[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:16:58 +1000
Allen I think you and some others in wiki et al are confusing inertia with
motion.. They are not the same and cannot be interchanged,... a mass having
absolutely no motion, (which we say of the world) has inertia, and it is the
same inertia value even in motion as in the heliocentric world..
Even whilst accelerating, the body has the same inertia.. It is proportional
to the mass and nothing else. When gravity affects the motion of a body, ie
causes it to change its motion, gravity does not in any way effect the bodies
intrinsic inertia..
But wiki admits of the common practise of the misuse of the word,
"In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer to
an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified
by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this
object has a lot of inertia").
I do not expect a science expert such as yourself to make such confusing
noises.Stick to Newton here... He established a convention which is true
mathmatically.
You can duck off here as I am getting to more controversial parts of the
subject..
Heinstein and his deciples believ that Mass is relative to velocity, ie that
its mass increases with velocity, and hence therefore if I follow Newton, so
must its inertia.. They claim that as the velocity increases so is the force
necessary to produce any acceleration. I am not about to deny the claim,
because as an aether postulant, It would follow , that if the property of mass
called inetia is caused by the aether, in some unexplained way, then this mass
might appear to increase as it obtains a velocity significantly close to light
speed.
However their tricky subliminal measurements with satellites and atomic clocks
smells of sleight of hand, and we have no true experimental evidence that can
be replicated except by those initiated into the High Priesthoods laboratories.
The thing is similar to the case of a car in air.. The resistance to change in
motion at high speed is due to the medium , and absolutely in no way can be
cause for a claim of change in the cars mass or inertia, which is constant.
Einey does not accept an aether, medium and so he has to put the resistance
into the car, and say its mass has increased.. poor fullah..
Philip.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
No Philip, What part of "This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's
development of the general theory of relativity. In many respects, this is a
true statement in the general theory" ....do you not
understand????.........Inertia is a result of gravitational interactions
according to GR...Einstine even declares the two as essential one and the
same....in ancy case they cannot be isolated from each other!..... I even
referenced when and where several post back.!?....what are you talking about!?
We are discusing why the plain observation and experiance (which demonstrate
a.absolute motion wrt the earth via accelerations and gyros b. centered earth )
is only an illusion and realy does not show the universe is GC according to
Relitivity(GR &STR) not Allen or GC!? Mach's principle is a "SET IN STONE"
prinicple of Relitivity! If you are going to use Relitivity as the foundation
of your explination then you cannot ignore the dictates of that foundation by
contridicting your own foundations in the conclusions you draw in how you
address the issues........ it is called consistency!?...What on earth is the
point you are you trying to make?! Are you even on the same topic as the rest
of us?! Funny you don't even hear Regner trying to make your
argument............ummmmm
No philip, I suggest you wake up, and get with the discusion maybe do some
more homework on inertia as it relates to relitivity .... or you can just
ask..do you want a technical answer or in a more detailed laymens
terms?.......maybe I will entertain you...who knows.........warrning: the rabit
hole gets a little more bumpy the deeper we go......LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:23:24 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Finally Allen I got the root of your problem, er your writings..
Machs Principle is not allowed in geocentric circles.. I thought you was one
of us, not a closet ienstien relativity freak... or is it relitivity?
In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories,
Mach's principle is the name given by Einstein to a vague hypothesis first
supported by the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The broad notion is that
"mass there influences inertia here". This concept was a guiding factor in
Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. In many respects,
this is a true statement in the general theory. However, because this principle
is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would
qualify as a Mach principle.
Come off it Allen.. this is mumbo jumbo.. They even admit it.. "a vague
hypothesis.." and you are trying to lay it on us as a physical law!!!!!!!
"A mass influencing inertia" does not make mass and inertia the same thing..
and the statement is vague.. Thats like saying I influence the inertia of a
ball by blowing on it.. which I do LOL. like I'm enfluencing you as you read
this..
Philip..
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
1.Paul you state: Well here we are again, full circle -- back at the Allen
Daves primary defencive response. Attempt to bury your adversary in a barely
decipherable avalanche of dismissive verbiage..............You have failed to
respond relevantly to numerous general requests to debate the specific issue of
the behaviour of accelerometers, preferring instead various diversionary and
obfuscating detours.
There is no circle here just, a consistent line and wall of accustaions by
yourself about me but no where do i see you addressing the issues and arguments
that I not you raised. You are right this was a discussion tread I began about
the issues I raised.... so how are my comments "a detour"!? My comments are the
topic of discsuion...LOL .........Everyone, is invited to comment or debate the
issues I raised, however, it is quite humorous that you would attempt to
dictate to me the terms of my "compliance" of your idea of what my own
discussion thread is!? The fact that you seem to think I somehow must yield to
your definitions and terms of my own discussion to be is well.......what are
you thinking?...........LOL...........I have addressed your comments adiquitly.
If you feel that I have not then you should have no problem making a logical
case why my comments and arguments are irrelevent or inadiquate to the issues i
have raised. But, you don't you only accuse me of obfuscating.....Paul, your
actions here are by deffintion obfuscating!?.....
2. If you do not understand or grasp Machʼs principle, simply state that.
I cannot be said to have refused addressing or obfuscating anything certainly
not anything I have raised about accelerations & gyroscopes! Notice: "anything
I have raised", what you raise is only a relevant argument wrt mine pro or con
if you can logically show how and to the issues that I originally raised. In
your "problem" any answer other then the one I gave is not relevant to the
discussions here for the very reasons I pointed out. If you disagree with that
dont just accsse me, explain to everyone why my arguemnt is not logical and
thus invalid and yours is valid and more logical. Secondly, the issue here is
not what the or any "calculation" for the/ any amount of detectable
acceleration in a free fall.....The discusion that i raised what that there is
a detectable acceleration in free fall not "calculations"..!?..You are
appearnelty quite confused on much here. Besides, there would be little point
to calculating an effect when we don't even agree on the forces/dynamics much
less what the effect would be!
However, I will go this far......in just general terms even within MS, and
it presumes it to be universal, varying masses will yield approximate inverse
square relationships to ALL the attracting bodies in the universe....If you
think about that long enough and include all the stars not just the earth your
rocket and external mass and remember that your rocket and mass have two
different masses at two even if only slightly different distances from each
other and all those stars and each other............then umm..............Last
hint:...In real world, practical, not just imaginary thought experiments and
ideas in your head.....Pay attention Paul.....satellites even geostationary
ones......
DRIFT!......... AND, DIFFERENTLY WRT................. EVEN EACH OTHER
!........you should come to an epiphany about now.................or maybe
not???
3.Now Paul, You can:
A.Address my arguments on the issues I raised
OR
B.Make bassless accusations about me "obsfusacting" on the issues because
you don't like my arguments.....
However, thoese two are not one and the same things, and neither does the
latter (B) demonstrate the former (A).
P.S. To calculate all of that exactly...........well.....NASA developed
the whole space exploration and satilite maintinace by as much "trial and
error" and "touch and feel" as they did with all the theories and
"calculations" about gravity.....Tell you what, when you can calculate all of
the mass and gravitational variables in the universe instantly and
simoltaniously........ ...let me know....I got few ideas of my own....LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 7:19:54 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Allen D
Well here we are again, full circle -- back at the Allen Daves primary
defencive response. Attempt to bury your adversary in a barely decipherable
avalanche of dismissive verbiage. (Perhaps he won't notice that you have not
responded to the question asked). You usually take longer than this before
repeating -- you must be tiring.
I have scanned your post but cannot discern any reference to my proposition.
Yes it's your thread but you are not Robert Mugabe here. When you make
statements you invite comment. When you make statements which are false you
invite argument. I took exception to your statement that an accelerometer can
measure its own acceleration and said so. Others also said so.
You have failed to respond relevantly to numerous general requests to
debate the specific issue of the behaviour of accelerometers, preferring
instead various diversionary and obfuscating detours. You have failed to
respond to three identical -- distilled to 'irreducible complexity' --
descriptions of accelerometers. I therefore declare that you have on three
occasions, failed to answer the bell and that by so doing, you have forfeited
the match.
Thus I declare - "Accelerometers cannot detect their own acceleration when
that acceleration is occasioned by gravity."
Paul D
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 4:03:46 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Here it is again Paul?! Please note i have already stated and this is for
the 4th or 5th time now????........I would detect it with such things as a
laser acclerometer/ gyro because your example of a mass on a sping
is..................and i quote myself
"The problem with your "mass and spring" is only one of resolution or
scale that is why I appealed to quantum and laser acclerometers/ gyros. It is
not that the effect is not there in relaity it is just that in relaity our mass
on a spring is not sinsitive enougph to measure what is taking place
regaurdless of GU or HC universe......."
1. Your example problem is not even consistent/ relevant with the nature of
my assertions!
2. Any arguments you make for a lack of detection must involve a logical
contridiction on your part..for the reasons already demonstrated.
A.You don't seem to grasp mach's principle or even appear to be
aware that it exist?????
B. or the fact that gravity and inertia are one and the same in MS
if inertial accelerations cannot be detected in free fall then what on God's
green earth are we observing & measuring when we measure inertial motions only
wrt the earths field itself!? How can the earths oceans demonstrate a physical
and observable acceleration of the earth/ moon/ sun/ in free fall around one
another gravitational field? There is no difference between the earth/ oceans
and your mass/spring!?????? Both are simply mass suspended elastically(
spring/hydrostatic force)!...... 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!?..I donʼt care if you like it or not I donʼt care
how much you believe what you think and want to believe the way you believe it
is true...The fact is reality does not match the idea in your head or the point
you are trying to make,...... what's worse.....MS has always known and even
softly admits this is a problem for them that can only be reconciled to MS
philosophical, not logically using their own data, but you don't seem to get
it. You donʼt seem to get the method it is first assume a given principle The
Copernican one then secondly use that assumption to interpret the data in third
use the conclusions of that interpretations to claim the Copernican principle
is thus valid....!?
Summary:
A. I have put up...all you have and are doing is keep repeating the same
nonsense as before 1. irrelevant examples 2. clueless assertions about gravity
inertia!
B. I cited exactly how and with what you can measure the changes with if
you would bother to address MM MG & SAGNAC you might begin to start to get a
clue about how silly your whole world view realy is.
C. Making assumptions about things to interpret data with and then using
those interpretations to "validate" those assumptions is not science even if
you call it science that is a circular fallacy by definition! Your use of
relativistic concepts to interpret plain experiments and observations then with
then use those interpretations to validate those concepts is shamefully
ridiculous!.. Rather then see this you appear quite content to bathe in
ignorance and out right foolishness (by definition of those terms)
This is a thread I created and I have addressed and demonstrated all the
assertions I created. You are the one who has failed to address mine...not the
other way around! Here are some again so as to give you yet another oportunity
to see the problems that lay at your door not mine........
If the earth remained stationary wrt a distanct star but a car on the
earth first sitting at rest then began to accelerate by 1g due to that same
distanct star, would that motion be detected by your mass accelerometer in the
car or not?
There are only two posibilites:
1. If not....... then please expalin to everyone what causes the tides and
planitary bulges so we can establish the underlying physics for gravity/
inertia.....?
2. If so......... then the only difference is scale of the
effects....between a car laying horizonaly on the earths suface and "free
falling at 1g toward a distant star or a bomb hanging horizonaly to a distant
star and free falling 1 g to earth's suface....
The problem with your "mass and spring" is only one of resolution or scale
that is why I appealed to quantum and laser acclerometers/ gyros. It is not
that the effect is not there in relaity it is just that in relaity our mass on
a spring is not sinsitive enougph to measure what is taking place regaurdless
of GU or HC universe.......
.........................................
Let me futher expand on the thought there with the car in that previous
email........hint ....the car is accelerated & to the distant star as the
...Oceans.....tides...are accelerated by/ to the distant
moon....via...??....ummmmm......it starts with a "Grav" and ends with
a....."ity".
..now jump to point # 2. If so......... then the only difference is scale
of the effects....between a car laying horizonaly on the earths suface and
"free falling at 1g toward a distant star or a bomb hanging horizonaly to a
distant star and free falling 1 g to earth's suface....
If gravity acts on all parts of the accelerometer equally and simoltaniouly
then ......come on, the fire works and light bulb should have gone off days ago
by now....!?
All and any of my post were all addressing the exact same issue in the
same way!?
In my last Posting I decided to exand upon your questions but only so far
as to put another nail in and Prove my point and add more highlight to your
error. If you can't understand your logical error here then all the math in the
world will not prove anything excpect to discrtiact from the issue...YOU HAVE A
LOGICAL CONTRIDICTION IN YOUR/MS EXPLINATIONS/ UNDERSTANDING/APPLICATIONS of
Gravity, inertia and "inertial reference frames"....just to name a few...!
I will not be diverted by your attempted sleight of hand tricks. Point out
the error in my closing paragraph or forever hold to silence.
Paul D
That is what you asked for and that is what i gave you......!? Read it
again....
"I'm going to be charitable and assume that you still do not grasp what I'm
saying about accelerometers........................
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration
by gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event,
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our
accelerometer will indicate no change in velocity.",,OK quite simply your wrong
...why? ..Then how exactly does the moon accelerate the ocean tides separate
and very disticntive ( in my opinion) from the rest of the mass on the earth
it passes over.......why, it appears to take the water wrt land and "leave it
behind" .........ummm ..............Maybe it has somthing to do with "Hooke's
law of elasticity"..!? :-)
The error in your closing paragraph.... here it is.....
You can't use gravity to create "Differential Forces" & effects and then
use the same causes for thoese same forces to cause the same forces to be
"non-differential" (wrt measurable acceleration) all at the same time...!?..I
suppose though that is "the micicle of modern scicence"
Again class, .....in MS Gravity and inertia are one and the same, and
acceleration (& even direction too:-) is always and only wrt the "almighty"
"INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME".....????? Does the sun & or moon accelerate the
tides or not ?
If not then where do the tides come from ?..:-) If it does then how can
you claim that you could not detect or measure an acceleration using a
"mass/spring"/ earth v water ( im herby now invoking "Hooke's law of
elasticity"..i think:-) of a body in free fall within "inertial ref frames"?
Can you see/appreciate the full extent of your/MS problem(s) now?
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 8:09:43 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Allen D
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 31 March, 2008 5:35:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
"The fairies are in my garden ...you just canʼt see or detect them"...
Spurious.
Paul, as Regner said ""Science is not the knowledge - it's the
method."...........Now how do you demonstrate not merely assert your positions
& with acceleration?...I'm the one who made the assertion of detectable
acceleration in all cases...I then demonstrated and cited experiments that
in-fact show my conclusions to be the case.
You asserted but I'm unaware of any demonstration or citations. (Could have
been lost in the verbiage of course).
if thoes conclusions are to simplisitc because they use WYSIWYG then the
burden of proof is on you to show that they are in fact not just imagined to be
somthing other then WYSIWYG.
Standard Allen Daves defensive response.
You have yet to do that excet top say "well it could be"
I have never said of anything -- "well it could be".
....Further, I demonstrated that all your attempts at alternative
explanations are nothing more then exercise in circular falicy invoking the
very thing in question as proof of itself as well as total contradictions of
terms and concepts.
Standard Allen Daves defensive response.
The burden of proof is on you not me...
Standard Allen Daves defensive response.
so where & how you think 'green' and 'red' comes in to any of this is
completly beyond me?....
Read the Proposition again (or perhaps read it for the first time?)
I donʼt have to show anything more then what I have already asserted and
demonstrated.
You've done a lot of asserting but no demonstrating.
You however, have as of yet demonstrated nothing!...........Invoking
relativity as your position is utterly ridiculous
I don't understand most of relativity. I'd hardly make it my position.
..why?... because relativity is your position Paul..
I don't understand most of relativity. I'd hardly make it my position.
wake up!?
Some of us are getting pretty tired of your paternalistic, patronising and
arrogant outbursts.
Neither can you cannot separate the HC/AC assertion from relativity and
quoting relativity does not prove or even demonstrate relativity or HC/ AC or
anything for matter!?
Third time. See above.
Your "scientific method" is ntohing more then a circular falicy,
Second time. See above.
otherwise demonstrate first then make assertions....not as you
do.......... assert first and then claim as you do, It is thus shown!?
Huh?
For the third time. As you've not just admitted but loudly proclaimed that
an accelerometer can and does register its own acceleration due to gravity, a
position I have been challenging for some weeks without relevant response from
you, I ask you again to address this proposition -
Proposition -- an accelerometer can be used to show increasing and
decreasing velocity -- acceleration -- of a body in elliptical orbit about its
primary.
Setting -- the Universe consists of our Solar System's star (Sol) and a
space-worthy vehicle (the vehicle) in an elliptical orbit of semi major axis
150 * 10^9 m
The space-worthy vehicle consists of a 1 kg sphere of lead equipped with
an accelerometer and painted red.
Accelerometer -- two types -
Type One consists of a reference mass suspended by a spring or springs,
the extension and/or compression of which are an analogue of any acceleration
experienced.
Type Two consists of a reference mass external to the vehicle and having
a start velocity identical with that of the vehicle. The distance between the
vehicle and the reference mass, and the elapsed time, is measured on board the
vehicle for the purpose of calculating acceleration.
We will use the Type Two accelerometer which consists of a 1 kg sphere of
lead painted green.
At apogee (t = 0) with a distance of 100 m separating the vehicle and the
reference mass (the red and green spheres respectively) we begin the inward
half of the orbit translation.
Task -- explain, demonstrate, calculate or in some other manner show, at
perigee, whether the red sphere has gained upon, lost to, or maintained
position relative to, the green sphere.
No beating about the bush Allen. In the vernacular Allen -- put up or shut
up Allen.
Paul D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.3/1354 - Release Date: 1/04/2008
5:38 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.3/1354 - Release Date: 1/04/2008
5:38 AM
Other related posts:
