[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:01:36 +1000
MS relitivity What is it? Why is it? Do I have to accept it? Sorry I cannot..
and I am not using it and never have used it.
1. I have heard of literal relativity.. I like it and use it often..
relativity noun [U] FORMAL
the state of being judged in comparison with other things and not by itself.
I have heard of Einsteins general relativity I don't really know what it is.
but it could be suspect. If its this, then I do not support it or ever proclaim
it. Its an unproven theory you see.
General relativity (GR) or the General theory of relativity (GTR) is the
geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16. It
unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, resulting
in a theory in which gravity is a property of the geometry of space and time;
in particular, the curvature of space-time is directly related to the mass (and
further properties such as the momentum) of whatever matter is present through
the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations. wiki
Then I've heard of special relativity... I don't really know what it is. but
it could be suspect. If its this, then I can empathise with it as a theory and
many of its applications but Its an unproven theory you see and admits to
being counterintuitive.
Simply because as said below, "special relativity agree well with Newtonian
mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments
in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light." in the same
way that I accept Newtonian mechanics, should not be taken to imply that I
accept the overall theory of SR, and you do me a disservice by implying such.
"This theory has a wide range of counterintuitive consequences, all of which
have been experimentally verified. Special relativity overthrows Newtonian
notions of absolute space and time by stating that time and space are perceived
differently by observers in different states of motion. It yields the
equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the mass-energy equivalence
formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The predictions of
special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of
applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small
compared to the speed of light." wiki
Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in
experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light,
is where i have always been at in this entire subjects discussion Allen.
Therefore knowing you have no malice, I must presume your English reading
skills are equivalent to your writing skills which quite literally manage to
confuse everybody most of the time.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
What do you mean you are not using it?! every objection you give to my
argument wrt REgner and paul is a Confermaition of MS relitivity not anything
othere then Relitivity...all your comments make claim to MS/ relitivities
foundations....Come on your whole argument for why a acceleration cannot be
detected in free fall is based on what observation what experinace what
logic.......observation and experiance please..NONE you are basing it on MS
relitivity!...if that were not the case you would be appealing to R.Sungenis
coments on MM MG & SAGNAC..If you dont accept MS defintions...fine but then
dont use their defintions/concepts to make your case if you dont agree with
them! Phil, now you are uterly confused about which side of the argument you
are even on..!
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 4:53:25 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil, Inertia is a change wrt grav feild!?... It is a accepted fact according
to MS/relitivity!...Regner has not even bothered to dispute this..wonder
why?,,umm. Allen
I wonder why? I wouldn't bother either.. "It is a accepted fact according
to MS/relitivity"
Is it ? What is it? Why is it? Do I have to accept it? Sorry I cannot.. and I
am not using it and never have used it.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil, Inertia is a change wrt grav feild!?... It is a accepted fact
according to MS/relitivity!...Regner has not even bothered to dispute
this..wonder why?,,umm...maybe you should ask him instead of arguing with me...
... I did prove it , I quoted and gave ref to exactly when and where Einstine
himself made that procolation and even attached a recent MS paper citing that
very issue!?
If your going to use MS/ relitivity to argue a counter postion wrt mine or
even in support of MS/Relitivity then you must be consistent in your use of
MS/relitivity, otherwise it is you not me going in endless circles here....
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 3:42:40 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
4. Inertia is by defintion a change wrt the grav feild.. he means with
respect to the gravity field.
That is not so.. Prove it.. I told you before and you ignored it.. Mass
is Mass with or without the influence of gravity. Inertia is a property of mass
in that it resists change of motion..
Formal definition;
Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical
physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected
by applied forces.
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.
In common usage, however, people may also ;
NO NO Allen I will not let you take common usage errors as definitive..
You are going round in circles Allen.. and I will not go with you.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Philip
1.You can use a effect that works at one scale to define things for a
differnt scales everyone including MS knows does not work....!?
2.Yes Philip if you would bother to pay attention you would see that for
a fact they do detect accelerations even in free fall in the real world of
rockets not the imaginary one you and they keep appealing to in your head
because you don't understand how it could..!??? I even explained why and how
in real world terms, applications and experiments not your imaginary thought
experiments, just becuse you cannot detect the change in a 100' vacum drop not
mean there is no change...!?
3. Philip See also attached.....You cannot have a detectable change in
oreintaion around a grav body while in free fall and not have a accerleration
by defintion wrt that same body..!? We are still waiting for Regner to show us
how he plans to do that..where have you been! Just because Paul and Regner
excluded by what contrived authority do they do such..logiec NO observation NO!
Experimence NO!.. So the fact that "they excluded a gyro
means...what?!..NOTHING except they cant answer the chalenge! Philip where are
you???
There is no difference between a change in direction( acceleration)
within ones own radius and a change external of ones own radius!...we call on a
orbit the other is a spin. A a gyro cannot demonstrate a detection of change in
direction/ within its own radius wrt a body in free fall but at the same time
not be able to detect a change in direction outside its own radius wrt that
same body/grav field ....that is a logical contridicion.....and cannot be
demonstrated anywhere in the universe wake up!
4. Inertia is by defintion a change wrt the grav feild..how on earth can
any inertia exist anywhere in the universe (even in deep space where Einstine
equivicates it to a free fall in a grav field) if you cannot detect the change
of a body in elitpical orbit in free fall....PHIL .. that is by defintion a
change wrt the grv field!?....You cannot calim inertia is a change wrt the grav
feild but have no detectable change wrt to that fieild, becuase a eliptical
orbit is not any differnt then any other motion wrt any other field in
space!......Inertia & grav are either exist or it does not but you cannot use
them in a self exclusive and contridictory way! it is there but you can only
detect inertia when there is a change wrt grav feild in free fall or (deep
space) but have no detecable change wrt a grav feild......
5 Simply making assertions about what Paul and or Regner and or
Relitivity state proves nothing and deomnstrates nothing! Most importaintly, it
certainly dose not negate or somehow nulify my arguments! What on earth are you
thinking....if "regner disqualified" whay cant "i disqualify"...Philp you are
not making any sense......the argument must stand on its own as of yet they
have not demonstrated a arguement that can stand on its own they like you just
wave your hand and declare "it is thus so" or "thus invalid". I puit forward
arguments claiming my argument is invalid because your theory makes certain
claims is logical..?!? That is the whole point for the decusion to evaluate
their claims and ours!!! you cannot make an evaluation of mine by assuming
theirs is true! that is not a evaluation that is a circular falicy! You siply
amaze me you at times see to understand then latter you get confused agin by
the circular logic of relitivity and its proponets...????
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 7:02:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
that principle only holds true at certain scales...and i have already
stated scale is the problem .....???????? Paul and I were not into those
scales.. We were in the scale range where in practical terms as you say "the
principle holds true.."
An accelerometer specifically the spring type, but I add any type no
matter how sensitive, will not show any reading during any accelerating state
caused by gravitational forces, which for example the geostationary satellite
is doing..YES IT WILL, IT DOES AND THEY USE IT in space!?
Yes they use it and No it won't measure accelerating state caused by
gravitational forces... They use it to measure acceleration due to their own
local powered movements obital corrections etc.
If you have a super duper laser accelerometer that would work in this
situation, Send it to Nasa It'd have to be worth millions. This gets to the
whole motion & acceleration issues.....Any Sagnag gyro will show any motion
free fall or now wrt earth/bakground stars.......and thanks but NASA already
has and usese it so dose DOD??? ..there is a difference between what the text
books espouse and what works in reality, have you been keeping up the post this
is a demonstratable fact.....!?
Hang on now.. Paul, and Regner, have specifically excluded a gyro,
acknowledging that it will detect curved orbital motion, and you know it, or
you have wittlessly not read the posts. The flywheel action is not a
gravitational effect. .. It can detect curved motion, which is acceleration.
The gyro will not detect linear acceleration. It cannot be truely called
an accelerometer.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Blue...
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 5:50:53 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
We are not discussing a ball and a feather we are discusing how gravity
works not just on the small scale but large scale with planets and suns
ect.....All bodies and a universe all interacting at once with
eachother......Allen
No we are not! You might want to.. Paul merely stated a working
principle that works in real experiments, proven yes, and related to the
feather drop experiment.. Again that principle only holds true at certain
scales...and i have already stated scale is the problem .....????????
An accelerometer specifically the spring type, but I add any type no
matter how sensitive, will not show any reading during any accelerating state
caused by gravitational forces, which for example the geostationary satellite
is doing..YES IT WILL, IT DOES AND THEY USE IT in space!? or the Space
station. Those guys have no instruementation available to them, laser or
otherwise that would tell them what their acceleration was or even if they were
accelerating.
The sun the moon or the stars passing would perhaps change the
rate/direction of acceleration, but such changes not register on any
accelerometer of even be felt by their inner ear.. the most sensitive
accelerometer I have. Even if they looked out, their eyes would deceive what
their brain told them as they gazed upon the spinning ball called earth, and a
sun or moon speeding by.
If you have a super duper laser accelerometer that would work in this
situation, Send it to Nasa It'd have to be worth millions. This gets to the
whole motion & acceleration issues.....Any Sagnag gyro will show any motion
free fall or now wrt earth/bakground stars.......and thanks but NASA already
has and usese it so dose DOD??? ..there is a difference between what the text
books espouse and what works in reality, have you been keeping up the post this
is a demonstratable fact.....!?
Philip.
I drop my worthless bit of comment into your questions below
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil,
1. How does a ball and feather drop prove gravitational theory and
demonstrate that with planitary mechanics ....??? the discussion was not to
prove any theory. It was confirming Pauls assertion concerning the working of
an accelerometer. The reality of what happens, has happened is happening and
which you deny. The above drop experiment proves that gravity acceleration ,
what ever its source, or however it operates , acts on every single molecule
equally without preference. regardless of its mass, and thus cannot be detected
by any mass object within itself. The hit at the bottom of course is a
different equation altogether. Likewise any drive source using internal energy
on part of the object/s.
If the above experiment were long enough a drop, then any large mass
placed close to the tube say half way, the deviation on the feather and the
lead ball would be exactly equal. and undetectable by any onboard instruements.
But I believe laboratory positioned observers can read the effects.
2.Even MS openly admits the inverse square law breaks down and is not
absolute....??? As above this does not even come into the discussion re
accelerometers function. I'd say, So what! Where I placed the single planet
and satellite, for your discussion, it was so far away that the gravity of the
universal mass , inverse square law value not withstanding or zero value ,
meaning both zero, close enough, you did not want to play.. Because that was a
fair experiment, where you could not bring in "diabolical" distractions.
3. The fact that it breaks down so much so that they have to create
90% of their universal modle built with "dark matter" and "dark energy" that is
only knowable by vertue of the fact that their model would not work without
it....!? Well I doubt Paul or myself intended taking any accelerometer that
far out..This is just another mental distraction where you cant keep your mind
on the main point of discussion as I showed above. You are guilty of
*diabolical* obfuscation. All three,
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with
extraneous information.
3. to darken.
4. We are not discussing a ball and a feather we are discusing how
gravity works not just on the small scale but large scale with planets and suns
ect.....All bodies and a universe all interacting at once with
eachother......This should have been at the top of your list ... No we were
not being large scale.. Paul merely stated that the spring loaded
accelerometer cannot detect acceleration from inside the body acted on by a
gravitational field in orbit around the sun or earth. This is proven in
practise at least around the earth. The ball and feather experiment
demonstrates it on the ground, and should give you a clue as to how and why
without any large scale galaxies coming into it..
I would remind you that this inverse square law was discussed by
Neville and others some time ago, and even if the law failed with regard to the
earth way out near Pluto, the figure would be so negligible as to be non
existent. Matter out there would come under the influence of Pluto or what
ever. . However I think the astronomers of long past and the most recent, have
shown that this inverse law of gravity has maintained great accuracy as regards
the deviations of the planets and their moons for our solar system in general,
and our own moon in particular.
Allen you are not doing a very good service to the geocentric
cause.by ignoring the difference between theoretical concepts, and real
material experiments. Keep your subject threads separate please.. I will try
to do likewise..
Philip. .
His head, like a smokejack, the funnel unswept, and the ideas
whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with
fuliginous matter. --Sterne.
Clouds of passion which might obfuscate the intellects of meaner
females. --Sir. W. Scott.
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 2:31:45 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Allen! My experiment was not a thought experiment game but a real
mechanical question.. so I'll try enother highschool one..
If I drop a feather and a lead ball ten times the weight from a
height, down an inclosed vacuum tube, at exactly the same time, which will hit
the bottom first?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Philip M (and any others interested).
It might have been interesting but in the face of such sophistry
any further effort would just be wasted effort.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 4 April, 2008 3:24:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Guys we are not descusing nor can we experinace/demonstrate a
universe with one sun and one earth in it!?.....You simply cannot creat in your
heads some imaginary universe with only two bodies in it and extropolate the
physics of the curent real universe neither did Newton or Einstine base their
conclusions on such absurdities....The conclusions of their theories and even
in their thought experiments was based on all the bodies interacting with each
other................without absolut knowledge of what gravity is in the first
place your disscusion realy will be nothing more then a "game" not any
meaningfull discussion on inertia or detectable accelerations......... MS does
not claim the physics of the universe to work on a two body system!.......Thus,
it is not even remotley posible to mimic the real universe except in the
imaginations of your heads and even at that assuming gravity is what you think
it is in the first place!? I not interested in pursuing that kind of "game".
Start with what you have not with what you do not have..We have observations
that show not imagine that what you suppose is not true from the get go!..Why
persue a conclusion we already know to be false?!.....If it were true that you
could not detect accelertions in a free fall around in a grav feild then simply
the tides cold not exist as per MS.....Guys I'm not interested in pursuing your
thought experiments that are based on false assumptions. You dont see your
whole problem is you are so indocrinated with your idea of gravity that is
actualy not even correct in MS but you insist on it so much that you refuse to
see that your "games" are not based on any reality they are based on your lack
of understanding of MS......???
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 12:05:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Yeah...Wwork from a basic setup .. Nothing in the universe but a
stationary sun and a planet orbiting around it at a great speed.. There is no
need to bring in the butterfly principle that fluttering wings in Adelaide
makes it rain in New York.
Even Allen must accept, geocentrism or not, that we can lay down
ground rules for our lab in space experiment.. Another sun another planet all
alone in the void.
OK now I am all the way with PD that no accelerometer on that
planet no matter how sensitive, will detect the acceleration of that planet as
it circles that sun at a constant velocity in a perfectly circular orbit.. .
That will do for starters so as not to complicate the maths with
elliptical variables and barycentres..
After that when Allen finds that we is true, we can bring in other
variables due to elliptical orbits where the velocity varies, so that we will
have two different accelerations, created by the same force.. and why again the
accelerometer shows nothing..
Of course it doesn't on my kitchen table, but Allen cops out on
that one because the table aint moving. Its geocentrism see.. But the guys in
or on the space station will not feel anything on their table either.. Let
the game begin//
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Allen D
What I've always wanted to discuss but from a seeming auspicious
beginning starting at (Item 2, second paragraph, beginning "However, I will go
this far.....").
"New game" in this context means "Put aside all previous baggage
and make a fresh start concentrating exclusively on the accelerometer, the
elliptical orbit and the Sun".
At the outset, I acknowledge that every atom in the universe
influences every other atom in the universe but take the view that it is not
necessary to go to this level in order to gain an understanding of the basic
mechanisms involved.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 3 April, 2008 7:59:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
"New game. Are you interested in detachedly discussing
accelerometers?"
What would you like to discuss?
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date:
3/04/2008 6:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 269.22.6/1360 - Release Date:
4/04/2008 6:02 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date:
5/04/2008 7:53 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date:
5/04/2008 7:53 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date:
6/04/2008 11:12 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 6/04/2008
11:12 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 6/04/2008
11:12 AM
Other related posts:
