[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
```oh my goodness......Phil, you dont understand MS postion or defintions of
Gravity inertia and accelerations at all either....
but in any case any change in a inertial state results in what we detect and
commonly refer to as ineria or the resitance ...the resistance to that change
in inertial states is always detectable.....?? at least all the ones we can
reproduce.......I agree none of the imaginary ones that HC claims can be
detected......coz they dont exist except in imaginaitons not anything
reproducable in the lab!!!!!!!!

----- Original Message ----
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:32:03 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Paul put it so simply. Yet you still got it wromg Allen, . You cannot admit or
see that changing from one state of motion to another state of motion, is not
detectable by this accelerometerwhen the change of motion is caused by gravity
variations..

(notice I do not risk saying state of inertia.)

Inertia is a condition constant not a motion. For the umpteenth time, inertia
is the resistance/reaction a body offers to change of motion..  It is related
directly to MASS. and only mass.. 1kg of mass has the same inertia value, no
matter what motion it has. Its a constant.

Be quite clear here, the definition is not referring to the "moment of inertia"

The only unit name I can find thats close for  inertia is "Inertial mass" ..
m. unit grm or kg.
"Inertial mass is found by applying a known force to an unknown mass, measuring
the acceleration, and applying Newton's Second Law, m = F/a. "

Inertial mass.  Nention is made of gravitational mass.
The only difference there appears to be between inertial mass and gravitational
mass is the method used to determine them.
Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an unknown
mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done with some
sort of balance scale.

Newton
The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which
every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present state,
whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line.

According to Isaac Asimov in "Understanding Physics": "This tendency for motion
(or for rest) to maintain itself steadily unless made to do otherwise by some
interfering force can be viewed as a kind of "laziness," a kind of
unwillingness to make a change. And indeed, Newton's first law of motion As
Isaac Asimov goes on to explain, "Newton's laws of motion represent assumptions
and definitions and are not subject to proof. In particular, the notion of
'inertia' is as much an assumption as Aristotle's notion of 'natural
place.'...To be sure, the new relativistic view of the universe advanced by
Einstein makes it plain that in some respects Newton's laws of motion are only
approximations...At ordinary velocities and distance, however, the
approximations are extremely good."

Yes extremely good enough at the range of examples Paul is presenting. I might
add that the presumptions of Einstein are like Newtons presumptions, a
relativistic view.

Philip.

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

ok ...good...........You show a noticable change because the bomb was at rest
(one inertial state) and then began to accelerate to a differnt inertial state
( all that changing takes time to "settle down").....the earth's supposed orbit
changes accelerations states back and fourth constently because its orbit is
not a perfect circle....a accelerometer as you just demonstrated only
demonstrates differnces wrt accelerations or inertial states...the earth's
inertial state/ acceleration is not a constant 32 f per sec per sec....it
changes constently .............everytime it does there must be detectable
change....otherwise the changes from one inertial acceleration state to the
next cannot be claimed to exist.............the changes can be said to be very
small but they exist and should be detectable if they exist.....

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:49:38 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Allen D

I was considering whether I would (or even could) respond to you post last
night -- From Allen Daves Tue May  6 22:19:38 2008 -- when this one arrived.
I'll cancel last night's -- there wasn't much chance I was going to be able to

Here again, I can't say with any confidence that I can understand most of this
post either -- I hesitate to suggest that you are talking nonsense but prefer
to think that it is just an inability to express what you are thinking.

Instead I'll re-visit my illustration -- Accelerometer. To that end, I've added
to it and will now describe the sequence of events it depicts.

1.   Left hand depiction in the left hand pane. The bomb is hanging from a
sky-hook in a one gravity field -- 9.8m/s/s. You will note that I have now
reference mass. In case you are wondering, it has also been calibrated against
standards which trace their origin to the NATA labs. You will notice that it
indicates a displacement of - 1 'g' as one would expect. This is because the
reference mass is free to move in a line to the centre of the Earth by
expanding the upper spring, helped by the lower spring compression, until the
downward force of gravity is balanced by upward force of the springs. The bomb
however is held in a fixed position by the sky hook against the same gravity
which has displaced the reference mass.

2.   Right hand depiction in the left hand pane. The link to the sky hook has
been severed at some small time in the past. This is evident by the fact that
the reference mass registers a steady 0 'g'. This is the condition where
gravity is exerting a force which accelerates the bomb casing at 9.8m/s/s ie
the same rate that it is accelerating the reference mass. It is a steady
reading because, despite there having been only a small elapsed time, the
design of the system has taken into account the magnitude of the reference mass
and the strength and the Q of the springs, and chosen integrating,
differentiating and critical damping constants so as to optimise settling time
and minimise any tendency to oscillate.

3.   Right hand pane. The time since free fall began has increased and a small
rocket which has the power to accelerate itself, the bomb casing and the
reference mass at a rate of 0.95 'g' is firing. The rocket has been firing
longer than the settling time of the accelerometer and so it indicates + 0.95
'g', again as one would expect. When the rocket has expended its fuel, and the
settling time has again expired, the accelerometer will again read 0 'g' as
depicted in right hand of the left pane.

I am unable to see where I have anything mis-oriented as you suggest.

Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May, 2008 3:45:31 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

I'm going here and now to go back and begin in much more detail to address the
error here using Paulʼs diagram of an accelerometer and mass....first...... I
will ask a question to everyone.....if i am on a planet of one earth mass that
is falling toward the sun will i have any weight and how much will i weigh and
why?.....

lets take a look back at Pauls diagram (attached as  "accelerometer") and ask
one more question....

Is gravity pulling on all parts of the bomb and planet equally and
simultaneously or not?...if it is then why would the scale ever change the
weight it registers? The pressure that the sale had before should be the same
since gravity is pulling on the mass and the bomb and all the parts in the
scale at the same time to the same degrees... If gravity were pulling it all
equally at the same time to the same degree then how and with what force (other
then the force that is pulling everything downward equally to all
parts).....would any of the spacial relationships between the bomb the mass and
the spring be affected if they are all being pulled equally and
simultaneously?...if the spacial relationships were not disturbed then how
could it register a different reading....we only have one force action on our
bomb/mass accelerometer gravity it is the same force before the drop as it was
after the drop, that is to say that gravity is pulling on everything
equally to all parts simultaneously before and after the drop ..so what is the
force is changing any of the spacial relationships between the mas spring and
bomb?......
If gravity is the only force acting on a mass but is supposedly pulling to all
parts of any mass (earth oceans or bomb spring accelerometer)then there could
never ever be any relative motion within that mass to a gravitational
acceleration period.( )(free fall)and grav pulling on all parts of that mass
and everything on and in it equally and simultaneously then when you drop it
nothing can move relative to each other and as such there could be no change in
the weight of the mass suspended in the bomb or the weight of a person on that
planet of one earth mass falling toward the sun! where would the force be
coming from to cause things to drift from their original spacial positions
within that mass?!You can't be equal to all parts simultaneously and at the
same time cause a change of relative position of anything within or on that
mass being pulled on equally and simultaneously. If grav is the only force
acting on a mass
Now look at "slide1" ( attached..this is where the previous diagram erred) and
for the reasons i already gave to philip....Gravity only pulls at the same rate
for all objects it does not pull equally to all parts of anything!..for crying
out loud that is why satilites drift and comets tumble....irregular pull on a
irregular mass
If the scale showed 30 gms before the drop ...then we drop and then the scale
shows 0 grms....that by definition 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.!?...

The simple answer to why and how MS could have it all so wrong is that you guys
not only are looking at the conditions all backwards, but you are also
contridicting your own principles of grav in your applications of depending on
the size & or magnitude of your examples............
________________________________
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: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 5/05/2008 5:11
PM
```