[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcsY
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
PHIL,
"Nuts! we are not doing too badly in practise without it.. We do not know
what a magnetic field is either.. Does that prevent our designed machines from
working? When you make the assertions you do about accelerations in a free
fall in a gravity feild you are using GTR& STR You might be--- I'm not.. Stop
putting words in my mouth..I keep it down to earth Allen.
The rest of your words are beyond my comprehension, outside the subject I
raised and not specific to any point in my response."
...i'm not putting words in your mouth "a rose by any other name is still a
rose".....call it what you like but it is GTR/STR not Newton that claims a
acceleration cannot be detected in free fall that is psudo physics....but phil
it gets better ........& this is not outside the subject ......the kicker to
all that i said before..........................If inertia is not gravity, as
we both agree too.......then you cannot claim that a grav feild will prevent a
inertial detection because inertia is not gravity nor dependent upon gravity.
Inertia is only wrt motion not wrt gravity. So unless you either equivocate
inertia with gravity or graivity with motion itself then the absense or
presence of grav feild cannot determine the detecion of an acceleration/
motion. Since inertia/grav/motion are not the same things, then neither can you
define or prevent a detectble effect (motion/ acceleration) via a garv feild.
If you cannot equivocate inertia (detectable
change in the state of motion) with gravity then you cannot determine or tie
"detectable motion" (acceleration) to the presence of a gravitational feild
either..full stop..the machine is now completly broken!
see why any claims against accelertaions in free fall are a problem for anyone
including MS?......It is not a problem for GU but it is a killer problem for
HC/AC.
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 2:54:50 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcsY
2."Why complicate the exercise by going galactic. ?" Because untill we know
what gravity is in reality we cannot isolate and incubate a force from all the
other forces if we dont know which ones are which or how they work with/
without each other..........
Nuts! we are not doing too badly in practise without it.. We do not know what
a magnetic field is either.. Does that prevent our designed machines from
working? When you make the assertions you do about accelerations in a free
fall in a gravity feild you are using GTR& STR You might be--- I'm not.. Stop
putting words in my mouth..I keep it down to earth Allen.
The rest of your words are beyond my comprehension, outside the subject I
raised and not specific to any point in my response. .
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:24 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcsY
Ok Phil ...
1.my point was that Newton did not object to my use of an accelerometor in free
fall but you kept objecting to my arguments you say based on Newton?.... When
you make the assertions you do about accelerations in a free fall in a gravity
feild you are using GTR& STR if we are talking EMR/EMR ....For the record
Newton would probably almost certainly agree with me since he asssumed absolute
motion was the reality, at least i think he would have agreed far more so then
GTR&STR.
2."Why complicate the exercise by going galactic. ?" Because untill we know
what gravity is in reality we cannot isolate and incubate a force from all the
other forces if we dont know which ones are which or how they work with/
without each other..........
3. I agree that gravity and inertia are not in reality the same thing even if
MS procalims that but if i am arguing with MS folk i will use their own
precepts against them to make a case.............ok, since you like to day
dream then lets go futher down the rabit hole........How can a accelerometer
detect the motion of a car simply because the force is applied to the
wheels..The accelerometer does not have wheels or know of wheels. The whole
accelerometer is in contact with the vehicle as a whole .....how does it know
the force is coming from the wheels? oh we mean that the force must be
transmitted from the wheels through the frame to the accelerometer.....but wait
inertia/grav is not the force I applied it is the "force" that counters
mine...so is inertia a real force and if it is which "force" am i actualy
detecting?...when we say we detect an acceleration are we detecting my force or
inertia/gravity force?..so which force is the accelerometer
detecting the inertial/gravitational or my force?.If the "inertial force" is a
real force then how can we say we are detecting the inertal force that is equal
to all parts simoltaniously ?....If it is not a real force how do i measure it
or make the claim that "nothing" acts on every part equaly!?... If we say we
are only detecting our force then how can we claim proof or knoldege for what
or how ( equal to all parts) the inertial/gravitational force is acting on
mass in the first place? How do you make a distinction between the action of
the two forces mine v inertia?.Is inertia a real force or just a reacation to a
real force ?...If force is force then why would it matter where i apply my
force to a mass?... Inertia is said to be a reaction to the grav field....but
wait if the resistance to my force is equal to all parts then any reaction to
that field should also always be equal to all parts...but wait if that were the
case then how can any
inertial effect ever, anywhere, in the universe be observed or measured? How
can we claim a diferential reaction to something that acts equaly to all parts?
what is the difference between a hyperbolic orbit around a star and hyperbolic
trajectory wrt distant stars inertial/gravitainal feilds?...one is said to be a
undetectable state the other is absoluty nessisary to detect that state
otherwise there is no inertial effect, by deffintion of effect!?......So
inertia and Gravity are not one and the same thing..Ithink we can agree on that.
what we can say is :
A. "inertia" cannot and does not work isolated from and external to any other
forces in the universe (including gravity) acting on that mass at the same time
nor can it be "quantified" as such!?
B. Inertia is nothing more then the measured difference between any two states
of motion or at rest regaurdless of the cause of inertia. What constitutes
motion cannot be not dependent on inertia or an inertial feild (if one exist
other then the universe itself) since inertia also includes a measured
difference from the state of rest. Inertia depends on motion but motion does
not depend on inertia. Inertia is just a quantifiable change to real
action/effect as measured from a absolute frame of reference. Without such a
absolute frame there can be no motion period. This is true because any real
relative motion is only relative to other real bodies that have a real states
of either rest or motion. Without a real state of either rest or motion
existence of a body is non-definable or non-quantitative wrt any quantitative
reality. To be non-quantative about an inherent state og being is to be non
scientific, neither can to claim a non-quantitative state be
considered a mythologically sound by definition of those terms. Otherwise,
there can be no such thing as motion at all for the space that separate any two
or more bodies in motion must itself be absolute , otherwise there would be no
way to measure even relative motion.
C. A "gravitational field" cannot define what constitutes inertia. Since
inertia a just a measured differnce of the state of motion, then absence or
presence of a gravitational field does not dictate or prevent what constitutes
real motion.
D.The presence or absence of a Grav field cannot prevent the measurement of
something it does not define or affects the definition thereof.
E. We have no bases logicaly or experimentaly to claim that gravity works on
every molecule equally and simultaneously such that accelerometers cannot
detect acceleration forces to include a acceleration caused by "gravity" itself.
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 2:00:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcsY
1.I was not shouting...the font defaulted .. I'm glad Allen. I run away from
sensitive people when they get rattled. Hurt comes from pride you know.. I
pride myself upon having no feelings of pride. No feelings period.. now down
to work. You sayeth,
......AS for STR and GTR you still don’’t apply GTR or it termonology or
concepts consistently and you are right you "really (dont) know what it
is".......Allen
I havn't used STR and GTR or its termonology in the context of this discussion
at all!
It must be me that cannot write coherently.. Allen you take selections of my
text out of context.. You are missing the theme of my primary objective.. I
try to make single subject simple paragraphs for you. But you read different
meanings into what I say.
I never use the scientific jargon, you call terminology , as regards GTR or STR
. without specifically naming it. I do not believe in them as part of my level
of physics which is the practical application.. Applied Physics..
When I theorise, I always try to make it obvious I am dreaming.. How many
times have I conflicted with Paul by declaring that concensus does not make any
theory TRUTH ?
I said, and I highlight it again/
When I say relativity
Here is what you missed loud and clear..
relativity noun [U] FORMAL
the state of being judged in comparison with other things and not by itself.
At the risk of annoying others on this list with another oupouring of
unnecessary circulatory discourse, I will put short comments into your blues
below...Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil,
1.I was not shouting...the font defaulted to 24 and i wrote those in a hurry i
was busier then i normally am......no spell check or double check of
anything......AS for STR and GTR you still don’’t apply GTR or it termonology
or concepts consistently and you are right you "really know what it is".......
."Then I've heard of special relativity... I don't really know what it is. but
it could be suspect."............
"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. "
2. Newton did not proclaim that a gyro cannot detect the acceleration in free
fall!?............The theories you say you don’t know what they are (GTR STR)
did that!,
To me its not anybodies theory. Its a practical reality of life. I held a
spinning flywheel in my hand and tested the reactions.
after real world experiments not just Newton’s thought experiments were
actually performed and showed difficulties with understanding of motions in a
HC universe????........... I think it is funny you keep saying things like
"The application of gravity effects every molecule in a given space equally, on
the sprung mass of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the vehichle
containing it. As far as I know, gravity is the only force that can do this".
SO What do You base this on what?!
Common Sense!
A Ball and feather?!..no one is arguing that a ball and feather in a vacuum
chamber will appear to your supper scientific calibrated eye to hit bottom at
the same time.....??? Neither will any HS student who has ever taken a
accelerometer on a roller coaster or elevator ..or even a free fall from a hot
air balloon claim that every molecule in that accelerometer had the
gravitational force to act on every part of it equally such that it showed no
acceleration !?..why?...because although the force of gravity itself is
consistent...the materials that it acts on have different properties......oh
you forgot to take into consideration that different materials transfer "FORCE"
as you point out so cleverly here differntly..
Yep gravity works on protons or electrons equally, be they feathers or lead
balls.. I expect you to know I mean this to the exclusion of all other
extraneous forces. .
"There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an
application of a force or forces. .. full stop". So if force is force then the
difference must be in the materials that must emit that force but also how
that/ any force is transmitted through all the materials...................wait
for it phil...............since there is a interior and a exterior and the
source according to newton is the masses then ......OH MY GOODNESS I THINK WE
JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY!? this is sad... Gravity even if though it is constant &
consistent "force" must still traverse and even pass through various different
materials that have various different properties wrt how they emit/transmits
"forces"..we know that is true cos density affects "force transmision" "in the
lab" .......PHIL, .you know all thoes "gravitons" no I don't know or what
ever it is in MS or "Newton’s universe" that
causes and transmits gravity....oh wait, Newton did not know what gravity
was, so he never actually specified or even address that little
issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????? ......(that was as shout!)....now, I'll
tone it down an octive or two....still sad.......So ...you mean......"Gravity
force" whatever that is may not be the only variable to how gravity works in
the real world?....Yes, that is what real world not just thought experiments
show...........ummmm......... what a novel idea! I don't get it.
3....If there is no difference in acceleration forces Did I say that? read me
again. taken from mine below.
"There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen "
Of course an exploding bomb is a differnt force to magnetism or gravity. never
said differently. But your assumption that I did gives you this false Idea :
"then you certainly cannot claim a gyro cannot detect a acceleration in free
fall in orbit around a body." is not true..Are you being obstropolis. How many
times have I denied saying such a thing. .if the gyro detects a change in
orientation wrt the body in the same direction as the orbit .....ta-da.... then
it must have detected that acceleration (by definition of acceleration Yes!
but have you forgotten we were discussing Pauls accelerometer on springs. and
again I repeat that is an accelerometer, not a flywheel. How many times are you
ignoring my stated statements. This is especially true if the rate of
orientation change wrt the body is identical to the orbital period!? Phil not
only do you keep invoking logical contradictions and inconsistent terminology
of MS while claiming you dont
subscribe to it but you insiste on holding me to the very thing you say you do
not accept but use to make all your argument? I could not follow any reasoning
here. Read mine above again.
4. I dont have to mention problems with tides and inertia itself again ..just
dont think i forgot about it.....I just hope you have.. I couldn't stand any
more MS relitivity.
5. "If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the
passengers would not even know the turn had been made.. Isaac Asimov. " He
bases this statement on what?!
Knowing Asimov, he no doubt interpreted it according to einsteins theories of
relativity.. but he explained it to us nerds reading the pulp magazine in
simple practical terms that we could work with. ... If the driver accelerates
the car we get thrown back wards in our seat, because of our inertia.. But if
he accelerates both the car and our bodies with an equal force , we will not
notice a thing.. .. and gravity can do that.. I find that perfectly logical
in practise, even in a world without Einstein, especially in a world without
Einstein.
Maybe one day a moment of consistent & "sober" thought ;-) will pass by your
way...when it does don’t just wave at as passes you by ...for heaven sake get
out into the middle of the road highjack it and take all they got!........;-)
LOL
I should be so unlucky! Sorry all,
Phil
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 5:22:05 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
No Phil Allen is rattled.. he is shouting.. it doesn't work.. see I turned
the volume down..
"niether Paul nor you have demonstrated in any fasion the differnce between an
acceleration in any direction and a change in oreintaion to any
direction..which by deffintion requires an acceleration to that direction!? The
dishonesty here is with thoes who say..." etc
There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an
application of a force or forces. .. full stop.
Simple vector diagrams of applied forces explain both the direction and
magnitude of change of velocity of the motion of any mass. We were/are
discussing the effect of the application of just one type of force.. gravity.
The application, Allen not the theory of whys or wherefores.. The application
of gravity effects every molecule in a given space equally, on the sprung mass
of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the vehichle containing it. As
far as I know, gravity is the only force that can do this.
If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the
passengers would not even know the turn had been made.. Isaac Asimov.
The rest of your post was beyond garbled.
Philip.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.11/1368 - Release Date: 9/04/2008
4:20 PM
Other related posts:
