[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 09:46:19 +1000
Neville is this member whom we know as Allen Daves a real person, or have you
included one of those new artificial ntelligence computers that have not quite
made it yet.. and gets everything garbled.. Do you check the credentials of
people? This could be a university prankster...or even a stirrer from MS. Not
in my class of course. I was taught by the best. Meself. I even thought for a
while way back, Neville, that Allen was one of your Non De plumes..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:18 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Paul my arguments are no based on my assumtions of what gravity is or ineria
is or how the tides work...i base my arguments asssuming MS is rigth about how
it defines inertia and gravity and what is the cuase of the tides...so i dont
see how what i think about the tides makes any difference wrt the inconsistency
that exist in MS with grav/inertia and accelrations in free fall...... !?
1... ...... However If there is not way to detect a acceleration in "free
fall"/ the earthʼs 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 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?. 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 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. 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 (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?
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: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 12:12:11 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1414 - Release Date: 4/05/2008
12:31 PM
Other related posts:
