First, if you had read my 'Fifth' statement concerning tides in toto (it is sufficiently complex that if you assume -- you know what is meant by 'assume' don't you Allen? -- that the first phrase describes the entire (but short) sentence, you will subsequently discover -- as in 'Now!' -- that you have gone off half cocked) then you would not have answered as you did -- at least a cautious person would not have. (Sorry that sentence was so complex but it seemed the proper construct). complicated yes........if you had read my 'Fifth' statement concerning tides in toto .. ok ..here it is again ... Fifth, I don't agree that the tides are caused by Sun/Moon gravity -- that would be logically impossible because you don't so state. I believe -- oops! I have confidence -- that it is so. Is there such a thing as an 'inertial gravitational field' or is this just poor expression on your part? Perhaps I am just ignorant. I certainly don't believe they are caused by Sun/Moon 'inertial field' -- whatever that might be. Yes, if gravity will extend a spring by pulling on a weight, it will deform the oceans. That however is another matter which I would like to consider but not till the accelerometer question is settled. t Not only do you not agree with MS but you state "whatever that may be" wrt to the inertial feild..which as I have already stated is the grav field they are one and the same as per the "equivilence principle" but you dont accept that either.... Fourth, I do accept the standard definitions of gravity and inertia, velocity and speed, mass and weight etc -- I do not accept your private views on the matter where they differ from the standard definitions. My privat views?..... now that is a hoot!........my are based on observations and logical arguments i present for evaluation, however, as of yet your privet veiews are based on things you have yet to even identify & or define???? ......so what do you guys belive in & or base your assertions about acclerations in free fall on? Your PRIVET VIEWS ant MS nor do they have the scientific concensus you have so offten appealed too .........They are based on what? ....dont worry Regner knows exactly what an inertial field and gravitaional feild are and how they explain accelerations in free fall............and how that would or woul not relate to the tides.... ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 10:08:34 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment Allen D Your post (below) is addressed to Philip, but one response you have -- by context -- addressed to Philip, is a response to a statement by me. You really should read our posts more carefully and try to get organised. I'll pluck it out here - ....oh wait..... you dont agree with MS on the cause of the tides either do you?!.. First, if you had read my 'Fifth' statement concerning tides in toto (it is sufficiently complex that if you assume -- you know what is meant by 'assume' don't you Allen? -- that the first phrase describes the entire (but short) sentence, you will subsequently discover -- as in 'Now!' -- that you have gone off half cocked) then you would not have answered as you did -- at least a cautious person would not have. (Sorry that sentence was so complex but it seemed the proper construct). Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, 5 May, 2008 11:48:44 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment Me In blue.. ----- Original Message ---- From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 3:59:24 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment Phil..if there is a change from 30 gms to 0 grms (as detected on our scale).....then we have a change. that change is due to going from 0 velocity to some other velocity, Allen Not so! And that is where you try to force your false imagination upon us.. 1. If the scale showed 30 gms before the drop ...then we drop and then the scale shows 0 grms....that by deffinition is a change....the cause of that change can only be shown to be the fact that we were first hanging with no velocity and then begining to move at a velocity other then what we were hanging at!!!.....Then demonstrate not just assert what the cause of the change was......When we had 0 velocity then we have 32 ft per sec per sec going from 0 to 32ft per sec per sec is what caused the change...Your the one imagigning that the states of weigtlessness and velocity are reversed.!?.... ....PHIL your the one imagining weitlessness is due to the absense of physical conection?..wonder how gravity knows so much???? The change to weightlessness occurs AT zero velocity, at the exact same moment of separation.. before the fall commences.. 2. Untill you can demonstrate that all the accelerations inside of a object/ accelerometer take place identicaly and simoltaniously, then your argument is only assuming the very thing you are attempting to prove!Weightlessness does not always happen at the instant of the drop..period!..proof?......To obtain the state of weightlessness is a process over time in free fall not a instant event! the vomit comet and roller coasters demonstrate this..and the fact that we would then be weightless wrt the earth while in free fall in the suns gravitational feild.....!? There is no differnce between our scale in our elevator faling to earth and a scale on earth falling to the sun!? .Anything attached to the scale will show the 30 gms to get lighter and lighter over a period of time through the drop, untill both the scale and the weight attached to it obtain the same accelerations..... only then will you have reached weightlessness.. but they do not inialy have the same accelerations in fact that is what you have to demonstrate first before you assume it is true! Untill it does, it will have a coresponding weight. Phil, That is why how fast you go down in a elevator or over the top on a roller coaster determines how much much weightlesness you "feel"....!? the accelerations in free fall of any mass are not identical to every part of that mass.... if it were there could be no tides....oh wait..... you dont agree with MS on the cause of the tides either do you?!.. Please tell me how does gravity affect and what is the cause the tides?.............Like the hovering of the thrown up ball.. At the peak of the curve when velocity is zero, weightlessness occurs. like the peak of a roller coaster when we go from weightless to detectable accelerations in free falll over the top!.....NO phil my position is not imaginary yours is! wow now you realy should be able to develope anti gravity machines ....Just don't touch anything and according to you we will be weigtless?! Do you deny this momentary stationary weightlessness. umpteenth chance Phil. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment philip said: thanks to Paul he did the work for me and showed how Allen sidesteps logic to keep an impossible conversation going.......Yes Thanks Paul I think your postion and what you base your arguments on is quite clear to everyone now...:-) Actualy Phil, Paul stated "Second, I'm not really interested in logic " so im not sure how he showed me to sidestep logic, he is not even interested in using it........LOL Notice the accusation of us being stupid..NO, I accused you then as well as now of ignoring evaluations of observations within logic secondly preferring imaginations external of facts or observations with a almost zealot like stubbornness to "keep the faith" regardless of what contradictions and inconsistencies it produces....thirdly that you invoke your conclusions as the bases for all your evaluations that are supposed to demonstrate your conclusions.......that is called a circular fallacy but then again who cares about logic we are only here for "scientific discussion" ryt?!.....LOL ignoring that I said the change noticed was a state of weightlessness.. not a change of velocity.. Phil..if there is a change from 30 gms to 0 grms (as detected on our scale).....then we have a change. that change is due to going from 0 velocity to some other velocity, .............. as is the case with a suspended elevator i mentioned ................That is a not only just a change in the velocity of the elevator but a change in velocity wrt magnitude which is an acceleration by definition... and it was detectable...I also addressed what happens once we are in free fall and then change from 32 ft per sec/ per sec in any given direction and explained& demonstrated why and how even assuming MS's own constructs................ ________________________________ Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.