[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Philip,
That is the whole point of the discussion is it not, to determine if
measurements, space and motion is absolute or just all relative?....But, you
cannot assume the very thing you are attempting to prove as the justification
for assuming it!? You only have WYSIWYG. Without something to tell you that
that particular WYSIWYG is an illusion then any conclusions based on it might
be an illusion is just a valid as aliens might be at the heart of all our
social woes....!? If you are going to stick to science then don’t claim "it
could be" as evidence and certainly not proof or insist that it is that way.
First prove it is, then show me how "it could be". Relativity has this all
backwards and so does all of its "explanations". In relativity you must first
assume relativity is true first before you can even begin to understand how it
could all be that way...??? Otherwises, what is shown in reality is that no
matter how many or what you claim as a "ref frame"
the earth/stars ( spinining earth or rotaing stars) always provide the only
frame by which all other frames are measured by, no matter how many or what
kinds of differnt ref frames you create, here on earth or anywhere else "in
space"!
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:11:39 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen I do not get any coherence from you here.
Are you trying to rewrite the physics book..
Acceleration is change of direction or velocity. end of story. A body in
circular motion is accelerating.. You can't change that.
Also you rubbish and joke about relativity and yet try to call on it often in
support of your jokes..
As regards relativity, I support practical relativity so long as anything
Einstein or his supporters says does not come into it.. The real relationship
between moving bodies. To bring in frames of reference is a convenience for
calculations .Like I said to the passenger in the jet, the ball dropped 18
inches. . It is not a reality.. Well it does not have to be a reality..
Practical relativity.. When you drop a ball in a moving train it only looks
like it moves in a straight line.. It doesn't.. Its an illusion... Just as
seeing the sun rise could be an illusion.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
Talking about Heinstein, I read a sensible interpretation today. I was
searching for the speed of gravity, and this article will cop some extreme
criticism from me later, but the author said this, which is quite clear,
"The speed of light is a physical constant equal to exactly 299,792.458
kilometers per second (km/s), or about 186,471 miles per second. The assumption
that gravity also travels at this speed is implicit in Einstein's general
theory of relativity, formulated in 1915, which recognizes the universal
character of the propagation speed of light and the consequent dependence of
space, time, and other mechanical measurements on the motion of the observer
performing the measurements.
Notice, that! The mechanical measurements are dependent on the motion of the
observer making the measurements....
In the jumbo I measure the exact length of the drop of the ball as 18 inches..
Yet that is a lie.. It dropped a curve, perhaps a mile long.
And of course those measurements are illusions to the eye. They are wrong or
not according to the reality.
Yet the critics of the MM experiments, twist this statement and say in reverse,
that the interference showed up because the change in mechanical measurements
are real..
Bonkers..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
in blue,
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:28:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen, I'm afraid you got your accelerations in circular motions a bit wrong.
The definition of acceleration, a, is "change of velocity". Now a velocity, v,
is a
vector and it has both a direction and a magnitude - the magnitude of a velocity
is called speed.
Absolutly right...but wrt what?.......in a perfectly circular orbit where the
velocity remains constant..... but direction it self has requirments one of
which is ..direction requires dimention....ummmm
From that knowledge we see that there are two different ways of changing
a velocity (and having an acceleration): by changing either speed or direction.
Right! but again wrt what?..
In a perfectly circular motion, the speed is constant, but the direction
changes
continuously. realy!? wrt what?...And which way does the velocity change?
The velocity does not change in a perfectly circular because the body is within
the gravitaitonal/ inertial feild and it keeps the same orentitaion to that
inertial feild. In GTR/STR the inertail/gravitational feild is used as the Ref
frame, therfore you cannot claim a change in velocity or oreintaion to that
feild/ frame of ref. "along the orbit" what is the orbit wrt?...does the feild
strenth remain constent?....YES then you cannot claim a change to somthing that
does not change!
The velocity remains constant wrt the gravity feild. further, the velocity can
never changes wrt to the center of anything? If you calim the center of the
body itself then, as long as the obiting body stays tangetal to the center
point of the parent body you can't calim any change direction from that a
point...! Circular directions are meaningless to those mathematical abstracts
(Points)....... A radial orentiation to a common point (orbit) does not and
cannot consititue a change in direction, unless you argue for absolute space/
time...!!! Why? Because w/o absolute space/t ime directions are meaningless.
all is relitive but relitive to what?..A point has no dimention therfore no way
of defining a direction only a orentation..but then again as long as the
satilite remains tangital there is no cahnge in orentaion! Relitive to a
"point" or the center point of a parenet body being orbitied, every direction
that is tangital to that center point is the same
direction/orentation w/o somthing to reference external of the point!
There can be no calim to a change of direction without Absolute space time to
get directio from!? In either the free fall toward earth or the tangital vector
both are equal and thus there is no acceleration by defintion.... Points are
mathematical abstractions that have no dimention in and of themselfs you cant
get direction or change direction (which requires dimention) from a
dimensionless point!? You have to have something in your universe outside your
"dimentionless point" to first give you dimention so as to be able to change
direction ????.....Ahh but we are discussing "inertial ref frames" so you can't
use background stars (objects outsise your ref frame) to give your reference
frame a frame of reference !?( directions)......umm
Towards the centre of
the circular motion. Instead of following the tangent to the circle (as it would
without the acceleration) the object is pulled in towards the centre. Since
acceleration is proportional (by mass) to the force, F=m*a, (and m is a simple
number, i.e., not a vector) it follows that the force is also towards the
centre of
the motion. It is a so-called "centripetal force".
For a perfectly circular motion, the magnitude of the acceleration (the
length of
the acceleration vector) is constant, but changes direction through 360° in one
period of the orbit. The force is always perpendicular to the velocity in this
case. velocity wrt what?.....The velocity of the body never changes wrt to any
point or the feild in a circular orbit ..you can't calim a change when there is
no change by defintion!........ In elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic orbits
you will also have some acceleration an aceleration is a change by defintion..
you can't have a change that is not a change!?....... but wrt what?..
You call it "along the orbit" what is the orbit?...Does the feild strenth
remain constent in eliptical orbits?....NO!.Not in a eliptical orbit...therfore
a change must exist by defintion.....The velocity nor direction of the orbiting
body never changes wrt the center of the parent body in a circular orbit,
however, it must with elitpical orbits by defintion..?
along the orbit, but the force and acceleration is still towards the centre (or
focal
point) of the orbit. Not in eliptical orbits it is not sagnac shows that.....
In those cases the force is not perpendicular to the velocity.
I hope that helped clear-up the concept of acceleration.
The confussion here is yours, a circular orbit could not change velocity..if it
ever did wrt what?..Where a eliptical orbit must do so but wrt the body and its
feild being orbited in a real way. In fact there is no difference between a
Rocket that launches into a parabolic or hyperbolic orbits and a planet in an
eliptical orbit.....The body first moves against or away from the bodies feild
streangth and then with/ towards the feild.....We can and do always measure
that change! beteen perogiee and apogee w/o referenceing anything outside the
craft itself every time, we can detect it......! Again you can't calim a real
change if there is no change to measure in reality. If a change exist in
reality then it must have a real quantity that can be measured. If it cannot be
measured in reality then it can only exist as an imagintion/ relitivistic,
manthematicl, abstraction of nonsense!. That is the difference between living
with mathematical abstracts and
living in reality.
- Regner
Allen Daves wrote:
attachment....
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:43:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
1. Paul you obviously did not read my previous post Friday, 14 March, 2008
4:00:54 PM...????
2. I suggest you consult your local HS or coldge Physic lab...?.....Your
objections make no sense in any pratical application of physics as it relates
to Acceleration.everything i said stand...and you can do it yourself if you
like most HS students who have taken physics have.....There is no difference
between traviling at a constent 100 mpH or 0 mph as far as inertial
/gravitational feilds and acceleration are concerned..????.... The bomb with
the spring accelerometer suspended in air has the same inertia in the same way
that travailing at 100 mPH there is no difference between the two….nor is there
any difference in a bomb on a airplane flying at 100 MPH then suddenly the bomb
is dropped the state of acceleration existed for the bomb before it was dropped
it had no acceleration…............It makes no difference if the bomb is
travailing at 100 or 0 MPH the drop changes the velocity/ changes the
acceleration…period!…….. That is and always is
and can be detected!….Traviling toward the sun is not any more different
anymore then a rocket that climbs at the gravity rate of gravity while Gravity
attempts to pull the rocked back and then then begins to free fall back to
the earth..........you can most certainly detect the acceleration changes....
....There is no difference in a orbiting body!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....All of the
motion is still toward or away from the grav feild ( toward is less
resistnace/inertia, away from is more resitance/inertia) and that can always be
detected no matter what Inertial ref frame you are in!!!.. The mass on the
spring may not detect the 100 or 0 mph constant velocity but any change is by
definition an acceleration / inertial change and will be detected in any frame
of reference….It makes no difference that the bomb is in the earth’s "inertial
ref frame" or that "Gravity pulls on all objects equally". When the bomb is
suspended Gravity is puling on the bomb
and the spring/mass accelerometer "equally". Further, when it is dropped the
only force acting on it is still Gravity and yet we can detect that drop with
the accelerometer….why?.....Because the state of inertia has changed….. ummmm
the whole free fall suggesting is not only pure conjecture of relativity but
worse, it can and is shown to be completly false in any and every "ref frame"
you can perform it in..!?
3. You still don’t get it.!?..It is the fact that gravity is not pulling on all
parts of every atom on the earth equally at the same time that is the reason
for tides and bulges and cyclones (clockwise and counter)...That being the case
you cannot make the argument that gravity is pulling on the mass/spring at the
exact same way as it is the bomb....WHY?..coz A. we can measure it in real
life, your assertions and objections are nonsense...! B. If gravity pulled
everything equal simultaneously then there could be no tides or bulges do to
Grav cos gravity would be pulling the rest of the planet at the same degree
thus there could be NO VARIATIONS IN GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS (anywhere on the
planet )BECAUSE GRAVITY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY VERIATIONS TO AFFECT ANYTHING!? If
the gravitational forces of the moon and sun all pull at the same rate to every
particle on the earth then the earth would only orbit the barrycenter of all
three bodies but with absolutely no
bulges or tides whatsoever due to the moons gravity pulling extra on the water
as it passes over!? …You really should read my post on gravity what is it and
how it works.
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:17:40 PM
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: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: 16/03/2008
10:34 AM
Other related posts:
