[geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:29:42 +1000
Allen said The sinsitivity of a mass spring accelerometer is not accuate
enopugh to show the accleration itself in free fall.
Thank you..Thats all I wanted to hear.. Its what I said ages ago. ..
Then this: ...Example: if we had a very large accelerometer ( two masses
suspended elastic)say the size of the earth even the small changes that would
not be noticable before are amplified due to the scale of the "instriment"
Should not be allowed on the same basis as you disallowed my example of an
impossible all alone two planets isolated in space..
But why after the above, did you make this apparently total contradiction..
It is absoolutly false that acclerations in Free fall cannot be detected! They
most cirtainly can and are every day even using the humble mass and elastic
accelerometer...
Oh well don't worry about it.. Just your usual language skills confusion.
then you quickly follow with?
Example: the 32ft per sec per sec of a "free fall" may not be detected by using
a small mass spring becasue that magnitude of change in velocity is too small
for our instriment to detect.
I beg your pardon? Hello! from zero to 160ft per second in just 5 seconds is
too small a magnitude of change of "inertial state"? Come on Allen. Thats from
zero to 109mph in five seconds... Wouldn't want my car doing that.. But thanks
for saying it again.. and saying it again here,
Having said that even the magnitude of changes in earth's acceleraions in orbit
are too small for a conventinal mass and spring accelerometer...
You seem to get confused about my original statement.. I never said the spring
would not show changes in earth's acceleraions I said it would not detect a
constant acceleration in free fall orbit. constant acceleration= constant
angular momentum. !!! As regards changes in acceleration I did add later that
any change to a constant acceleration,would not be detected if that change was
caused by a change in gravity..
anyway,
Thanks for quick and simple confirmation..Paul please take note..
Then after reading the introduction , a long wade, I find you did respond with
an answer to my specific questions. Which I select and mark here.
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.
First, unless the inertial state changes there is nothing to detect any more
then a person riding in a car traviling a 100 MPH using a conventinal mass
spring accelerometer...because the cahgnes are too small wrt the scale of our
detection equipment.......I have said this from the very begining....Ok, but as
I showed above, the tin box is not falling at a constant velocity. It is
speeding up at 32 ft per second every second. Thats from zero to 109mph in just
5 seconds. Not many cars could do that, what? However, if there is a change in
that inertial state that is if the car slows down or speeds up then thoses
changes will be detected and this is true in a orbiting satilite as well just
as in the case of the bomb that was hanging and then changed its acceleration
state to 32f per secc per sec..........This is relevant to the earth's orbit
becuase the earth does not have a constint inertial state ( either consistent
stste of rest or a constent motion) So, we can say they earth does not have a
constent velocity or a constintent acceleration.
You avoided the question.. How would you detect the rate of acceleration
during the fall, and the direction... after I had tumbled you and the
instrument you have so that you did not know which was up or down...
Next.
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.
You can use a sagnac gryro it is sensitive enouph to tell you every time if you
are moving at almost any velocity..or any magnitude of change to any given
inertial state.........almost..every instriment has sinsitivity limitations.....
Alan once again I would hardly call the acceleration of the vehicle
insignificant if it were a jet plane for instance, and you did not know whether
you were facing forward or rearward, speeding up or slowing down...
Could you please refer me to a link explaining what a sagnac gyro is and how it
works..all I could find was four articles which talk of Interferomenters.
Nothing that would tell me how they would work in a sealed dropping tin box..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
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.
Phil,
In classic Physics, A change in inertial state is always detectable because
it is always described wrt absolute motion or rest. Any change in the inertial
state is an acceleration....acceleration is a change wrt velocity in eihter
magnitude or direction....but Velocity is treated as absolute not just some
arbitrary relitive concept in Classic Physics... In clasic physics motions are
absolute and rest is a absolute... velocity is measured absolutly thus
accelerations are always detectable wrt absolute rest or motions.........
In any case there are two basic issues here:
A. The sinsitivity of a mass spring accelerometer is not accuate enopugh to
show the accleration itself in free fall. But there is equipment sinsitive
enouph that can do that...sagnac laser gyros ect.. can... a mass spring
accelerometer can only detect the changes wrt to accelerations in a "free fall"
as long as those changes are larger then the sinsitifity of the
accelerometer...Example: if we had a very large accelerometer ( two masses
suspended elastic)say the size of the earth even the small changes that would
not be noticable before are amplified due to the scale of the "instriment"
..ie the TIDES!!!...Therfore the issue in that case with simple mass and sping
is one of scale and resolution..It is absoolutly false that acclerations in
Free fall cannot be detected! They most cirtainly can and are every day even
using the humble mass and elastic accelerometer...the thing to rember is that
scale or the sinsitivity of our accelerometer is determined in part by the size
of our accelerometer and the subtilty of the effect we are looking for.....
B. That problem is moot to begin with as it relates to the earths
acclerations in orbit because any changes in a constinet acceleraion is
detectable...Example: the 32ft per sec per sec of a "free fall" may not be
detected by using a small mass spring becasue that magnitude of change in
velocity is too small for our instriment to detect... but almost any change
from 32ft per sec per sec is detectable again as long as the magnitude of
change is not too small........ Only the change from the inertial state need be
detected not the what the original acceleration rate was to start
with.......However, as I have stated so many times before the earth's
acceleration rate does not stay the same thus there is no reason why we should
not be able to expect to detect it. Having said that even the magnitude of
changes in earth's acceleraions in orbit are too small for a conventinal mass
and spring accelerometer...so the problem of detection is one of sensitivity
of the equimpment not the posibility of detection...there is a differnece....
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.
First, unless the inertial state changes there is nothing to detect any more
then a person riding in a car traviling a 100 MPH using a conventinal mass
spring accelerometer...because the cahgnes are too small wrt the scale of our
detection equipment.......I have said this from the very begining....However,
if there is a change in that inertial state that is if the car slows down or
speeds up then thoses changes will be detected and this is true in a orbiting
satilite as well just as in the case of the bomb that was hanging and then
changed its acceleration state to 32f per secc per sec..........This is
relevant to the earth's orbit becuase the earth does not have a constint
inertial state ( either consistent stste of rest or a constent motion) So, we
can say they earth does not have a constent velocity or a constintent
acceleration.
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.
You can use a sagnac gryro it is sensitive enouph to tell you every time if
you are moving at almost any velocity..or any magnitude of change to any given
inertial state.........almost..every instriment has sinsitivity limitations.....
Other related posts:
