[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:25:50 -0700 (PDT)

  Regner you state:
  No - Good old Newtonian dynamics - and, of course, the hundreds of years of 
observations
confirming Newtonian dynamics.
You really only need special relativity when relativistic speed are involved...
Inertial frames are not an invention of special relativity...... RIGHT ..the 
General theory does... (GTR) is what makes inertia and gravity equivalent not 
Newton?s dynamics ! Now where does Newton do that and if that is not done then 
the argument against a free fall in a grav field falls flat on its 
face....because in Newtonian Dynamics absolute motion is not dependent on 
inertial frames!?
  Then again you state at the bottom....
  Nope - we are only using Newtonian dynamics here.
  It has nothing to do with relativity and I can't figure out why you all think 
so.
  Newton did not state that a acceleration in free fall. ON the contray Netwon 
belived in absolute motion. Absolute motion is not dependent nor hidden in 
inertial reference frames! The only arguments for that come from the 
equivalence principle asserted by Eienstein that makes the assertion that Grav 
and inertia are one and the same!..........So exactly what in Newtonian?s world 
of dynamics are you appealing to as an objection to the fact that acceleration 
of a free fall can be detected?! 
   
  Regner, your obviously greatly confused here,..Newton accepted absolute 
motion...that is and always has been my argument you are attempting to arguing 
that a motion acceleration cannot be detected in free fall the explanation of 
which did not exist at the time of Newton...Good old Einstein did that with GTR 
that I have proven is logically and demonstratably untenable and absolutely 
false!?
   
  Okay, Allen. Look carefully at this figure and tell me which panel, a) or b) 
has
1) The same direction of the arrow in all 7 instances. B...... but wrt 
what?!..ummmmm
2) different directions of the arrow in each of the 7 instances. A but wrt 
what?!...ummmmm
The red lines obviously show the direction towards the centre of the dotted 
circle. And all this little exercise relates to detection of an acceleration in 
a grav free fall how exactly?!....I answered you, now you tell us how exactly 
can A observably demonstrate that change in orientation (&wrt to what?) without 
demonstrating a change in direction (wrt the same "what") that is by definition 
.....wait for it......an ...ACCELERATION................TaDa.....!?
   
  Mechanics. the time rate of change of velocity wrt magnitude or direction;  
see also attached.............
   
  In your response to me here, you are attempting to have your cake and eat it 
too...You want to make a distinction between the acceleration and the change in 
orientation....?
  Yes - just as I would like to distinguish between green and red. If you could 
demonstrate that we are discussing to fundamentally different things as is red 
and green in the first place that would be one thing. However, The fact that 
acceleration and a change in orientation could ever possibly logically or 
demonstrateably be isolate wrt each other (a change in orientation from a 
acceleration) is what you must show first not just play with words.?..sure you 
understand the difference between conceptual difference and a real 
difference?!. Demonstrate not the difference in concepts but how you have a 
change in orientation wrt a body in free fall while not having a change in 
acceleration. I have repeatedly demonstrated both in reality and logically by 
definition of the terms you cant have one without the other!? So the 
"distinction" (wich is only a difference in the semantics about the mechanics 
not the mechanics itself!?) you are attempting to make is not only moot but
 completely irrelevant! See also attached gryo diagram. Any difference you 
assert does not negate that fact that one demands the other!? Therefore, your 
assertion about detecting a acceleration in free fall is completely false. 
  An "acceleration" around an axis is a torque, and a "velocity" around an axis 
is an
angular momentum.
The difference between the two is that:
1) acceleration and velocity describe the translational motions of the centre 
of mass of an object
2) torque and angular momentum (rotation) describes rotation along an axis 
going through the
centre of mass.
The former moves the whole body, and the latter moves opposite parts of the 
body in opposite
directions.
  This is a semantic difference in the two conceptually in one head. However,  
and again you must demonstrate how you can have one ( change in direction) 
without the other ( an acceleration by defintion)...Without that little 
demonstration your argument here is nothing more then dancing around irelivant 
nonsense, in fact your whole explanation is completely irrelevant!? . to claim 
that we cannot detect the acceleration of and in a grav free fall you must 
demonstrate......
  How can you can have a detectable change in orientation wrt a body (in 
grav/inertial free fall) while not having a detectable acceleration wrt the 
same body.....OH yea......and without that little bit of information ( a 
detectable change in orientation around another body) you cannot even claim 
that your body even has a orbit period!..... around anything real or 
relative............Without a detectable change in orientation you cant lay 
claim to any motion period real or relative...Oh but wait you say we can do so 
by looking at the background stars......well then..... looking at the back 
ground stars (external of your frame of refer so as to give you frame of 
reference a reference frame) still does not tell you which one of all those 
things has any motion.......If you don????t know that you have a motion wrt 
another body then you can????t claim observable motion of the background stars 
as evidence for what is in question that you don????t know and are trying to 
figure out
 in the first place!? If the argument is real v relative motions are 
meaningless wrt each other as Fred Hole does then, so to is the argument 
against a absolute rest frame! ..Why?...Simple, because either way not matter 
what the "truth" of motion is your own argument prevents such knowledge or 
validation of either motion. If real v relative motions are meaningless wrt 
each other then how can you use "relative motion" to argue against the 
possibility of an absolute rest frame thus absolute motion?..The axiom is 
itself self-defeating in that it declares itself as meaningless wrt the 
alternative?! If they are meaningless wrt each other then how can it be a valid 
argument against it?...... Lets go one step further ...so 1.how is your theory 
falseifable and 2. How does it support invalidity for something else when it 
can????t even demonstrate validity about itself!? So now you all are back to 
square one....In a circular or elliptical orbit how do you know that there is 
ANY
 MOTION (orbital) at all, real or relative?! See also attached:
   
  ....Keep reading....
  A uniform gravitational field cannot change the orientation of a body, 
whatever shape it has.
The change of direction of the Earth's gravitational field from one end to the 
other of, e.g., the
space shuttle, is neglible and will not keep the shuttle horizontal with 
respect to Earth - attitude
thrusters at the front or the back has to be employed. OK..yes and what has 
this got to do with anything?!
We are discussing detection of an acceleration of a body in free fall in a grav 
field. I say we do so coz motion is absolute ( Newton & his dynamics agree with 
me), you say we do not because grav and inertia are one and the same but you 
can only make that assertion via the GTR & the equivalence principle of 
reltivity  NOT NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS!?
  That is the problem in all your explinations you attempt acrobatics with your 
right hand  hoping no one pays attention to your left and then say to everyone 
"see"...????
  Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star 
different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant 
star.....remember inertia is the force of gravity acting on a body in GTR .... 
it is due to those inertial fields that we observably measure when we detect 
any accelerations ..How do we isolate the gravitational/ inertial field of a 
near body from all the others out there that supposedly cause the reaction 
(inertia) in the first place? If you claim that the inertial /gravitational 
field only pertains to the "Inertial reference frame" such that the distant 
mass do not significantly affect the inertial field of the "inertia reference 
frame"...Then please explain what keeps the orbit of the bodies from 
collapsing?!........ If gravity is the force pulling both bodies toward each 
other then where is the other vector force ( gravity/ inertial force that 
causes the bodies to move away from each other) coming from to balance the
 motions so as to create a stable orbit?!.. If the inertial field of the 
distance stars do not significantly affect the inertial state of the body in 
orbit (it????s "inertial reference frame") then while gravity is pulling the 
two bodies toward each other how exactly is gravity also the source of the 
inertial momentum away from that body ..you know ......that supposedly is in 
balance with the pull from that body to create the orbit!? And if the inertial 
fields of distant bodies does affect the "inertial ref frame" so as to produce 
the force that keeps the propensity of the orbiting body to move away from the 
body being orbited,...... then how in your wildest dreams can the inertial 
affects of acceleration in free fall not be detected by the changes wrt those 
same exact distant inertial/ gravitational fields that force us to detect the 
acceleration (inertial effect) when not in free fall?!?!?! If inertia is not 
gravity then how does gravity prevent inertia? An Acceleration
 is a measure of the inertial effect (the change of the state of motion wrt any 
given body)... The non-delectable acceleration in a free fall assertion only 
makes sense if and only if Inertia and Gravity are one and the same. If they 
are not one and the same then the whole non detectable acceleration in a free 
fall argument takes off like a lead balloon ... but if on the other hand they 
are one and the same thing it then creates whole new sets of problems and new 
even more exotic contradiction in terminologies and concepts........at best it 
only creates a situation whereby it robs Peter (one part of the MS theory) to 
pay Paul (some other part of the MS theory )...
   
  Finally pleas tell us all ..I know i have been waiting ...... If there is not 
way to detect the earth??s acceleration around the sun in free fall because 
grav is pulling any accelerometer & mass that we would use to observe equally 
to all parts then how does that same grav in that exact same inertial field 
create an observable and different acceleration with the tides?..You do agree 
the tides are observable and accelerated by the sun & moons inertial 
gravitational field ryt..?!......If it does then you can??t claim the 
acceleration in free fall cant be detected! If the tides are not accelerated by 
the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a big problem don??t you?!.....


Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:   Me in black.
    - Regner

Allen Daves wrote:            
    Regner, you have claimed on multiple occasions that, "Science is not the 
knowledge - it's the method."


That is because it hasn't changed.
        You keep giving me the same assertions about free falling accelerations 
in a grav field.( External of any valid practical applications of 
such)........I ask the question then......what do you keep basing your 
assertions on?..Might it be relativity....ummm...?


No - Good old Newtonian dynamics - and, of course, the hundreds of years of 
observations
confirming Newtonian dynamics.
You really only need special relativity when relativistic speed are involved...
Inertial frames are not an invention of special relativity.

        I did read carefully but you don?t seem to grasp all you are attempting 
is playing both sides of the fence and jumping back in fourth between concepts 
and ref frames as if you had already demonstrated they were independent of each 
other?......The difference/ independence is what you must demonstrate first 
before you claim them as validating the conclusions/ assertions of the so 
called falsifyable theories in question...I urge you to read very carfully......


I can't make sense out of this so I'm afraid I can't answer.
         
   1. A change in direction of velocity/acceleration of your orbital laboratory 
(reference frame)
does NOT mean a change in the orientation of that orbital lab. This is a answer 
that has no bases in any physical foundation it is utter nonsense. If that were 
true then what would constitute a change in the orientation of that lab and 
again wrt what!? You stated a gyro..how does a gyro both give you a change in 
orientation without having an acceleration toward the new orientated direction!?



Okay, Allen. Look carefully at this figure and tell me which panel, a) or b) has
1) The same direction of the arrow in all 7 instances.
2) different directions of the arrow in each of the 7 instances.
The red lines obviously show the direction towards the centre of the dotted 
circle.


        In your response to me here, you are attempting to have your cake and 
eat it too...You want to make a distinction between the acceleration and the 
change in orientation....?


Yes - just as I would like to distinguish between between green and red.
        Acceleration, including change of direction of acceleration, is 
measured by accelerometers.
Changes of orientation of you lab/reference-frame, is measured by a gyroscope. 
If not, then what I sated already stands,....... you can not claim a change to 
be real and yet non measurable by virtue of measuring/demonstrating that 
change. How do you have a change in orientation without an acceleration in that 
orientation!? 


An "acceleration" around an axis is a torque, and a "velocity" around an axis 
is an
angular momentum.
The difference between the two is that:
1) acceleration and velocity describe the translational motions of the centre 
of mass of an object
2) torque and angular momentum (rotation) describes rotation along an axis 
going through the
    centre of mass.
The former moves the whole body, and the latter moves opposite parts of the 
body in opposite
directions.

A uniform gravitational field cannot change the orientation of a body, whatever 
shape it has.
The change of direction of the Earth's gravitational field from one end to the 
other of, e.g., the
space shuttle, is neglible and will not keep the shuttle horizontal with 
respect to Earth - attitude
thrusters at the front or the back has to be employed.

I think your issues below are more or less repeats and addressed above.

        Any change in orientation by definition demands as change in 
acceleration..thus you cannot claim that acceleration and orientation are 
independent/isolated from each other and yet that is what you are attempting to 
do here!? 
  A. Not only would that require inconsistency but an outright contradiction in 
terms. 
  B. You attempt to make the orbital laboratory the ref frame for velocity/ 
acceleration but then you attempt a slight of hand by claiming the body that is 
being orbited is the reference frame for orientation!?.... ....both the lab and 
the body of orbit have acceleration and orientation to something...again wrt 
what? Any orientation must by definition require an acceleration ..just because 
the acceleration takes place within the circumference of a body does not make 
is any less an acceleration...that is like saying a orbit is not the same 
circular motion as a spinning top. Changing direction within ones own radius 
requires the same kind of acceleration force & spacial requirements as does 
changing direction external of ones own radius! We can conceptualize a 
difference between the two but in name only. You cannot even attempt to claim 
that those are somehow fundamental two different actions!?...(ie centrifical 
force of a orbit is somehow different then that of a spin) As
 such, you cannot appeal to the orbiting lab as the ref frame for acceleration 
and then turn around and appeal to the orbited body as the ref frame for 
orientation so as to avoid admitting that there is a measurable change in 
acceleration to the lab!
  The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your assertions first before you 
invoke that assertion based on a theory that would make such nonsensical 
claims, not use that theories conclusions to validate that theories arguments!?
  
Both change of velocity (=acceleration) and change of orientation are measured 
with respect
to their values a moment ago - that's how you measure change... Jumping back 
and forth between two different ref frames via claiming acceleration and 
orientation are two completely different and isolated motions does not prove 
that such absurdities in different frames exist in the first place. A change in 
orientation is a change in some direction!?..which by definition requires a 
change in velocity to that direction ..which by definition is an acceleration...
  You cannot logically appeal to the lab for one ref frame then jump to another 
different ref frame when talking about orientation!....both the lab and the 
parent body have orientation and velocity/acceleration. If that is not your 
attempt then your explanations have only prolonged the obvious fact that you 
have as of yet explained how you can have a change in orientation without an 
acceleration wrt the same body..and or how a circular orbit can have a real 
quantifyable change in orientation without having a detectable acceleration.
   
   2. if your lab is free-falling in a gravitational field, everything inside 
your lab will be free-
falling in exactly the same way as your lab. That means you can NOT measure that
gravitational field unless you look out the window and look at the Earth 
whizzing by.
All experiments (that don't look outside your lab) would behave exactly the 
same as if
they had been performed at a constant velocity with no gravitational fields 
nearby.
  This is the text book assertion, however;
  A. It is not consistent with real world application. Rockets put into 
hyperbolic orbit can because there is a change of the craft wrt the 
gravitational field....That is the whole point to gravity maps and inertia 
itself...When satellites are sent to land on comets they have to take into 
consideration the irregular gravitational pull due to the irregular shape ( non 
circular..which is the same as a rocket in hyperbolic orbit around a circular 
body) . A change in a hyperbolic orbit is the same thing. As for being able to 
detect it internal to the craft it is done so by saganc gyroscopes that do not 
need to look outside the craft to detect the motions/ various


You obviously don't know what a hyperbolic trajectory is...
And you can, of course, accelerate something, even though it is immersed in a 
gravitational field.
When a rocket accelerates from using it's thrusters, everything inside the 
rocket 'feels' that accele-
ration (but not the gravity) and this is the acceleration that would register 
on an accelerometer.

Gravity maps are measured either by timing pinging signals between Ground and 
craft, or between
two crafts flying in tandem - you still cannot use an accelerometer in a 
space-craft to measure the
gravity it is exposed to, however much you would like to.
  Have a look at, e.g., the Doppler Gravity Experiment onboard the Lunar 
Prospector.
If they could, I am sure they would rather have performed the experiment with a 
simple
accelerometer. Mission home-page.
  You can also take a look at the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment 
(GRACE)
which uses two identical spacecraft flying in tandem. They also have 
accelerometers
on board because they have to accurately account for any other-than-gravity 
accelerations
of the two craft. Mission home-page.
        
  accelerations.....!?
B. for all the theory in the world for what is and is not gravity...even if you 
assumed that were true for any homogenous smooth gravitational field itself any 
change within that field is, this includes any attempt to change direction or 
movement away from or toward the felid itself, If you could not detect those 
changes there would be no inertia by Definition!? Inertia and gravity are the 
same........changes wrt grav field is inertia...what in the world are we 
describing if nothing can be detected....!?
   
  3.. You have claimed science is a method ....and GTR/STR is falsifyable but 
you keep appealing to conclusions of those theories to make the arguments for 
those same theories....HIT YOUR METHOD IS A CIRCULAR FALLACY....


Nope - we are only using Newtonian dynamics here.
         
  4. What you seem to miss is that HC/AC is based not only on that same 
"method" as Relativity but is itself only has any possible validity if 
relativity were true .....


It has nothing to do with relativity and I can't figure out why you all think 
so.
        You keep giving me the same text book answers that are on trial 
!?..........The real world applications as shown in MM MG and saganac and 
results from those simply do not match.....I think we will have to wait for you 
to confront "judgment day".( The day you really start to tackle MM, MG and 
sagnac et al and make the case for STR/GTR before you use STR/GTR to 
"interpret" the data from...thus invoking a circular fallacy)


Big words...

    - Regner

      

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:05:49 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Close, Allen, but no cigar!

Please read the following carefully.

A change in direction of velocity/acceleration of your orbital laboratory 
(reference frame)
does NOT mean a change in the orientation of that orbital lab.

Acceleration, including change of direction of acceleration, is measured by 
accelerometers.
Changes of orientation of you lab/reference-frame, is measured by a gyroscope.

Both change of velocity (=acceleration) and change of orientation are measured 
with respect
to their values a moment ago - that's how you measure change...

If your lab is free-falling in a gravitational field, everything inside your 
lab will be free-
falling in exactly the same way as your lab. That means you can NOT measure that
gravitational field unless you look out the window and look at the Earth 
whizzing by.
All experiments (that don't look outside your lab) would behave exactly the 
same as if
they had been performed at a constant velocity with no gravitational fields 
nearby.

    - Regner

Allen Daves wrote:       Regner,
   
  1.  I just put you in check mate and you still don?t get it?...............At 
the end of the day if you claim the orbiting body in a free fall circular 
orbit,  cannot be deteceted but accelerates because it changes directions 
constantly. Then you even use as your argument that you will know that you 
change direction because a gyroscope (mechanical or electronic take your pick)  
will show you as you orbit .....ok! ...Then the acceleration must be detectable 
by defintinon!....because acceleration as you said is includes a change in 
direction!?....Well then if even a mechanical gyro shows you changing direction 
and moving around in a circular orbit (pick any inertial ref frame)......Then 
how in the world can you claim that the acceleration in a free fall cannot be 
detected!?  That was the whole point to my comment a change is only a change if 
somthing changes.  An acceleration demands a change by deffintion...You cant 
have it both ways a change in a free fall that is not
 detectable and yet proven by vertue of detecting that change!?
  2. On the other hand in a elliptical orbit not only would you have the same 
problem but now you also have a change in the inertial field itself not just a 
detectable change in directional .
  3.The point i originally put forward is that a Acceleration can be detected 
even within a free fall...you say no but your explanations ultimately led you 
to invoke a gryro around the inertial ref frame to give you a change in 
direction so that you could claim an acceleration in a circular orbit!?..well 
if the gyro gives you a change in direction then you have just detected the 
acceleration of the orbiting body in free fall around that inertial reference 
frame...!? 
  2. As for the difference between a circular orbit and a elliptical orbit the 
acceleration in the circular orbit stays constant it does not change. In the 
elliptical orbit not only is there acceleration 
  However, the acceleration rate itself is in constant change due to the 
orbiting body changing its distance and orientation to the gravitational/ 
inertial field itself. 
  All im claiming is that a change in inertial state no mater what that state 
is or what inertial frame of ref you use can and is detectable. You just made 
my case.
  1. for both circular and elliptical orbits the change in 
direction/accelerations is detected by the accelerometer & or gyroscopes in 
both.
  2. For elliptical orbits the gravitational field itself dose not remain 
constant wrt the orbiting body as it does in the circular orbit... that is 
always detectable in free fall or not.... 
  
Please if anyone does not understand what just happened here please state 
that.....
   
  
 
  ----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:04:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Allen, You very quickly degenerate into non-sensical conglomerates of words.

A gravitational field is an inertial reference frame, as much as a shower is an 
apple.
However; 
A reference frame that is free-falling in a gravitational field is an inertial 
reference frame.
But that is a very different statement.

You have no need for absolute space in order to tell a change in direction.
From Wikipedia:
  "Devices that sense rotation in 3-space, without reliance on observation of 
external objects.
   Classically, a gyroscope consists of a spinning mass, but it also includes 
"Laser Gyros"
   utilizing coherent light reflected around a closed path. Gyros require 
initialization by some
   other means, as they can only measure changes in orientation."

       - Regner


Allen Daves wrote:       Purple.........
   
  
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:01:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Allen Daves wrote: 
       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.....


  You say you agree and you still get it wrong! No, im arguing using 
relitivities own precepts..The gravitaionl feild is the only frame of 
ref....you cant claim a direction change wrt to the inertial feid if no change 
in the feild exist.... That is my point. In inertial ref frames  the direction 
is wrt what?..
   
   The speed is constant.
The velocity changes <=> acceleration.
In a perfectly circular orbit only the direction of the velocity changes. That 
would and can only be true as long as you have a absolute ref frame from wich 
to gauge direction from!  ..but that is my postion not relitivities...you cant 
have it both ways....only relitive inertial ref frames but absolute changes in 
direction at the same time... 
Direction can always be measured with your gyroscope, whether quantum or not. 
That is the point of absolute space time v relitvities version.......by the way 
that gyro you mention will always show that change in direction wrt earth/stars 
(spining earth or rotaing stars) reguardless of what inertial frame it is 
in.........ummmm

  Ref:
  Ives, 1938. Op cit., P 299
  Ives, HE 1938, Jrnl. of the optical Soc. of Am 28:296
  Dufour, A & F prunier, 1937. Competes Rendus, 204, 1925. also 1942
  
Acceleration of your reference-frame can only be measured internally if your
accelerometer is not affected by the force accelerating your reference-frame.
In the case of gravity only - both are accelerated by the same force and you 
can't
tell the (absolutely real) acceleration using your accelerometer. that is my 
point!...without absolute space, the only valid frame of ref is the inertial 
feild, as such there is no way to define a change in "direction" within a 
inertial ref frame except wrt to a change in how the gravitaional feild is 
acting on the orbiting body in question! 
  What you do instead, is looking out the window and measure with respect to
something external, e.g., the stars. You have to do that with a lot of stars so 
that
you don't accidentally pick one that is accelerated itself.
  What? According to relitivity the frame is inertial and only valid within 
itself...so which is it?
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)......
        but direction it self has requirments one of which is ..direction 
requires dimention....ummmm 



  The "sentence" above makes no sense at all. You are just obfuscating as usual,
and I have therefore not read the rest of your post.
   
  Ok i will make it more clear for you........There can be no calim to a change 
of direction  without somthing to get  direction from!? ....  Points even 
within inertial ref frames are mathematical abstractions that have no dimention 
in and of themselfs you can't get direction or a change in direction (which 
requires all 3 dimentions)  from a dimensionless point!? From relitivities 
precepts the center of a body in a inertial ref frame has no way of determining 
direction in and of itself!...That is why in GTR/STR it claims the 
inertial/gravitaional feild as the frame of re:......If then the feild being 
the ref frame then there can be no claim to change in a circular orbit, the 
feild remains constant in a circular orbit but not in a eliptical  ......You 
can't claim the center of your inertial ref frame for direction. A point or 
center of a inertial ref frame is not a direction nor can it give you direction 
therfore it cant change. That is why Relitiviy uses the inertatial
 feild as the ref frame.  You must have something else in your universe/ ref 
frame outside your "center"  "dimentionless point" to first give you the 
nessisary dimentions so as to be able to change direction from some place to 
some place?.. ..
   
    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..? 
   
  A circular oribt Changes direction but only in absolute space/RFs. In 
relitivity, a circular orbit has no meaningfull way to calim  a change in 
acceleration because in relitiveity the only way to define a ref frame is the 
inertial feild itself not direction.
   
   
  I'm only demonstrating relitivities inconsitency and problems not my 
obfusucation techniques.....


      - Regner

Allen.....



          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. 








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


  



  







GIF image

image/pjpeg

PNG image

Other related posts: