I did not claim that "an accelerometer would indicate a change in velocity 
due to gravity". 
I have just ploughed through all of your posts on this issue and while there 
are many references which appear to be saying just that, I was unable to find 
one which did not break down into incoherence such that were I to quote it to 
you, your appalling lack of precision in expression would allow you to pretend 
that you had meant something else.
 
Here is the complete paragraph in which this quote appears -- 
2. I did not claim that "an accelerometer would indicate a change in velocity 
due to gravity" ..I stated as a fact that any change in whatever interial state 
( in GTR/STR Gravity and inertia are one and the same) you are in, no matter 
what you take as your interial "ref frame", that for a fact, in-deed and in 
application that change will and has and always will be detectable as you said 
"for ever and ever amen"!.....I have "steped up to the plate" and showed, 
demonstrated and even cited proof. It is you keep changing ("Making like an eel 
in a bucket of warm fat") the approach without ever addressing my original post 
(quantum & laser gyros/accelerometers) or my secondary post to your 
"mass/spring" diversion. I have already shown you clearly and specificly how 
and exactly why a accelerometor can and will and in fact does measure any 
change in the intertial state, in a free fall or not. The only outstanding 
issues left to be addressed if any are ones of
 scale not practical/ actual application(s)
Note this penultimate sentence -
I have already shown you clearly and specificly how and exactly why a 
accelerometor can and will and in fact does measure any change in the intertial 
state, in a free fall or not.
Now my lack of knowledge in this area gives me pause for thought, but I'll risk 
it anyway. I tried to find a definition for 'inertial state' but Google for 
once disappointed me. Perhaps everyone else calls it by a different name. Never 
mind. Pressing ahead, from context, I deduce that '...change in the inertial 
state...' means acceleration. If this is so, then I suggest that you are making 
the statement that you claim that you are not making.
 
But we digress. Returning to my closing statement from Tuesday, March 18, 2008 
8:25:47 AM, to wit -
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration by 
gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more 
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event, 
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we 
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as 
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our 
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage 
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will 
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to 
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not 
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite 
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our 
accelerometer will indicate no change in velocity.
Your direct response was -
OK quite simply your wrong ... 
followed by a ramble about tides, then you purport to show me the error in my 
closing paragraph thus -
You can't use gravity to create "Differential Forces" & effects and then use 
the same causes for thoese same forces to cause the same forces to be 
"non-differential" (wrt measurable acceleration) all at the same time...!?..I 
suppose though that is "the micicle of modern scicence"
... a complete -- but characteristic -- waffle! If for no other reason than 
that at no time have I invoked differential forces and effects and their causes 
and effects in order to show differential or non differential measurable or 
otherwise non effects or real effects that have no bearing on what we are 
talking about.
 
I will make a further simplification of my final paragraph which must throw 
your claim into stark relief. Everything as stated remains except, I define the 
accelerometer mass to be a 1 kg sphere of lead painted green and the vehicle to 
be a 1 kg sphere of lead painted red and the distance separating them to be 100 
m. I specifically remind you that the distance and time measuring devices 
situated on the red sphere remain in place and active.
 
You're pretty good at maths -- why don't you just provide some calculations 
which will show the maximum distance that the red sphere will lead or lag the 
green sphere through the time of one orbit? If you prefer, you could place the 
vehicle (the red sphere) and the accelerometer reference mass (the green 
sphere) in Earth's orbit -- at Lagrange point 2 would do -- and just crib on 
the calculations made by Regner in his post -
From Regner Trampedach Tue Jan 22 06:59:55 2008 Re: acceleration calcs. 
Paul D
 
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 12:00:09 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


OK..I said i would not, but gosh.......now that i think about it more ..this is 
just way too much fun to let die like this......
 
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:43:24 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


Allen D 
I will not be diverted by your attempted sleight of hand tricks. Point out the 
error in my closing paragraph or forever hold to silence.
Paul D
 
OK....hope this helps you and for any others to help tie in what i have already 
stated so many times before ............................or just in case you 
realy thought it was I who was avoding the issue???

"I'm going to be charitable and assume that you still do not grasp what I'm 
saying about accelerometers........................
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration by 
gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more 
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event, 
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we 
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as 
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our 
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage 
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will 
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to 
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not 
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite 
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our 
accelerometer will indicate no change in
 velocity.",,OK quite simply your wrong ...why? ..Then how exactly does the 
moon accelerate the ocean tides separate and very disticntive ( in my opinion)  
from the rest of the mass on the earth it passes over.......why, it appears to 
take the water wrt land and "leave it behind"  .........ummm  
..............Maybe it has somthing to do with "Hooke's law of elasticity"..!?  
:-)
The error in your closing paragraph.... here it is.....
You can't use gravity to create "Differential Forces" & effects and then use 
the same causes for thoese same forces to cause the same forces to be 
"non-differential" (wrt measurable acceleration) all at the same time...!?..I 
suppose though that is "the micicle of modern scicence"
Again  class, .....in MS Gravity and inertia are one and the same, and 
acceleration (& even direction too:-) is always and only wrt the "almighty"  
"INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME".....?????  Does the sun & or moon accelerate the 
tides or not ?
If  not then where do the tides come from ?..:-) If it does then how can you 
claim that you could not detect or measure an acceleration using a 
"mass/spring"/ earth v water ( im herby now invoking "Hooke's law of 
elasticity"..i think:-) of a body in free fall within "inertial ref frames"?
 
NOW..ummm.. couph.....exactly why do you think that your mass outside your 
craft would not get left behind again.........?????
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:25:47 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs


Allen D
 
It may be that I just don't understand your descriptions -- heaven knows I am 
not alone and you do little to ameliorate this -- but I'm going to proceed on 
the basis that I do understand what you are saying. I'm not going to address 
your objections point by point -- that is a quagmire that I for one have been 
bogged down in more than once. I'm going to be charitable and assume that you 
still do not grasp what I'm saying about accelerometers.
 
An accelerometer is a mass suspended in some manner, such as by a spring, in a 
vehicle which is to be accelerated. Now if we were to hang this device from a 
stationary beam in a 1 'g' gravity field, and it has a mass of 1 kg, then the 
spring will be extended, coming to a halt when the spring exerts an upward 
force of 1 kg. If the accelerometer is properly calibrated, it will read 1 kg. 
If you repeat the experiment on the Moon, it will read -- roughly -- 0.166 kg. 
If we take the accelerometer and mount it in a space vehicle in free fall, it 
will read 0 kg. If we initiate a rocket burn, and the accelerometer reads -- 
while the motor is firing -- 1 kg, then we can state that our acceleration is 
equal to what we would feel standing on the Earth -- an acceleration of one 
'g'. Thus the extension of the spring is an exact analogue for the amount of 
acceleration being experienced. It relies for its operation on Newton's first 
law of motion and Hooke's law of
 elasticity.
 
There is another way we could utilise the accelerometer to determine our 
acceleration in a space vehicle. Let us assume again that we are in space in 
free fall and we are about to initiate a rocket burn. This time, instead of 
gluing our eyes to the accelerometer, we detach the 1 kg mass and place it 
outside the vehicle in free fall with velocities matched. We initiate our 
rocket burn, and with some radar or laser device we continuously measure the 
distance to the 1 kg mass. If we integrate the readings over time, we can 
calculate our acceleration.
 
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration by 
gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more 
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event, 
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we 
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as 
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our 
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage 
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will 
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to 
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not 
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite 
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our 
accelerometer will indicate no change in
 velocity...Realy...the how exactly does the moon accelerate the ocean tides 
separate and very disticntive in my opinion from the rest of the mass on the 
earth......ummm,..Maybe it has somthing to do with "Hooke's law of 
elasticity"..idono "could be".... :-)
 
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: