[geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Orenge
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:29:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Equivalence
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. ..
SO did I...???
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..
wrong im not imagining one....we have the earth we have the oceans we have the
tides accelerated by nothing more then that free fall !??
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,
yes and that is exactly what i was showing.....if you start from 0 velocity
then move 160 per sec in 5 sec yes... but that is not the same a acceleration
already in progress...
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..
Well...........i addressed that from the very begining!??? remember "sacle of
the effect" from my very first couple of post!????
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...
I already told you exactly in the previous & subsequent paragraphs !???
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...
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 (do you see it now?!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.....
sagnac will tell you the velocity of the change wrt the AFR as well as the rate
of any changes to that but it does so wrt absolute motions and rest, not
relitivisic nonsence......that was the whole point for the MM & experiments
which was sagnac's predisor and then latter in 19 25 MG and then subsequintly
miller....
Phil gyros will deomstrate any deviations of motion wrt the AFR which is the
earth centered/ universe ....I is not limited to some imaginary rotations
restricted to isolated "inertial refernce frames"......all stright line motion
is rotationary in some respect to the rotation of the AFR ( earth centered
/etheral universe).....that includes "free falling" satilites...
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..
Phil a sealed tin box or not does not affect how or when a sagnac gyro
works...!???
http://www.answers.com/topic/sagnac-effect?cat=technology
the explinations for why it works are baes on relitivity but as both I and
Robert have argued and with deomstration.......Relitivity both Gr and STR
cannot explain why this effect works Choherently or consistently within it'w
own constructs...but everyone can agree it works tin box or no sealed 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:
