[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 18:07:07 +0000 (GMT)
Allen D
If you want to be liked -- be likeable.
If you want to be admired -- be admirable.
If you desire knowledge and understanding -- avoid sophistry.
You have a peculiar talent for homing in on the trivial, of quoting out of
context, of avoiding the central issue, all in the interest of demonstrating
ascendancy. Actually, in your case, it is -- from time to time -- more a case
of desperately staving off defeat. This is one of those times.
None of us here enjoys the struggle we all have in trying to understand you,
but we endure in the search for truth -- at least as each of us see it. When
confronted with an unassailable proposition, it is proper to dip one's colours
and admit defeat in a statesman like manner. If we can't manage this, then a
position of dissenting from -- but at the same time respecting the position of
-- our adversary, is a generally acceptable and honourable position to take.
This behaviour gains respect whereas the alternative merely invites ridicule.
Please -- demonstrate your maturity by honestly addressing the issues and
putting aside this juvenile behaviour. If you find yourself shown to be in
error -- admit it in a forthright manner. As a past member of the Federal
Senate and Cabinet Minister of my nation once remarked when caught out --
"Admit your error -- disarm your critic!"
I suspect it is a bit late for you to emerge from this series of exchanges with
a lot of honour and respect, but the longer you delay this action, the longer
it will take. I also suspect that if you were to demonstrate the required
humility, then the members of this forum are sufficiently mature -- and
generous -- as to resist the desire to dance around you in a circle, pointing,
laughing and jeering.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 5 May, 2008 9:35:36 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Paul,
It is very hard to "keep the discussion scientific" as Regner has indicated he
wants us to about the issues and explinations for the world around us when
you.....
"First, I do not understand anything useful about STR, GTR, frames of reference
inertial or some other so I would hardly base my position on them". well that
"scientific" and MS "concensus"(you have refered too) with explintions out
there are based on GTR & STR......
Second, I'm not really interested in logic That is obvious, but then again I'm
not sure how we can claim to "keep the discussion scientific" without
logic",........ Maybe someone can help us all with that one and therby in so
doing we can endevor to have a "more scientific" approach.....???
Third, I don't care that Newton didn't claim that acceleration in free fall
cannot be detected; then why appeal to Newton? Newton does not agree with your
postion?
Fourth, I do accept the standard definitions of gravity and inertia well then
what are you doing defending the MS constructs of the universe? ... HC/AC is
based and has its most fundimental foundations on them. In fact HC/AC does not
make any sense, to the concensus within MS external of it!.....but anyway im
going for the "long shot" and betting Regner does since he used the
"equivilence principle" in his "carefull Anylisis"....See how all of this only
complicates the difficulty for addressing the arguments when my detractors
appear to float on the winds with their explinations and definitons.. It is
almost like you are telling me oh it is here if you just come look then you
will see...when i come and look i see nothing...... you then tell me........no
stupid it has moved since i told you that....its over there go look and you
will see it......i go to look and see nothing and you then tell me again....no
stupid, you cant see it because it
moved again don't you undersand?....LOL
Fifth, I don't agree that the tides are caused by Sun/Moon gravity Well the
MS concensus you appeal to so much does....so ......hey it's their version and
explaintions of the Universe we are discussing ....idono......seems relevant
to me........but then again maybe ..ummm....better let the referees decide that
one,... its just too close to call.....lol
Sixth, I'm not interested in the orientation of any body I thought we were
discusing changes of velocity wrt magnitude or direction which is affected by
orientaions and changes therein.......... which is Accelerations....???!
Free fall simply means moving -- initial momentum -- through space and obeying
the Law of Gravity..well since you phil and Regner dont agree what gravity is
or how and what it works on and does not work on...that "law of gravity" is
...What?... a free fall is a fall toward the grav feild but maybe Regner has a
better deffintion.....umm yea that would be great what is the deffinition of
free fall?????...I address just about all the posibilities in my point #3 (
however, based on your first, second, third, fourth, fith and sixth points you
outlined......I can see why there is such a disconect between you and
reality......
The rest is just the usual diversionary nihilistic talk-talk...That is what i
have been saying about your guys arguments all along!......I completly
agree!... but just for kicks..and i am quite serious about this.... ..but
what about the colored spheres? ...............I give up, what do they tell us ?
With tung firmly in cheek,....... All in All though ...I think you guys got
me... ...yep!....... You guys cornered me like fat rat and I got no where to
run!....I have lost the debate and I now know that I must now hang my head down
in abject shame forever............ There is no way I could live with my self
or on this forum if I were to continue to display the academic dishonesty I
have by continuing in my brut stubbornness to argue with the torrent of MS
Scientific facts presented to us here... .....oh wait.... did you even present
any facts at all?.....oh thats right you in fact renounced "MS's scientific
concensus of the "facts"" ........ ok ..ok..I don't see how I can honestly
continue to resist in the face of overwhelming logic of your
arguments...............oh wait you denounced logic too........ .....LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 12:32:47 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen D
Well in deference to you, I did read it all. It's a blizzard of words as
expected and almost totally a cut-and-paste job -- except the opening para I've
read it all before -- repeatedly. I'll make a few comments. For your part, you
have not given any indication that you have read my short, coherent post. Is
that bad manners or just an urgent need to avoid the issue I wonder?
First, I do not understand anything useful about STR, GTR, frames of reference
inertial or some other so I would hardly base my position on them. I've told
you this previously.
Second, I'm not really interested in logic -- '... therefore my cat is a dog'
is impeccable logic but is an absurdity. Aristotle thought you could deduce the
workings of the universe with logic and look where that didn't get him.
Third, I don't care that Newton didn't claim that acceleration in free fall
cannot be detected; or that he didn't talk about the equivalence principle --
of which I am only faintly cognisant or that he accepted absolute motion et al.
He also didn't talk about DNA, aerodynamics, the germ theory of disease, what
lives at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or the Allen Daves' Alternative
Theory of Everything.
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.
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.
Sixth, I'm not interested in the orientation of any body -- its centre of
gravity will not have changed and that is where calculations begin. What is
wrong with using the stars as a reference? It is a reasonable starting position
which can be abandoned should evidence suggest that it is incorrect. You on the
other hand, assert loudly that the stars rotate around us (well around the Sun
which goes around us) with nothing to vindicate your choice but the fact that
that is what you think you see. Where is your position any stronger? But, back
to the stars. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton between them produced a
system which satisfied observation; permitted prediction (eg discovery of
Neptune); behaved in a predictable manner according to the laws of classical
physics; required the stars to be stationary. Should it ever be shown that the
stars orbit the Sun which goes around us, then Copernicus et al would be shown
to be in error. If this eventuated,
then a whole new set of theories would need to be deduced and verified and so
far that hasn't happened. Except to a tiny minority, it has the survival
chances of a snowflake in hell of happening.
BREAKING NEWS:::::"It is very importaint not to forget and understand
particularly wrt point # 3 the earths orbit is not a pure free fall." Oh come
now!!! If the object -- Earth if you like -- is wandering aimlessly through the
universe and subject to the deflecting effects of random gravity fields of
substance -- it is still in free fall. Free fall simply means moving -- initial
momentum -- through space and obeying the Law of Gravity -- whatever is close
enough to materially affect it. If it crashes into a rogue planet, a star, one
of the star's planets or a giant elephant standing on a great big turtle
swimming in a really big puddle -- this will still all be free fall.
The rest is just the usual diversionary nihilistic talk-talk.
If you want to impress me, specifically address the proposition of the red
sphere and the green sphere which you have thus far avoided like the plague.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 5 May, 2008 5:49:21 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
It is very importaint not to forget and understand particularly wrt point # 3
the earths orbit is not a pure free fall. The acceleration is not just at the
rate that gravity is pulling it to earth remember the second grav inerital
feild needed to have a stable orbit in the first place....the earth changes its
acceleration rate throughout its orbit wrt all those other grav feilds that
supposedly cause inertia....you do not nor can you claim a pure free fall as in
the case of the elevator example because it is falling toward some of thost
bodies and away from at other times..thoes bodies are the cause of detectable
inertia efffects/acclerations period regaurdless of whether or not our
trajectroy is a arc or continuous circle wrt those same distant bodies.........
So I ask -- what part of this do you not understand?
Paul D
Ok Paul, ....This is what i do not understand......read in
full..............From the begining I made the assertion that we should be able
to detect the changes of the earths accelertions through its orbit if they
exist... as of yet you nor Regner nor Phil have given any of us a logical
reason for why that would not be true......I say that yes we should be able to
detect the acceleration (Changes wrt to the velocity either in magnitude or
direction) of the earth or any body in a orbit "free fall" or not if the motion
exist in reality. Subsequently I stated as a matter of fact that there is a
difference between real and relitive motions and state that the two are
decernable and detectable..I did not limit to mass on a spring and specificaly
mentioned EMR accelerometers but i went on and addressed the mass and sping
ones as well...........You say nay we cannot and should not expect to detect
that acceleration... I do not argue the fact that
you and Phil have talked about thngs that have nothing to do with what I
orriginaly or subsequently addressed..that is not in question...
Thus far the reasons given thus far have been based on the equivalence
principle and or some vauge attempt to appeal to Newtonian
dynamics?..............
1... ......However If there is not way to detect a acceleration in "free fall"/
the earth’s acceleration around the sun in "free fall" and grav is pulling any
accelerometer & mass that we would use to observe equally to all parts (
becuase of the equivilence principle which assumes that inertia is
gravitationaly dependent) 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?. Also
note: The tides issue here is also fundimentlay the
same as your mass with a elastic material/spring type accelerometer
questions.......
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 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.
3. It has been stated: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.In the
Diagrams Provided by Regner we 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?
4. 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.
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 9:34:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen D
I have been going back through the posts in the Acceleration thread and I'd
like to jump in here.
I'm of the opinion that the act of dropping the mass-on-a-spring will show a
change as indicated by the device. I'm pretty much certain that Philip knows
that also.
If you'll look at my post -- From Paul Deema Sat Mar 15 17:59:40 2008 --
you'll see essentially the same proposition illustrated in my before and after
views of a mass-on-a-spring but in a bomb casing. You had the same objection
then -- From Allen Daves Sun Mar 16 16:42:27 2008 -- that you have now with
Philip's description. I'll be charitable -- it springs (to coin a phrase) from
an unwillingness to understand which is pretty uncharitable of you considering
how much effort we all put into trying to understand your offerings. Of course
there is an initial change registered by the spring! What we are both talking
about is the period after the change has been registered and the system
stabilises.
In your response -- From Allen Daves Sun Mar 16 16:42:27 2008 -- you say -
3. The only time you could not detect the acceleration is if you ...
B. Try to measure the acceleration rate of the free fall itself once you are in
the free fall...
Which is what I have been telling you all along and if I read him correctly,
Philip is telling you the same thing. But you continue -
HOwever even then any and all changes to that free fall can and will be
detected even by a mass on a spring....
... and this is where you are wrong and constitutes the one issue you have --
despite your protestations to the contrary -- absolutely failed to address.
Because you see, a body (in free fall) in elliptical orbit, where the speed is
changing (I've re-read -- From Regner Trampedach Mon Mar 17 06:28:37 2008 --
thanks Regner) thus there is acceleration which is caused by gravity, BUT THIS
WILL NOT BE REGISTERED BY THE MASS-ON-A-SPRING BECAUSE THE MASS-ON-A-SPRING IS
BEING SIMILARLY ACCELERATED.
Now before you rush off to generate a blizzard of words and random groupings of
letters centred on this concept of gravity not acting equally on all atoms of
the universe or however you put it, we are considering SIMPLIFIED, PRACTICAL
systems here -- not rarefied, accurate-to-one-part-in-a-squillion systems. If
you can do it this way so can we -
From Allen Daves Thu Apr 3 01:54:46 2008
There is a difference Paul between the text book answers in your head and the
practical applications in the real world with real rockets and real ICBM's and
real Geostationary satellites not just the imaginary thought experiments in
your confused head..............What part of that do you not understand!?..
So I ask -- what part of this do you not understand?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 5 May, 2008 2:59:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Phil,
The bottom line is i state a acceleration can be detected in a free fall when
only grav is the cause of the acceleration ....you say it cannot but then you
go to great lengths to explain how before we drop the mass weiged 30 gm i think
you said..then at the moment of drop we become weightless..and the scale will
not show 30 gm any more.......
Phil for the last time a acceleration is a change ..if you detect that change
you cannot then claim the change is undetectable...you contridict your self and
you still don't even see it.........!?
Again we are only looking for a detectable change not nessisarily a fixed
magnitude you admit the change exist and that we will detect the change but
you claim it does not demonstrate a detection of a acceleration in free
fall....????!!!...LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 7:05:57 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
as well as any constant velocity to any other differnet velocity… as long as a
velocity remains constant then yes a mass on a spring will eventually "zero
itself out" just like you in the elevator notice the initial change but
eventually the "sensation"and scale on board "zeros out" acceleration is only
the change not any certain magnitude…
very contradictory in the one sentence.. The underlined is unintelligable,
but the bit I changed to color is not what I said. and not true in a free
falling object in an elevator.. The fall in the sealed elevator is
acceleration at 32ft/sec/sec Even as the velocity is rapidly increasing, the
spring scales will remain at zero and not register any weight.
What in the world are you describing when you say "we will all notice the state
" ?!
Getting close Allen.. Starting to comprehend the meaning of acceleration..
Suddenly experiencing weightlessness is the absence of a force on mass in
producing weight.. i.e gravity. It is not a sense of motion.
the magnitude is the most important point you brought up and which you are
discounting.
Acceleration is change in velocity.. the magnitude of the velocity change if
you like. That change small or large cannot be detected in free fall.. Only
your brain tells you that you are falling... nothing else. Not even the sensory
parts of your inner ear will detect an increasing velocity.. or any movement
at all during the fall.
The change in state in the initial instant, get that at zero velocity, is the
removal of the sense of weight.. It is not a change in velocity, not yet.
necessary for there to be acceleration. From then onwards the duration of the
fall the senses will not detect even that you are moving, let alone the
magnitude of velocity change which is acceleration. the feeling you sense will
be exactly the same near the bottom of the fall as it was at the instant BEFORE
you began to fall.
I know you are still baffled... imagine you throw a ball up.. At the very top
of its flight it will have no weight, no motion, and no sense of up or down.
Finally one of the first sensations the astronauts reported in weightlessness
whilst in orbit, was a sense of falling.. just like the elevator, but they
could not and cannot sense in which direction they were falling.. Only when
they looked out the window could they see and reason it out, but all their
senses told them they were motionless, with a spinning ball EARTH over
there... Not even down there.. They have no sense of what is up or down.
They can have a seat on the ceiling or the floor.. LOL
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
An accelerometer detects only the change in state of motion that includes any
change including from 0- to any velocity, as well as any constant velocity to
any other differnet velocity… as long as a velocity remains constant then yes a
mass on a spring will eventually "zero itself out" just like you in the
elevator notice the initial change but eventually the "sensation" and scale on
board "zeros out" acceleration is only the change not any certain
magnitude…only the change is noticed, we are only looking for the changes …..
The magnitude of the change(s) are not even relevant at this point.
Detecting an acceleration is not the same as measuring (quantifiably defining)
the magnitude of that change.
Guys, a detectable acceleration is only the change wrt magnitude or
direction, not the magnitude or direction of the change itself.....
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 5:12:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Phil,
"At the instant you initiate the drop we will all notice the state of
weightlessness"..
if you notice any change then you just detected the change in
acceleration !?...That state would be demonstrated by a scale and or drift that
takes place without ref anything outside...so what is your point?..you
admit..quote " For the duration of the fall from that instant, though we may
know we are weightless and the ounce of mass will show no weight on the spring
scale, there is no way of us determining any change of velocity,"Phil the
change was only from 0 to the inital velocity you have agreed that inertia and
a acceleration are detecatable changes wrt motion...ok...you were haning(at a
given weight) ..no moiton ..........then i droped you........... the notice of
weightlessnes and scale shows no weight....You just showed a detectable change
in velocity wrt magnitude or direction....Phil, that is a acceleration by
defintion without referenceing anything out side of the craft....???....You
just made my case??? further if any other changes are
introduced in your acceleration rate thoes two will be detectable...???? The
same holds true for a satilite in orbit you say "free fall"..well any change in
velocity of that orbit will e detected even if the change is due to the
moons/stars gravitaional fields..in fact that is why they say stailites
dirft but they most certanly do detect it and the cause of the accelerations is
gravity!? your postion and MS's is a self contridictory......... The orbit of
the earth is not a constent acceleration it constantly changes wrt all thoes
other inertial/ grav feilds...
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 3:20:20 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
If I blind folded and suspend you magnetically in a closed metal elevator from
a high tower turn off the electricity to the magnet suspending you....I wonder
if you or a scale will notice anything even before you hit the ground ..ummmm.
.Remember you and the elevator and all in it are only "accelerated by gravity"
and "equally to all parts".... Allen
A good question Allen, that may give me a chance to get through to you.
No need for a blindfold.. we is in a sealed tin box.
Let me hold a spring balance holding say 30 grms of mass. reading about 1 ounce
on the scale.
At the instant you initiate the drop we will all notice the state of
weightlessness.. This is instantaneous at zero velocity, before anything falls.
(no acelleration)
At the same instant making alowance for the time delay for the spring to act,
the spring balance will return to zero, registering zero weight on the scale
for the duration.
At the same instant plus a microsecond or so both I and the floor will remain
in contact, and remain so for the duration. (no jumping or muscular reactions
allowed)
For the duration of the fall from that instant, though we may know we are
weightless and the ounce of mass will show no weight on the spring scale, there
is no way of us determining any change of velocity, whether it be constant or
accelerating at 32ft. sec. sec.
Try it allen!
Philip.
Phil or anyone,
Please cite the observation(s) that proves gravity is:
1. Pulling
2. Acts equally to all parts simoltaniously
3. Gravity determines inertial effects
You guys keep doing the same thing thinking no one notices .. You first assume
those three things are true and then attempt to interprete and thus argue from
those assumptions...That is not a logical argument or evaluation of anything.
That is a circular fallicy!
I have show you that the only direct observation(s) show:
1. Gravity to push rather then pull.
2. Gravity is never equall to all parts (all parts are never equal wrt whatever
the cause of gravity is in any ref frame) ..If it was then elevators going
down and roller costers who are only accelerated by gravity ( gravity is the
cause of the accelerations) could never demonstrate accelerations....and yet
they do so wonderfully!!
3. Inertial effects are not determined by the absense or presence of gravity
I have accomplished all that by two logical proof methods....
A. Directly with observations and experiments
B. Indirectly by assuming the assertion of a given argument is true and then
take it to it's logical conclusion to see if it contridics either itself or
other observations.....
Regaurdless of what gravity is or how gravity works inertial detection is not
dependent on how gravity work! So even though we can say that gravity pulls on
all parts of the mass spring simoltaniously ..who cares Gravity is not the
cause of inertia nor does it determine the detecion thereof!?
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...
1... ......If there is not way to detect the earth’s acceleration around the
sun in free fall (assuming that inertia is gravitationaly dependent) and 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?.
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 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.
3. It has been stated: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?
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.All I claimed is that if a change existed in reality then necessarily
we should be able to detect that change in "free fall" or not . You even
outline for us exactly what we would detect "At the instant you initiate the
drop we will all notice the state of weightlessness" and yet you say we can't
detect the change (acceleration) in velocity !?.... What in the world are you
describing when you say "we will all notice the state " ?!
________________________________
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
