[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 15:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Allen D
I once read of the effects which would be noticed by a human being free falling
feet first into a black hole. It was stated that one would be stretched further
and further as one got closer and closer to the destination because the feet
would be closer than the head and therefore be accelerated to a higher velocity
because the gravitational attraction would be greater at the feet than the head
and that the closer one got to the destination the 'taller' one would become.
Is this the effect you postulate for the functioning of your accelerometer in
an elliptical orbit?
Paul D
No...and i know this is difficult espesialy if you dont understand what grav
and inertia are....im not ridiculing you ..coz this realy is rocket
science..but you must first understand how MS defines and expains grav and
inertia before you can argue that its conclusions are correct!?
In a eliptical orbit the variations wrt all thoese grav feilds that are the
cause of inertia is even more so then in a circular orbit.....you cant just
ignore the very "engine" of your orbit which is also at the same time the cause
of Inertia and say we can detect it as long as we move in arc wrt to thoes
grav/inerial feilds but as soon as our arc becomes a circle or elipse.... well
then...when we travle in a cirle now it just all magicly disappears...!?.
.. In a orbit eliptical or not there are two gravitional forces..one toward
the body being orbitied and the other away from the body being orbited, ..we
also need which inertia to keep the whole thing moving "indefinatly" but
ineritia is just a reaction to the grav fields of all thoses distant
bodies ..........inertia is just a term ussed to describe the reaction mass has
to all the grav feilds in the universe.....inertia is the force of grav actiing
on eveything in MS...................
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 according to MS
.............. so which grav field and from where is it acting on the satellite
in the opisite direction of the pull of the gravity coming from the earth?...MS
claims all those other gravity feilds external of our Inertial ref frame
.......well then you can't isolate "one" ref frame from all the other fames out
there because if acceleraions are detected wrt
one set of grav feilds then it must be able to be detected wrt the other set
of grav feilds....but wait all those other feilds out there are what causes the
detectable acceleraions in the first place............what are we detecting in
an acceleration in the first place?..it is the inertial effect of all thoese
external grav feilds..........so then.....How is a circular/ continuous arc/
elliptical orbit of a near star (grav/inerital source) different from a
circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant star
(grav/inerital source)..... 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 which is what we use to detect accelerations? 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" ( orbiting a gravity feild source)
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?
________________________________
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
Other related posts:
