Allen D Allen -- you really must read more carefully. You said - I still dont know what your postion is now.... I said (in part) - Since your position is that you don't consider that the tides are caused by the Sun/Moon and I do, ... [Emphasis added] I'm beginning to regret making this point. It was in part a small light-hearted test to see if you were awake and comprehending. I accept your position that you make statements which assume the position you are arguing against and that is a valid tactic, but it is always safer to make that point. Now considering the tides, I don't agree that your hypothesis that if the tides are caused by the Moon/Sun gravity, that this demonstrates that acceleration -- specifically in this instance the varying acceleration during the time of one elliptical orbit -- means that that acceleration is detectable by an accelerometer. Regner has disagreed with you on this point, and both Philip and myself -- poor though our efforts may be in comparison -- have strenuously made the same point. Your unwillingness to address the reasoning behind my attack -- distilled down to the proposition of the red sphere and the green sphere -- just scream vulnerability and thus error. Your response -- or rather, no response -- confirms me in that view. You also said - ... you state you dont accept the standard deffintions of grav, inerita, velocity ect ... What I said was - Fourth, I do accept the standard definitions of gravity and inertia, velocity and speed, mass and weight etc [Emphasis added] My position re the Earth moving in an orbit -- the Heliocentric model -- was developed, like so much of human knowledge, by noticing that the current model has short comings. I don't know the origins or the parentage of the round disk on the elephant on the swimming turtle's back idea, but someone noticed that it had shortcomings. Again I admit ignorance, I don't know how many iterations occurred before Aristotle stated -- and his statement was believed until the renaissance -- that the Sun, the Moon and the planets and the stars and the comets -- actually I'm not sure about the comets -- orbited the Earth. In fact, if I recall correctly, the church was of the opinion that EVERYTHING orbited the Earth. Somewhere in the interval that this theory held sway, the planetary distances were 'determined'. Enter Galileo, who noticed the phases of Venus which, if true, meant that the distances were wrong or there was some other error -- calamity. Enter Tycho. What if the planets orbited the Sun which orbited the Earth. Problem solved. Then Galileo, not satisfied with pointing out the Venus discrepancy, announced that something was orbiting Jupiter. Calamity. Further, astronomers noticed that planets were not where they were predicted to be. Calamity compounded. Enter Copernicus. If the Sun is at the centre, the system becomes simple, and intriguing ratios emerge. Is it true? You say no but I disagree and that's why we're here. Enter Newton. He explains certain laws of physics, which, if true, support Copernicus. Your side disagreed and still disagree but have offered no alternative theory which fits observations, and especially have offered no supporting physics. The science which has emerged since the renaissance, has recognised that there is precious little proof -- if any -- and is satisfied with progressively refining both our state of knowledge and its accuracy and thus increasing our degree of confidence in our theories. Your side has resolutely dug in its heels and refused to change position with the state of knowledge but instead bases its position on distinctly minority interpretations of biblical text, backed up with attacks on science by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena (anomalies). So we too have proposed a solution to the problem "How does the World go?" -- that put forward by the four giants of this saga -- and it has been rigorously tested. With every test passed, confidence grows. It's not certainty, but life isn't certain. If I had to choose a path to orbit in a rocket designed, built and operated by Geocentrists or one designed, built and operated by Heliocentrists, I would much prefer to put my trust in the Heliocentrist model. If they each were share companies, I'd choose the Heliocentrist company in which to invest because the Geocentrist company would waste so much fuel getting to orbit, they probably wouldn't pay a dividend. So you see, there is no reason why one shouldn't propose a solution and then test it. Even if you have no idea what you're on about, eventually you'll get it right and you do it bit by bit learning as you go. You don't need rigorous logical certainty or biblical backing. But the approach you -- Allen -- propose, that of getting everything to the last detail logically verified and plans (unalterable plans) drawn up for a rocket ship and an unalterable navigation philosophy before making a single triumphant journey is a pipe dream. At the end of the day what counts is not philosophy and not logic -- it's enterprise, and the the test is its utility. Closing thought. With your overriding preoccupation with logic -- what was the logical justification for Tycho putting the planets around the Sun? Or did he simply assume something and claim success on the basis of having already thought up the idea? Sort of a logical circular fallacy. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 7:12:11 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment Since your position is that you don't consider that the tides are caused by the Sun/Moon and I do, then I don't agree with your position. Paul I make my case by assuming the converse argument or rather i assume that ( MS) assertions a about the tides are true,........... namely I amd a argument that said ok lets assume that MS is right and that the tides are caused by gravity.....then by assuing that is true i show how and why that is inconsistent with other of MS's conepts of acceleration in free fall.. so my postion on what causes the tides does not affect my argument on accelerations because i , I only make the case that acceleration in free fall cannot be explained the way they attempt if the way they expain tides is correct....there is a contridiction that is convenitly overlooked by MS's proponents. I still dont know what your postion is now....are the tides caused by the sun moon gravity or not? In MS inertia is simply the reaction to the gravitaional feilds in the universe.... you state you dont accept the standard deffintions of grav, inerita, velocity ect.............so what are they and how do you demonstrate that postion ...based on what observations.....? you cannot assume the earth is in motion first then evaluate observation in that assumption to make the case for earths movemnt ...that is not reason that is "faith".... first show that accelerations cannot be detected..the problem that i keep pointing out to you is that in every case a acceleration is detected except for the ones in question that we are trying to prove one way or the other...so you cant say your arguments are based on what we observe ...so what is it based on? ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 11:27:28 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment Allen D I'll explain. 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. Since your position is that you don't consider that the tides are caused by the Sun/Moon and I do, then I don't agree with your position. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 5:34:22 PM Subject: [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. ________________________________ 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