[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 18:34:55 +1000
The reasons given thus far have been based on the equivalence principle. ,
However in your last post you attempt to appeal to Newtonian
dynamics?.............. Allen Hello
The reasons given were that a constant velocity in circular orbit (thats
acceleration you know) cannot be detected by a spring accelerometer. The
circular motion can be detected by a gyro.. And from this we can say that we
are accelerating at constant velocity in a prescribed curve.. Why do you keep
saying that anyone has mentioned any funny equivalence principles or other..???
Its plain Newtonian physics. Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:12 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Regner,
I wanted to take some time and boil the issues we have been looking at over
the last several weeks and the last post down to a much more condensed and
simpler set because I don’t know exactly where you are in your readings of all
the various post out there,.........I answered you questions In my last post
and the attached diagrams still apply here...
The issue is.......Why we should or could not detect the acceleration of a
mass in a free fall is
I say that yes we should be able to detect the acceleration of the earth or
any body in a orbit if the motion exist. further i assert a difference between
real and relitive motions and state that the two are decernable and
detectable....You say nay we cannot and should not expect to detect that
acceleration...
The reasons given thus far have been based on the equivalence principle. ,
However in your last post you attempt to appeal to Newtonian
dynamics?..............
A. Newton does not claim that a acceleration in free fall cannot be detected..
B. Newton did not give us the equivalence principle..
C. Newton accepted absolute motion and thus in Newtonian Dynamics motion & or
the detection thereof is not dependent upon a/any inertial reference frames,
real, imaginary or otherwise...Therefore, the fact that you assume any given
inertial reference frame means nothing wrt the arguments before us....why?
..because it is the nature of the relationship of Gravity, acceleration motion
and inertia not any "ref frame" that would have to affect whether or not we
could detect any such free fall accelerations......so Im not sure what your
attempting to demonstration here with/about Newtonian dynamics and or any
inertial reference frames Newton addresses.
You say a orbit is in free fall and we know that we are in orbit because we
can detect the change in orientation but the acceleration of that orbit cannot
be detected.
1. 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.....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...You say we can do so by looking at the background
stars......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...Two bodies surrounded by a shell
of stars do not constituent a orbit just because the back ground stars are
moving wrt those two bodies...try it ..you need not have real or relative
motion of those two bodies just because a shell of background stars has a
relative motion wrt those two bodies....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. Without a demonstratable orbit you
cant claim that the orbit's acceleration is "hidden" due to it suposedly being
in a free fall.....You must first show that a orbit exits in the first place,
otherwise any two objects placed next to eachother could be said to orbit each
other?......If the argument is real v relative motions are meaningless wrt each
other as Fred Hoyle does then, so to is the argument against a absolute rest
frame ..Why?... 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 the theory you employ in your
explinations 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.
2. You state: 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., thespace 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.
Your Diagrams in your last post i think we would agree would not have the
same orientation to the gravitational field wrt each other? This is to say that
the orientation of "a" will not be the same as the one in "b" and further that
"b" is always changing wrt the grv/inertia field.
The point: Unlike a falling object wrt earth, (apple from tree...aka.....free
fall) In a orbit you must have, need and cannot just consider the earth's
gravitational/inertial feild to pull the apple toward the earth but you also
need a secondary force (inertial) to keep the propensity for the satilite to
fly off into space in such a way that those two "forces" acting against each
other are in balance with each other so as to have a stable orbit. If the only
field present was grav then what keeps the satellite in orbit from falling to
the earth..we say..inertia...ah but inertia is gravity.............. so which
grav field and from where is acting on the satellite in the opisite direction
of the pull of the gravity coming from the earth?...
Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star
different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant
star..... 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 we do not isolate them from each other, then a body has
the same orientation to those distant external inertial fields that cause
inertia whether or not it is in a orbit. But, this begs the question, if those
external inertial fields are the cause of inertia then how does the inertial
field of the body that is being orbited prevent those fields from doing the
same thing they do when a body is not in a orbit, particularly since those
distant fields are supposedly the cause of the inertial reaction. If however on
the other hand we claim that the inertial /gravitational field that creates the
inertial effects only pertains to the "Inertial reference frame" such that the
distant mass/grav/inertial fields do not significantly affect the inertial
field of the "inertial reference frame" thus preventing the detection of the
free fall in that inertial field/ ref frame.....Then what keeps the orbit of
the bodies from collapsing in on each other?!........ 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 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 inertial force that keeps the propensity of the orbiting body to move away
from the body being orbited,...... then how are the inertial affects due to
those distant inertial fields prevented from deomonstrating a detectable
acceleration in orbit while at the same time providing the inertial force to
keep the whole thing working? Does a straight line trajectory wrt thoes distant
inertial feilds produce a different effect then when the trajectory is a arc?
if not why would a orbit matter where or not we could detect changes wrt thoese
exact same distant inertial feilds that clearly demonstrated detectable
accelerations when not moving in a arc?.......whether or not a body is at rest
or in motion it is the distant inertial fields that cause the detection of
motion or acceleration in the first place. How exactly do you define a free
fall and at what point do the inertial fields that create the inertial effects
(detection of acceleration) and at the same time prevent it? Free fall not a
detection of acceleration is by definition changes wrt those same exact distant
inertial/ gravitational fields. If you do not isolate those fields from your
inertial one you claim we are in free fall around then there is no logical
reason why those distant fields would be prevented from giving us a detectable
acceleration in large arc verse a small one? Here is what you are left with.
explaining, how a orbit or continuous arc trajectory of the body wrt those
distant inertial fields is any different then..... a continuous arc trajectory
wrt those distant inertial fields?! Are you claiming that if the arc makes a
complete circuit then the effects of inertia due to those distant inertial
fields not felt?!... An Acceleration is a measure of the inertial effect (the
change of the state of motion wrt any given body). It is changes wrt those
distant grav/inertia fields that is supposedly the cause of inertia so how
exactly does the size of the arc or shape of a bodies trajectory wrt those
distant fields determine whether or not we can detect the inertial effects?
3... ...... 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! ( but then we would have a
difficulty with the force calculations being continent with the amount of
nessisary force to lift that much sea water.) If the tides are not accelerated
by the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a big problem don’t you?.
P.S. I have to admit I get very frustrated sometimes and I was already to
shout and exclaim "COME ON THIS AN"T ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!"...then I realized just
how poor a choice of words that would have been, and that perhaps some patience
here on my part is called for..... :-)
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:35:55 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
6:10 PM
Other related posts:
