[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:46:25 +1000
HOwever even then any and all changes to that free fall can and will be
detected even by a mass on a spring......
[PD1] Rubbish. The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb
casing.
Careeeful Paul.. If a body is in free fall (accelerating in other words,) and
a side wind or an up draft or a magnetic electric force field is met, the
spring will notice the change in speed due to these extraneous effects..
However I agree with you, any change of gravity to a falling body caused by the
orbit of the sun, ie either to the sun or away,from it would not register on
the sprung mass because all elements would feel the change simultaneously..
Allen is on Methodone with this one..
"....just as in the gravitational explinations of planitary bulges"
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:17 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
Interspersion time again. Closing comment at the bottom of this post.
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 16 March, 2008 4:42:27 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Paul,,
1. I stated accelerometer and even specified a particular kind of which your
question dose not address.....?
[PD1] I checked out quantum accelerometers at your suggestion. I gave you a
reference. I asked did this meet your specifications. You responded that it
did. I stated that, while it was very sensitive, it amounted to a mass on a
spring. I asked if you differed from this view. You did not respond. I thanked
you for your agreement. You raised no objection. I am entitled to infer that
you agree that it is indeed a mass on a spring.
2. YOU GOTA BE KIDDING!?...If you do an experiment as you shown in your
diagram with a bomb and a mass on a spring you will most assuradly without
question be able to measure the acceleration....You should try it
sometimes??????.....Most any highschool physics student has performed that
experiment before ....It works on the vomit rocket too.....free fallllllllllll
..!?
[PD1] I don't believe you. In free fall, the reference mass will be
accelerated at the same rate as the bomb casing and will take up a middle
position having no displacement.
3. The only time you could not detect the acceleration is if you
A. reach terminal velocity first then attempt to measure using a mass on a
sping, then eveything is free falling together ......
[PD1] Terminal velocity is a specious issue. I specified zero friction thus
velocity is without limit -- excepting relativistic effects. Yes I know the
bomb has fins -- don't get picky! However -- in passing -- if the bomb casing
reaches terminal velocity ie there is drag, the mass will show acceleration.
or
B. Try to measure the acceleration rate of the free fall itself once you are
in the free fall...
[PD1] Well that is the point isn't it? That's what happens when the string
breaks.
HOwever even then any and all changes to that free fall can and will be
detected even by a mass on a spring......
[PD1] Rubbish. The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb
casing.
so take the acceleration rate of the bomb first put it in free fall then
measure the rate...you cannot with the mass on the sping......however now
change that rate of that free fall as in the case of the earth around the sun
it is always changing.......either a positive accleration rate change (eg
toward the sun.) or a negitive accleration rate (eg away from the sun)...
[PD1] Rubbish. The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb
casing.
Although we should not expect to detect the acceleration rate of the body in
free fall as long as the rate NEVER CHANGES.....
[PD1] You still won't detect a change because the mass is being accelerated
at the same rate as the bomb casing!
but the rate must change for a orbit....gravity does not pull on all parts of
the earth equaly if it did then you could not have things such as weather
patters and planitary bulges explained by non gravitaion!?................
[PD1] Neither of these phenomena have gravitational origins -- real or non.
However in the case of the earth since the freefall is toward then away from
a mass there is a postive accelration curve and a negitive acceleration curve
[PD1] Agreed. Both the mass and the bomb case will equally be subject to
changing accelerations.
....just as in the gravitational explinations of planitary bulges
[PD1] No!
...and tides?????....ummmmmmmm
[PD1] I don't understand tides well enough to comment.
[PD1] The rest of this is so disjointed I cannot comment.
.....changes in acceleration/ rate and pull of Gravity can be measured
because the acceleration rate of the mass on the earth is in constent change
througout the earths orbit and roation......IF AND ONLY IF the acceleration
rate never changed and gravity pulled on all parts of the earth equaly then and
only then would you not expect to measure any accelration since everything
would be acceleration at a terminal velocity in free fall at the same rate with
no changes ever.....but then again you would not be able to appeal to ties and
bulges as effects of gravitaion for thoes are do to un-equal gravitaional
forces on a mass.......Your argument must either accept that gravity is both
acting on all mass simoltaniously or it is not....If it is qual to all parts
simoltaniously then you have no explinations for tides/ planitary bulge, if it
does not then you have no arguemnt for a freefalling objects in a gravitational
field........because a free faling object in a gravitaional feild has no
fundimental differnce then the ocean water that is free falling toward the sun
at the same rate as every other particle of mass on the earthis....UMMMM...Wake
up!
Again....any change in inertia is and can be detected free fall or not??
...This holds true for a bomb suspended then relesed to free fall or in a
orbiting body unless the orbiting body maintains a constent acceleration or
reaches a terminal velocity, where no more acceleration or changes in velocity
are taking place... that is not the case with the earth or the bomb....and
gusse what it holds true not matter how many "inertial frames" you attempt to
create.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This problem can best be resolved without muddying the waters with tides and
oblateness of orbiting bodies. Place the bomb with embedded accelerometer in
Earth orbit at Lagrange point 2 where it will be accelerated and decelerated,
just as the Earth was a little earlier in time, and explain how you believe the
mass on a spring will behave relative to the bomb casing.
If you accelerate the bomb casing in this situation with an attached rocket,
then the mass will be displaced because it is not being accelerated, but if the
casing and the mass are both being accelerated and decelerated, eg by gravity,
then there will be no displacement.
I acknowledge one weakness in my argument. If a body is placed in orbit at
Lagrange point 2, then I perceive that the distance between the body and the
Earth will increase slightly on the journey from aphelion to perihelion and
conversely it will decrease from perihelion to aphelion. My perception may be
in error, but if it is not, then is this the effect you claim you can measure
on the Earth?
Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:59:40 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
I should have known better than to ask supplementary questions so I guess I
should have expected a detour which fails to arrive at the point at issue. That
point is -- "How does a mass on a spring indicate acceleration in free fall?"
I'm not interested in how muddy your strange logical contortions can make the
waters, I just want an explanation of how a mass on a spring can be used to
measure acceleration in free fall. I'm not interested in what "mathpages" says
about ring lasers, I'm interested in hearing from you, how you would use a mass
on a spring to measure acceleration in free fall. And anyway, why should I be
interested in a site that has been derisively dismissed as having value only as
a source of humour by your confederate Robert Bennet of GWW fame. Please stop
posturing and demonstrating to everyone just how much cleverer you are than I
and answer the simple question -- How do you use a mass on a spring to
demonstrate and/or measure acceleration in free fall?
Feel free to use the accompanying illustration in your explanation.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 4:00:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Again there is difference between acidemic rhetoric and real world
applications.......The experiments were done with a cirular mirrors such that
the emitters and the micros did not rotate wrt each other (works even in a
vacuum no molecules to bounce around) so the moving mirrors or molecules in the
"laser cavity" explanation is.... well quite silly
This is my favorite statement in the whole weki explanation..."In the case of
ring laser interferometry there is no need for calibration. (In a sense one
might say that the process is self-calibrating). The beat frequency will be
zero if and only if the ring laser setup is non-rotating with respect to
inertial space." .......LOL....although they are right about no need for
calibration...the underlined portion is quite laughable!.......You can take any
ring laser turn it off wait and go to some other "INERTIAL SPACE"...LOL..
......say the sun...... then turn it on.....and it will still give you the
motion wrt the earth......ummmmmm ;-(
Clue: "Inertial space" is a Relativist term & concept not only has it never
been proven but it only has any validity whatsoever in GTR/STR!....if GTR and
STR are wrong then there is no such monsters..period!...............You cannot
use a relativistic axiom (statements of faith in GTR & STR) to claim an effect
is a relativistic effect (because you’ve put your faith in that axiom & in GTR/
STR)then use that effect to prove relativity is Valid!?..You must first prove
the axiom is true first external of relativity is true before you can use it to
prove resistivity!!!!...Resistivity does not bother to do that ...why? Because
they are stupid...NO!..Because the Axiom is self-evident!......What do we mean
by self-evident?.......IF IT WERE NOT TRUE THEN THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE WOULD
BE FALSE....ummmmmmmm.........I thought that is what we were trying to prove
one way or the others.....?????? ..What part of circular nonsense do you not
understand?
Final clue: Relativity is wrong! ....wikipedia's explanation is based on
relativity, therefore it's explanation is........... wrong!
Science has many underlying assumptions..nothing wrong with assuming some
things we all must....but...you would do yourself a big favor by looking for
those and asking the question why do we assume that?.....The reason should be
clear by now......without the Copernican principle as a underlying assumption
there is no GTR?STR.....NO GTR/STR then absolutely no explanations for why the
universe only looks centered on a stationary earth....
This is why at the end of the day folk like Fed Hoyle & Hawking must appeal
to "Modesty" ...still don’t get it?.....let me put for you in simpler
terms.......Hawking knows a lot more physics then you do....wait for it that is
not the punch line....here it comes..........and he fully understands that
Relativity cannot be proven and if cannot be proven can only be assumed but
only for philosophical reasons...
back to wekipedia.........You see as with a lot of "popular
physics"(ignorance) the commonly touted explanations are not only wrong but
even MS Science does not believe that junk although you have to do be a PhD
candidate or do some serious research on your own to find what MS really
thinks/ explains it.........
Paul, you would have done far better if you appealed to mathapges, [*] far
better more detailed formal and "scientifically acceptable" "proper" MS
explanation....... but I will wait for that one.........:-)
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:44:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
OK -- I looked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect and it
confirms my understanding of Sagnac Effect (at least that part which I
understand does -- the maths is beyond me) and I can't see why you would quote
this in defence of your assertion that a quantum tunnelling accelerometer will
indicate acceleration in free-fall.
You did not quarrel with my simplification that ' ... it is still a mass on
a spring!' so I discern your acceptance. I still want an explanation from you
as to how a mass on a spring in a falling bomb case can indicate the local
value of g (friction = zero).
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 13 March, 2008 6:19:44 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Paul.. a free fall does not prevent you from measruing an acceleration
period. Who in the world told you that....an accidemic or a theorotician
certainly not anyone doing pratical real work with free falling objects becasue
we can and do all day long?....That is the point to Sagnac 1913 suggest you
look it up.........That assertion is based on GTR it is and was proven wrong.
alas but then came STR it was invented to explain why that was still true even
though experiments using light showed otherwise.....it did so by attempting to
create "Inertial ref frames" for eletromagnetic radiation as well....alas
but...that too was proven wrong too!... The only ones who accept & invoke it as
gosple truth are theoreticans and acidemics. However, since the only other
alternitive is to admit a stationary earth ......GTR & STR are thus the stus
quo and will remain so untill somthing else can be found more phylosphicaly
acceptable to explain why the earth only appears at the center of a universe
staionary and only appears to have the/any and only motion relating to the
earth measured sidrealy not annualy. STR attempted such an explination by
ignoring or denying that any motion at all was and is ever measured coz it is
in free fall/ inertial fames....but anyone who actualy performs an experiment
with acceleration of objects in freefall knows that is absolutly not
true!?..........You don't see you are using GTR axioms (statments of faith) to
prop up the GTR Conclusion but you must use the GTR conclusion to "support" the
axiom. GTR and STR have absolutly no foundation to them whatsoever without
invoking the "Coperican principle" that was the whole point of their
developement by Einstine and crew in the late 19th and early 20th century...?
The problem is you can't invoke the very principle you are trying to "prove" or
hold as self evident as the foundation for the theory that supposedly proves
your principle...... that is not proof that is a circular falicy built opon
faith in the copernican principle. the experiments show that objects in free
fall the acceleration can be measured w/ort to anything outside of that free
falling object.....!? Proof is in the application not in the theoretical and
acidmemic retoric..... We do it all the time.... you can take a gyro that is
not in motion here on the earth turn it off then turn it on once the
freefalling object reaches its terminal velocity and
.............wholaaaa......... i can tell you for a fact what the exact
velocity and accelertaion of that free falling object is.......take that same
gyro in object turn it back off and now put it into space....now turn it on...I
can tell you the same things... acceleration and velocity if any and the
difference between what it was before........................ You guys don't
realise you are confusing text book assertions with the practical
appications.....
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:17:18 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
Concerning "Title:Quantum tunneling cantilever accelerometer" -- thank you
for your agreement.
My reading of this document tells me that it remains, for all its
sensitivity, a mass on a spring. It may indeed register the tiniest of
accelerations, but it will still read zero if it is not being accelerated.
Wouldn't be much use if it did would it?
As I don't have any idea how you expect it to read acceleration in free fall,
why don't you favour us all with a short, concise, lucid explanation of how you
understand this happening. I'm sure we'd all appreciate that.
And as you raised the matter, a similar explanation of the uses of your
favourite super-sensitive gyroscope would, I'm sure, also be appreciated by
all.
In case you have any doubts here, for mine, Regner said it all.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 15/03/2008
2:36 PM
Other related posts:
