Thank you Neville for trying to clarify what Allen is
presuming.. However WE were not debating Einstein or relativity.
And most of his presuming apart from being difficult to interpret, had no
bearing on the thread under discussion. We cannot make any progress if basic
physics is ignored in favour of consensus theoretical physics. I say the same to
Paul.
You said,
"Allen was presumably saying that it is a tenet of
General Relativity that the two are indistinguishable. I.e., the effects of both
are equivalent. ( inertia and gravity )
I cannot accept that all the effects of these two are indistinguishable,
and therefore I do not accept the tenets of general relativity in this context.
If he were to have read the article from wiki, the links I
posted, he would read the distinct differences acceptable I presume within
general relativity.
But these issues do not come into the debate Paul
initiated, which is with reference to the local gravitic effects on mass as it
affects a spring mass accelerometer. .
Undetectable star systems, and relativity have no bearing
on what we try to keep in focus, that a spring accelerometer will not register
changes of motion, acceleration, in a local gravity field, due to changes of
gravity. Nor will it detect changes of direction such as occurs in free
fall orbit due to gravity.
Alan is denying that gravitation is applied equally to
every particle of mass equally.
He has consistently denied with a barrage of
unrelated side issues , the following practical application.
That if a space orbiting vehicle is passing under another
massive body such as the moon, every particle on board the vehicle will deviate
in orbit (acceleration change) exactly the same amount as does the vehicle
itself, whether it be a feather, or a weight suspended on springs. The spring,
the weight(mass) , the feather, the air, will all accelerate equally in
synchronism, feeling no effect of change.
This accelerometer will not register any change..
For this Allen has subjected us to reams
of "you do not understand....."
Now I do not see the need to repeat the exclusions of the
NEGLIGIBLE gravitic effects between the positions between the inner and
outer walls of the vehicle, or even the atoms of air, nor the different
positions of the vehicle on the outer periphery of its curve or orbit compared
to the centrifugal force on the inner wall of the vehicle, which on scale is
rediculous to consider. All of which do have significance when it comes to
the discussion on tides, (a separate thread) where different parts of the
spaceship earth are subjected to different gravity disruptions. I have not been
quite game to delve into the tidal question which causes me some questions.
Now let him accept what is said above and finalise this
thread..
Wanna bet he will?
Philip
