[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

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. 

Other related posts: