[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:33:02 +0000 (GMT)
Allen D
I missed the part where you calculated/showed how far the green sphere pulled
ahead of or fell behind the red sphere from apogee to perigee and the amount
the green sphere fell behind or pulled ahead of the red sphere from perigee to
apogee.
Paul D
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 3:34:16 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Paul,
What are you talking about?..I have destroyed your argument
completly....!?..where are you?
The same gravity force that acts on tides and accelerometers must acts on your
mass/ spring for the same reasons in the same way in the earths inertial
reference frame?.......what part do you not understand?
Does anyone else not get it?
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:57:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
Oops! Corrected copy below.
Paul D
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allen D
From Allen Daves Wed Mar 19 00:00:09 2008
OK..I said i would not, but gosh.......now that i think about it more ..this is
just way too much fun to let die like this......
No sir, that will not work. You've dug yourself in too deeply for that --
you're going to have to dig yourself out.
One post earlier From Allen Daves Tue Mar 18 17:58:08 2008 you said
2. I did not claim that "an accelerometer would indicate a change in velocity
due to gravity".
I have just ploughed through all of your posts on this issue and while there
are many references which appear to be saying just that, I was unable to find
one which did not break down into incoherence such that were I to quote it to
you, your appalling lack of precision in expression would allow you to pretend
that you had meant something else.
Here is the complete paragraph in which this quote appears --
2. I did not claim that "an accelerometer would indicate a change in velocity
due to gravity" ..I stated as a fact that any change in whatever interial state
( in GTR/STR Gravity and inertia are one and the same) you are in, no matter
what you take as your interial "ref frame", that for a fact, in-deed and in
application that change will and has and always will be detectable as you said
"for ever and ever amen"!.....I have "steped up to the plate" and showed,
demonstrated and even cited proof. It is you keep changing ("Making like an eel
in a bucket of warm fat") the approach without ever addressing my original post
(quantum & laser gyros/accelerometers) or my secondary post to your
"mass/spring" diversion. I have already shown you clearly and specificly how
and exactly why a accelerometor can and will and in fact does measure any
change in the intertial state, in a free fall or not. The only outstanding
issues left to be addressed if any are ones of
scale not practical/ actual application(s)
Note this penultimate sentence -
I have already shown you clearly and specificly how and exactly why a
accelerometor can and will and in fact does measure any change in the intertial
state, in a free fall or not.
Now my lack of knowledge in this area gives me pause for thought, but I'll risk
it anyway. I tried to find a definition for 'inertial state' but Google for
once disappointed me. Perhaps everyone else calls it by a different name. Never
mind. Pressing ahead, from context, I deduce that '...change in the inertial
state...' means acceleration. If this is so, then I suggest that you are making
the statement that you claim that you are not making.
But we digress. Returning to my closing statement from Tuesday, March 18, 2008
8:25:47 AM, to wit -
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration by
gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event,
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our
accelerometer will indicate no change in velocity.
Your direct response was -
OK quite simply your wrong ...
followed by a ramble about tides, then you purport to show me the error in my
closing paragraph thus -
You can't use gravity to create "Differential Forces" & effects and then use
the same causes for thoese same forces to cause the same forces to be
"non-differential" (wrt measurable acceleration) all at the same time...!?..I
suppose though that is "the micicle of modern scicence"
... a complete -- but characteristic -- waffle! If for no other reason than
that at no time have I invoked differential forces and effects and their causes
and effects in order to show differential or non differential measurable or
otherwise non effects or real effects that have no bearing on what we are
talking about.
I will make a further simplification of my final paragraph which must throw
your claim into stark relief. Everything as stated remains except, I define the
accelerometer mass to be a 1 kg sphere of lead painted green and the vehicle to
be a 1 kg sphere of lead painted red and the distance separating them to be 100
m. I specifically remind you that the distance and time measuring devices
situated on the red sphere remain in place and active.
You're pretty good at maths -- why don't you just provide some calculations
which will show the maximum distance that the red sphere will lead or lag the
green sphere through the time of one orbit? If you prefer, you could place the
vehicle (the red sphere) and the accelerometer reference mass (the green
sphere) in Earth's orbit -- at Lagrange point 2 would do -- and just crib on
the calculations made by Regner in his post -
From Regner Trampedach Tue Jan 22 06:59:55 2008 Re: acceleration calcs.
Paul D
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 12:00:09 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
OK..I said i would not, but gosh.......now that i think about it more ..this is
just way too much fun to let die like this......
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:43:24 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
I will not be diverted by your attempted sleight of hand tricks. Point out the
error in my closing paragraph or forever hold to silence.
Paul D
OK....hope this helps you and for any others to help tie in what i have already
stated so many times before ............................or just in case you
realy thought it was I who was avoding the issue???
"I'm going to be charitable and assume that you still do not grasp what I'm
saying about accelerometers........................
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration by
gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event,
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our
accelerometer will indicate no change in
velocity.",,OK quite simply your wrong ...why? ..Then how exactly does the
moon accelerate the ocean tides separate and very disticntive ( in my opinion)
from the rest of the mass on the earth it passes over.......why, it appears to
take the water wrt land and "leave it behind" .........ummm
..............Maybe it has somthing to do with "Hooke's law of elasticity"..!?
:-)
The error in your closing paragraph.... here it is.....
You can't use gravity to create "Differential Forces" & effects and then use
the same causes for thoese same forces to cause the same forces to be
"non-differential" (wrt measurable acceleration) all at the same time...!?..I
suppose though that is "the micicle of modern scicence"
Again class, .....in MS Gravity and inertia are one and the same, and
acceleration (& even direction too:-) is always and only wrt the "almighty"
"INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME".....????? Does the sun & or moon accelerate the
tides or not ?
If not then where do the tides come from ?..:-) If it does then how can you
claim that you could not detect or measure an acceleration using a
"mass/spring"/ earth v water ( im herby now invoking "Hooke's law of
elasticity"..i think:-) of a body in free fall within "inertial ref frames"?
NOW..ummm.. couph.....exactly why do you think that your mass outside your
craft would not get left behind again.........?????
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:25:47 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Allen D
It may be that I just don't understand your descriptions -- heaven knows I am
not alone and you do little to ameliorate this -- but I'm going to proceed on
the basis that I do understand what you are saying. I'm not going to address
your objections point by point -- that is a quagmire that I for one have been
bogged down in more than once. I'm going to be charitable and assume that you
still do not grasp what I'm saying about accelerometers.
An accelerometer is a mass suspended in some manner, such as by a spring, in a
vehicle which is to be accelerated. Now if we were to hang this device from a
stationary beam in a 1 'g' gravity field, and it has a mass of 1 kg, then the
spring will be extended, coming to a halt when the spring exerts an upward
force of 1 kg. If the accelerometer is properly calibrated, it will read 1 kg.
If you repeat the experiment on the Moon, it will read -- roughly -- 0.166 kg.
If we take the accelerometer and mount it in a space vehicle in free fall, it
will read 0 kg. If we initiate a rocket burn, and the accelerometer reads --
while the motor is firing -- 1 kg, then we can state that our acceleration is
equal to what we would feel standing on the Earth -- an acceleration of one
'g'. Thus the extension of the spring is an exact analogue for the amount of
acceleration being experienced. It relies for its operation on Newton's first
law of motion and Hooke's law of
elasticity.
There is another way we could utilise the accelerometer to determine our
acceleration in a space vehicle. Let us assume again that we are in space in
free fall and we are about to initiate a rocket burn. This time, instead of
gluing our eyes to the accelerometer, we detach the 1 kg mass and place it
outside the vehicle in free fall with velocities matched. We initiate our
rocket burn, and with some radar or laser device we continuously measure the
distance to the 1 kg mass. If we integrate the readings over time, we can
calculate our acceleration.
Now for the crunch, the bit where our velocity changes due to acceleration by
gravity. (Note - from a recent post from Regner, perhaps 'speed' is more
appropriate here -- please comment if you think it appropriate. In any event,
what I'm trying to convey is that our rate of travel increases). This time, we
place our vehicle into elliptical orbit -- around Earth will suffice -- and as
we pass apogee, we begin to accelerate. At this moment we place our
accelerometer 1 kg mass outside the vehicle with velocities matched and engage
our distance and time measuring devices. After we have passed perigee we will
have stopped accelerating and begin decelerating. At no time from apogee to
perigee will the 1 kg mass have fallen behind or overtaken us and this will not
change from perigee back to apogee and so on for ever and ever amen. Despite
acceleration and deceleration due to gravity in an elliptical orbit, our
accelerometer will indicate no change in
velocity...Realy...the how exactly does the moon accelerate the ocean tides
separate and very disticntive in my opinion from the rest of the mass on the
earth......ummm,..Maybe it has somthing to do with "Hooke's law of
elasticity"..idono "could be".... :-)
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.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
