[geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:24:22 +1000
Can I take you one point at a time Allen.. So that we can get the semantics of
word language in common. I can handle bad spelling, grammar, and even
phrasing, in fact I encourage it for the sake of speed, but I cannot handle the
miss-use of words, especially technical words. If you say amperes and mean EMF
then I and anybody else would be stumped. I'm trying to relearn the old and
assimilate new stuff here, and when you call inertia Gravity, you teach me
nothing. When I said BASIC physics, perhaps I should have said classical
physics... Before Galelleo, and before Einstein.
You said. any change in the inertial state resutls in a observable change
called an acceleration ..
Now that is hard to understand. Your language is very difficult for me. . But
from my knowledge, I take it you mean by change in the "inertial state", as a
change of momentum.
But you then say it results in an acceleration.. I cannot follow that. The
result due to the change is a new velocity from zero to a + or zero to a - , a
new momentum or no momentum . Now we must exclude angular momentum for this
example..
The acceleration occured during the change, not the result after. Is this what
you meant? Then I agree.
Except I do not agree that this change of momentum or acceleration is always
observable. What do you mean by observable?
I would take this to mean detectable and measurable...Is that what you meant?
Ok I assume this is what you meant.. Then tell me how a man in a tinbox sealed
from all view, in free fall towards the earth can detect and measure the fact
that he is falling at the rate of 32ft/sec/sec. And in what direction he was
falling , given we tumble him around a few times during the start of the fall..
You can chose your own instrument.
A similar example which might be easier.. If you are in a vehicle and did not
know which direction your seat was facing, and this vehicle was accelerating,
(speeding up or slowing down, but throwing you back against your seat) would
you be able to detect and measure which direction and whether it was positive
or negative from your original position ? Without any external data/
knowledge, what instrument do you think would tell you.
I hope this simple question will result in a similarly short answer. Then we
may proceed to the next point of your volume. .. But only then..
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:08 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
Phil,,
If I were not so amused I would be pulling my hair out....LOL
1. There is no "basic physics" accepted by the “consensus” of the “scientific
community” external of relativity that explains why accelerations in free fall
cannot be detected period! thus your explinaitons about how grav works is
totaly irrelevant. The reason Phil, is that in "basic Physics" (Please read
Newton) any change in the inertial state resutls in a observable change called
an acceleration ..by defintion/application....... in basic phyiscs, if you do
not have a observable effect then you do not have a acceleration or inertial
effect...…there are no hidden or undetectable accelerations in "basic physics"
inerita is a relationship to ABSOULTUE MOTION AND REST IT IS a detectable
change wrt absolute rest or motion.....not relitive motions or gravitional
mechanics.....!!!… How gravity works is irrelevant for what constitues a
accelertion and inertial effect and in basic physics if it is not observable or
detectable then it is not a acceleration! In that case it would only be
asscribe as a Newtonian "relitive motion" ....reltive motion is not the same in
Newtons world as it is yours Philll.. nor is accelerations and inertial
effects.......It is that deficiancy of "basic physics" ( Newtonian physics?)
that FACT was the "insperation" for the creation and subsequent addoption of
"Relitivisitic Physics"......Again pre relativistic physics distinguishes
between absolute motion and rest and relative motions, period!….Accelerations
and inertia are not gravity dependent nor are any effects related to them in
"basic physics".....Rather a detectable acceleration and inertia is solely
dependent on real motion wrt absolute rest and absolute motions....….… I have
already demonstrated how "basic physics" address accelerations in free fall
even when gravity is the only force doing the accelerating...... also ref
Newton's bucket experiments/ arguments....
If the scale showed 30 gms before the drop ...then we drop and then the scale
shows 0 grms....that by definition is the change. in "basic physics"...the
cause of that change is the fact that we were first hanging with no velocity (
it was at absolute rest)..... and then begining to move ( Real absolute motion)
at a velocity other then what we were hanging at!!!.....Then demonstrate not
just assert what the cause of the change was......When we had 0 velocity then
we have 32 ft per sec per sec going from 0 to 32ft per sec per sec is what
caused the change...Your the one imagigning that the states of weigtlessness
and velocity are reversed...(in "basic physics") !?...
The bomb was stationary…Then began to accelerate at gravity.. a change is
observed …wala…….According to pre relativistic "basic physics" the inertial
state has changed wrt absolute motion…and absolute rest as demonstrated by
Newtons bucket experiments....…….suggest you read Newton...absoulte motion and
rest determine accelerations and inertial effects not how gravity pulls or
works on anything all at once simoltaniouly or not!!!!..so what in Phil's
personal, privet wonderfull world of “basic physics" you are appealing
referring to is even to the the consensus of the "scientific community" a
complete mystery...........The same comunity that developed all those
definitions you keep referring too…Thoes defintions in and of themselfs are
worthless without knowing how to apply them in context of which "Physics" you
are appealing to..this is why phill you need to understand the various "physics
principles" through time....context is everything.....you cant appeal to "basic
physics" on the one hand but make or attempt to draw relitivistic conclusions
with the other....!? Apples are not oranges and repeatedly claiming that they
are does not make them so…..
2. Phil, Even if everything you said were true,..even if...... (gravity
pulls on everything equally and simultaneously to all parts) and this is the
puchline..but even if all you said before were true...... .....that still does
not even answer the questions or the challenges I put forward going all the way
back to the accelerations thread.!!!!!??????.. They are still relevant here so
i keep brining them up ..here they are again:
A.The tides contradiction…they are not pulled equally to rest of the planet
but they are accelerated only by gravity...thus Phil your position is
demonstrated wrong according to "basic Physics". unless you deny that the tides
are not caused by the moon & sun grav!? ...…..…..quoting Wikipedia does not
answer anything…have you been paying attention at all?..... merely telling
everyone what you believe about gravity or quoting " basic physics" definitions
about gravity does not constitute a consistent demonstration of how gravity
works in the world outside your head…..
B. The inertial paradox..(slide 2 attached.....a separate but related tides
issue)
C. gyroscopic contradiction.....Which relates to absolute motion in
Relativity or in "basic Physics"
Newtonian Mechanics does not and is not what describes or defines....motion
(absolute v relative which Newtonian Mechanics distinguishes) nor does MS use
Newton to explain gravity, inertia, or acceleration, or how those things work
wrt bodies and or each other in celestial mechanics ... The point to all of
this is the diagram I attached earlier..(I will attach it again here so no one
has to hunt for it) succinctly makes my point #2 in my previous
postings.....(you can't have a detectable inertial reaction both detectable and
not detectable there at the same time wrt the exact same things)......& thus
highlights one aspect of the the tides acceleration issue in Point # 1 ...
3. MS and the "Science community" does not use Phils privet, personal “basic
physics” to describe the mechanics of the universe.....Regner and Paul and yes
phill even thoes wekipedia defintions all subscribe and subordinate to
Relativity and it's explinations/ applications of thoes things.........…Phil
Does not…ok fine.......but, now you should see why my postings have to be so
complicated and lengthly. I have to argue all sides of the issues.. so as to
cover all that territory..(not to mention that my writting is admitedly
"somewhat" slopy) …. I have to address more then one poisition at at a time and
then address all the possibilities related to those various positions of yours
Regners and Paul's......What "basic Physics" are you refering to ?!.. .....
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:53:05 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
Philip,
I was merely picking out the essential parts of Allen's posting and trying
to get the group focussed on relevant issues of this debate.
By saying that "Einstein taught us that gravity and acceleration are one
and the same," 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. I did not consider it a possibility that Allen was claiming that F
= a, which would not even be true for a unit mass.
Hence, regarding your comments about 'gravity' and 'gravitation', I do not
accept that any problem exists there, since it is quite normal in physics to
state the 'force of gravity' when referring to the force.
Regards,
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, 10 May 2008 10:01:13 +1000
Well Neville I must say this post from you surprised me.. you say,
"Einstein taught us that gravity and acceleration are one and the same."
If this is true, then he turned definitions of physics upside down and
into a joke..
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday
use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a
general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass
exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is
supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this
attraction. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime
curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each
other.
Thus to start with, relativity is using the distinct term gravitation
not gravity.
But you then say "THAT IS THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE" and again, is
perfectly correct.
How can anyone get "equivalence" to mean ONE AND THE SAME , or are the
same?
Thats like saying that because cheese and beans are equivalent protein
foods, that they are the same.. Which obviously they are not. We can or may
say the Geocentric and heliocentric systems are dynamically equivalent, but
NEVER are they the same.
In any case, Paul and myself were not quoting relativity physics, in this
discussion with Allen over an accelerometer which IS a different physics. But
thats beside the point.. I am forced to examine what Hindstein did say.
According to wiki in a nutshell..
In the physics of relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several
related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial
mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as
experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is
actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a
non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
"In the physics of relativity" obviously points to a different physics
.....BUT from this paragraph it seems obvious to me that He is not saying that
gravity and inertia are the same thing but , now listen carefully,
But that the FORCE the gravitational force, is the same as the
pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame
of reference.,
I take that to mean the forces are equivalent, like as the protein in
beans and cheese.. But that Beans aint cheese , and gravity aint inertia still
hold...
In any case, the equivalence principle is based on this FALSE
PRESUMPTION,
Today the notion of "absolute space" is abandoned, and an inertial frame
is defined
To me in some respects this is WORSE than denying God.. Because it denies
basic common sense.. Its like saying one must deny the existence of mental
telepathy because they cannot duplicate it, or find it . or make it..
Therefore I would not, and could not intertain any thought of accepting such
erroneous principle based upon a basic precept of the non-existence of absolute
space. By the way, I take Absolute space in this context to mean a place of
absolute non-motion.. The relativity people mean it to mean "absolute time and
space"
A real concoction that one, yet one I'm partial to in my own way of
course.
It has to be acknowledged that IF reality is four dimensional, then all
the rules get bent.. That is a big IF..
And in any case there are at least four equivalence principles ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Philip
for nit picky:
The equivalence principle emerged in the late 16th and early 17th
centuries, when Galileo showed experimentally that the acceleration of a test
mass due to gravitation is independent of the amount of mass being accelerated,
thereby refuting Aristotle. These findings led to gravitational theory, which
concludes that inertial and gravitational masses are identical...
Note the masses are identical, not the definitive meaning of gravity and
inertia.
The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in
1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of
the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being the acceleration of gravity at
the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving
body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a
rate of 1g. Well of course! we called it artificial gravity! But rest
assured, changes in gravity due to near massive bodies will not be detected by
people on the earth, whereas a change in the motor power accelerating the
rocket will throw the passengers around the room.
Notice again, the accelerations are equivalent, not the meaning of
gravity or inertia..
However Wiki then expresses an opinion, or a hope perhaps, but wrong none
the less.
Today the notion of "absolute space" is abandoned, and an inertial frame
is defined
yet still conclude, "So the original equivalence principle, as described
by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically
equivalent. "
Notice the equivalence of motions, not saying the terminology gravity is
the same as inertia.
Not anywhere have I found a denial of these basic definitions. Gravity..
and inertia.
Does Einstein or Allen or anyone deny these definitions as referring to
two entirely different conditions, and that they still be true.
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday
use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a
general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass
exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is
supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this
attraction. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime
curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each
other.
INERTIA
Definition 3 of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which
states:[1]
The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by
which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present
state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line.
In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer
to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is
quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g.
"this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is more properly
understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia as described by Newton
in Newton's First Law of Motion which, expressed simply, says: "An object that
is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering
equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." In even simpler
terms, inertia means "A body in motion tends to remain in motion, a body at
rest tends to remain at rest."
END OF SELECTIONS of modern confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date:
10/05/2008 11:12 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 10/05/2008
11:12 AM
Other related posts:
