[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Philip .......
I said, as it relates to a mass/spring accelerometer......that.....
"3. The only time you could not detect the acceleration is if you
A. ................ ......
or
B. Try to measure the acceleration rate of the free fall itself once you are in
the free fall..".....
A "free fall" has no change in acceleration? The acceleration stays constant
....It is a constant inertial state? Can it be measured..yes,..... as long as
you either
A. started the measurement before the acceleration started ..Paul said
"Rubbish.The mass is being accelerated at the same rate as the bomb
casing"........As long as the measurment began before the bombs free fall the
change from 0mph up to and including a full 1g of acceleration would always
and is always detected by a mass on a spring accelerometer...... any one that
has ever rode an elevator has experianced that fact, any change from a 0
acceleration to an acceleration is detected....the bomb hanging has 0
acceleration untill it is realeased once realesed it "free falls" at 1g
B. used a different device them mass/spring accelerometer.......
However, in any case and in the case of a free falling body no matter when you
start the measurment process any change at any time to the acceleration itself
whether in "free fall" or just suspended from a airplane or moving at 1 g is by
definition a change in inertial states= an acceleration. You most certainly can
measure changes to the acceleration of a body in free fall even while you are
in that free fall.....all day long! A acceleration is by definition a change in
velocity or a change in an existing acceleration... it matters not if that
change starts from 0 mph or 10ms2....the change is what is detectable ..
How does this relate to the earth in orbit around the sun?...Well the earth's
orbit nessistes a change in acceleration rates...The only way that it would not
is if the orbit were perfectly circular and the velocity never changed...This
holds true for artifical satilites as well.....
However, note: with a laser gyro the acceleration of the free fall itself can
be measured because absolute velocity can always be measured against the
earth/aether system......This is proven by the fact that they always measure
motion no mater what "inertial ref frame" you put them in. Further they will
always measure any velocity of any "inertial reference frame" wrt the earth.
This is the whold point to MM MG and sagnac....
see also for some background...Dufour, A. & F. Prunier, 1937. Comptes Rendus,
204, 1925. Also 1942
Planetary bulges & tides are due to inertial/ gravitational effects...did you
guys forget that Gravity and inertia are the same thing in MS?...If gravity of
all the objects in the universe were pulling on every particle equally
simultaneously then there could be no bulge due to inertial effects real or
pesudo..coz, inertial effects would be identical for every part of every
particle on the planet equally............buldges and tides are due to a non
equalibrium state of gravity on various portions of the earth.......In MS that
is......umm
You can't have a non quantifiable quantity.....a Acceleration is a change by
definition.....if it is not quantifiable then it could not be quantity.....You
can't have a non-changing change... If it has no quantifiable measurement then
it can't be a quantity.. if it is a real not imaginary change/ quantity then it
must be quantifiable/ measurable . You can determine the method of measurement
but either the acceleration exist in reality or not. If it does it must have a
real measurable quantifiable quantity.
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:09:36 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
I might have missed it Allen, but you did not seem to say the accl'meter would
measure changes in acceleration in free fall.. I read it as though you claimed
it would read acceleration in free fall.. Thats a world of difference.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 2:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Paul,,
1. I stated accelerometer and even specified a particular kind of which your
question dose not address.....?
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 ..!?
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 ......
or
B. Try to measure the acceleration rate of the free fall itself once you are in
the free fall...HOwever even then any and all changes to that free fall can and
will be detected even by a mass on a spring......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)... Although we should not expect to detect the
acceleration rate of the body in free fall as long as the rate NEVER
CHANGES.....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!?................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....just as in the
gravitational explinations of planitary bulges...and
tides?????....ummmmmmmm.....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.
----- 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 youʼve 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 donʼt 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.
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:
