If you cant win make a big show and maybe no one will notice that your argument was completly destroyed and think you actualy won somthing ... and - I post the coments here for everyone and posterity to see just how bad you realy beat me, I want you to get all the glory you so richly desirve In my experience, these statements of bravado by Allen are highly indicative of his having run out of arguments. I for one, look forward to his explanation -- entirely absent to this time -- of how a spring accelerometer is able to register acceleration when caused by gravity. Just once I'd like to see him defend his position by explaining why he is right rather than why his detractor is wrong. Paul D And in my experiance People who cannot demonstrate their postion in observation and logic but lay claim to some victory are either just plain blind or are realy not capable of reaching conclusions based on facts framed in a logical discourse.....LOGIC OBSERVATION & EXPERIANCE favor my postions not yours or Phils or Regner's......you only keep asserting your wishfull thinking as evidence as if it were shown somwhere external of your head?!..Paul When you and Philip can demonstrate something other then imaginations of what is in your heads and show it to be fatual in the world aroudn you I have have shown your ideas not to match the world around you, then and only then will you have taken the nessisary steps into a much larger world to allow you to understood the world around you within reason not in spite of it with nothing more then wishfull thinking.....!! Phil 1. I claimed a accelerometer I did not limit the discusion to exclusively state a "spring type accelerometer" However I stated even a spring state will detect a change from 0 acceleration to free fall!? I have already demsontrated and cited examples of experiments of when and how that is most certainly done! All you guys do is keep asserting that we cannot detect it in spite of even the most basic of HS physics experiments!? The crux of the issue is that you dont relise that there is a difference between motion that is not dependent upon ref frames or grav/ inertial feilds Newtonican dynamics) and relitivistic motions that are dependent on inertial feilds that are in fact nothing more then gravitational feilds........ 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... ......If there is not way to detect the earthʼs 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 canʼt 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 donʼt you?. 2. 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 donʼt know that you have a motion wrt another body then you canʼt claim observable motion of the background stars as evidence for what is in question that you donʼt 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 canʼt 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. 3. 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 (itʼʼs "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? 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: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 9:37:29 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment Philip M Allen D said - ________________________________ Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.