[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:03:46 -0700 (PDT)

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 
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....!?

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 
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 
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/ 
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 
..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 
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 
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"... 
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 
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 
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!?
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 
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 
Paul D


Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 

Other related posts: