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.
