[geocentrism] Chatter Re: Re: accelerometer and SR
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:10:48 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
Do you prefer chilli sauce with that? Or horse radish perhaps?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April, 2008 9:37:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: accelerometer and SR
It not a smoke.. actually its a food and quite delectable..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: accelerometer and SR
"There is just no reply to that."
Your right Paul, you nor Regner nor Philip have any vlaid choherant
explanations to any of it, just cicular and basless assertions of
nonsense......thats my point!.
1.2.
3.How you can have a detectable change in orientation wrt a body (in
grav/inertial free fall) while not having a detectable acceleration wrt the
same body.....OH yea......and without that little bit of information ( a
detectable change in orientation around another body) you cannot even claim
that your body even has a orbit period!..... around anything real or
relative............Without a detectable change in orientation you cant lay
claim to any motion period real or relative...Oh but wait you say we can do so
by looking at the background stars......well then..... looking at the back
ground stars (external of your frame of refer so as to give you frame of
reference a reference frame) still does not tell you which one of all those
things has any motion.......If you don’’t know that you have a motion wrt
another body then you can’’t claim observable motion of the background stars as
evidence for what is in question that you don’’t know and
are trying to figure out in the first place!? If the argument is real v
relative motions are meaningless wrt each other as Fred Hole does then, so to
is the argument against a absolute rest frame! ..Why?...Simple, because either
way not matter what the "truth" of motion is your own argument prevents such
knowledge or validation of either motion. If real v relative motions are
meaningless wrt each other then how can you use "relative motion" to argue
against the possibility of an absolute rest frame thus absolute motion?..The
axiom is itself self-defeating in that it declares itself as meaningless wrt
the alternative?! If they are meaningless wrt each other then how can it be a
valid argument against it?...... Lets go one step further ...so 1.how is your
theory falseifable and 2. How does it support invalidity for something else
when it can’’t even demonstrate validity about itself!? So now you all are back
to square one....In a circular or
elliptical orbit how do you know that there is ANY MOTION(orbital) at all,
real or relative?!
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:04:08 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: accelerometer and SR
Allen D
From your latest ramble we have -
You never did address how gravity that acts on all and every part equally
causes tides and interacts with inertia such that the very principle of inertia
demands that we should and could not prevent a observational delectable
acceleration in free fall!?!?..What on earth are you guys smoking out
there????.
There is just no reply to that. I really do wonder just what the hell you are
smoking.
Paul D
________________________________
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star
different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant
star.....remember 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? If you claim that the inertial /gravitational
field only pertains to the "Inertial reference frame" such that the distant
mass do not significantly affect the inertial field of the "inertia reference
frame"...Then please explain what keeps the orbit of the bodies from
collapsing?!........ 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 (it’’s "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 ..you know ......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" so as to
produce the force that keeps the propensity of the orbiting body to move away
from the body being orbited,...... then how in your wildest dreams can the
inertial affects of acceleration in free fall not be detected by the changes
wrt those same exact distant inertial/ gravitational fields that force us to
detect the acceleration (inertial effect) when not in free fall?!?!?! If
inertia is not gravity then how
does gravity prevent inertia? An Acceleration is a measure of the inertial
effect (the change of the state of motion wrt any given body)....Contrary to
Phil's fits of objections to which as of yet I don’t know what they are, there
is nothing in the definition I use (wrt a change in the state of motion ) that
is contrary to the one you quote from in wekipedia!? If you cannot object to me
using wrt motion because wrt motion or rest is the exact same thing...what is
motion what is rest is it not all relitive or not ?! The non-detecatble
acceleration in a free fall assertion only makes sense if and only if Inertia
and Graivty are one and the same. If they are not one and the same then the
whole non detecatable acceleration in a free fall agument takes off like a lead
ballon ... but if on the other hand they are one and the same thing it then
creates whole new sets of problems and new even more exotic contridictions in
termonologies and
concepts........at best it only creates a situatition whereby it robs Peter
(one part of the MS theory) to pay Paul (some other part of the MS theory
)...If there is not way to detect the earth’s acceleration around the sun in
free fall because grav is pulling any accelerometer & mass that we would use to
observe equally to all parts then how does that same grav in that exact same
inertial field create an observable and differnt acceleration with the
tides?..You do agree the tides are observable and accelerated by the sun &
moons inertial gravitational fieldryt..?!......If it does then you can’t claim
the acceleration in free fall cant be detected! If the tides are not
accelerated by the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a big problem don’t
you?!.....
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.23.0/1379 - Release Date: 15/04/2008
6:10 PM
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
