[geocentrism] Re: De Palma
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:06:31 +1000
Thanks for all of that.. You made me fell a little more sane, or a little less
mad ..one way or the other.
I might as well explain to all here, Martin especially. I knew you were not a
QM advocate Martin. so . I am probably unfair in lumping all mathmaticians ,
rather mathmatical physics professors, especially all those of the Einstein
era, Plank Saagen et al into the quantum basket.. They just aint like Tesla
and Faraday and Edison etc. These guys do the real work, and along come the
theorists, who would not know how to hold a pair of pliers, or even a hammer ..
Sorry, but I run from them. Not because I do not appreciate the input that
such analysis might advance in an understanding of reality in some cases, like
the developement of the bomb for example, but because most of it is Godless,
almost mindless, based upon dreams synonomous with Startrek, which was/is my
favorite show by the way. But I know it is fantasy. I no longer believe it to
be the reality I was educated into believing.
We could have done without the BOMB by the way, as well as the BIG BANG theory.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:46 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: De Palma
Philip,
On Behalf Of philip madsen
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:06 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: De Palma
The gyro drop experiment is listed on De Palmers site but it was not his work
apparently. I still thought it interesting..
http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html
Note all the math..
Do you mean the data analysis? Just straightforward experimental statistics.
This happens in the MS explanation of the flywheel and is one reason I
suspect they do not know why?? Philip.
Sorry, don't follow. ' What' happens in the MS flywheel explanation?? None
of this math is speculative.
The force increment is the unknown force needed to get the results measured.
A similar constant acceleration is needed to explain the anomalous deviation
from Newton's laws found in the 2 Pioneer space probes.
The experimenters draw no theoretical conclusion, as the deviation cause
could be many things: GR curvature, MOND, or aether(which it actually is!)
FICTITIOUS FORCE INCREMENT
A hypothetical, fictitious force increment which would have to be applied to
the non-rotating gyroscope to impart the increased acceleration noticed in its
rotating mode, was calculated for comparison purposes.
Force increment: F = (FR - FNR ) = .024 lbs. = .38 oz.
DATA
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Value for Student's "t" Test:
t = 2.3980
p = .0275355685 (18 degrees of freedom)
On the basis of the Standard Deviations of the data from this experiment, one
can say with a 97% level of confidence that a fully encased, spinning gyroscope
drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall
along its axis. " unquote..
This 97% level of confidence is why I did not entirely trust the experiment.
Why not have it done over a greater distance?
Now I see the problem. Level of confidence is a statistical test that
measures whether random variations in the measurement variable, time, can
account for the observed data. If the gyros were really different and were
compared/dropped 100 times, 97 of those times we would expect to see the random
variation as measured.
This has nothing to do with the subjective assessment of the results by the
experimenters.
A greater distance would add another variation source. Repeating the drop at
constant length is better; the law of large numbers says the sample mean
converges to the true/population mean as the trials increase.
Philip.
Are we on the same people? Bruce De Palma of gyro drop etc fame deceased ...
http://depalma.pair.com/
Yes
by Bruce DePalma
The description of the Primordial Field is imaginary but that is precisely
why it is correct. The best instrument for the exploration of this question is
the human mind.
Of course we disagree with his reliance on reason alone ; the best instrument
is Revelation.
The mumbo jumbo below is a good reason to disconnect from Mr. DePalma. If
this is the reason you reject his ideas, I agree with you - I had only read the
experiment above, not the purple prose beneath.
So it seems it is Kenneth Gerber, M.D., Richard F. Merritt, and Edward
Delvers that I agree with, the experimenters - not Bruce D.P.
Thanks for pointing this out.
The representation of reality within our conscious persona is constructed out
of the myriad chemical reactions to the sensory stimuli of "external reality".
On this basis the sensory image is living and we could speculate the external
reality was non-living unless we knew the self-evident proposition that all
reality was alive.
Nothing could exist unless the organizing force were more powerful than
destructive & dissipative effects. Consequentially we can view the organizing
force as transcendent and that destruction and dissipation are facets of the
constructive energy.
The most profound manifestation of the creative force in material form are
the thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are modifiers in the direction and
application of Force. We arrive at the idea that the primordial field is a
field of pure Force.
The detection of an isotropic field consists of distorting it and noting the
force isotropys.
On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the
primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of
my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of
my discovery.
..
By the way, I do not really accept quantum physics as real physics.. It also
is open to dreamtime .....and is ensconsed in similar secret jargon to
kabalistic Newton.s sideline of alchemy
Quantum facts are .. well, facts. But quantum theory is a bizarre
interpretation of said facts that is doomed to division, along with other 20th
century physics paradigms: SR, GR, BB, Old earth... Scientifically the last
century was a waste.
Robert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 25/04/2007
12:19 PM
Other related posts:
