[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:05:49 +1100

Close, Allen, but no cigar!

Please read the following carefully.

A change in direction of velocity/acceleration of your orbital laboratory (reference frame)
does NOT mean a change in the orientation of that orbital lab.

Acceleration, including change of direction of acceleration, is measured by accelerometers.
Changes of orientation of you lab/reference-frame, is measured by a gyroscope.

Both change of velocity (=acceleration) and change of
orientation are measured with respect
to their values a moment ago - that's how you measure change...

If your lab is free-falling in a gravitational field, everything inside your lab will be free-
falling in exactly the same way as your lab. That means you can NOT measure that
gravitational field unless you look out the window and look at the Earth whizzing by.
All experiments (that don't look outside your lab) would behave exactly the same as if
they had been performed at a constant velocity with no
gravitational fields nearby.

    - Regner

Allen Daves wrote:



1.  I just put you in check mate and you still don’t get it?...............At the end of the day if you claim the orbiting body in a free fall circular orbit,  cannot be deteceted but accelerates because it changes directions constantly. Then you even use as your argument that you will know that you change direction because a gyroscope (mechanical or electronic take your pick)  will show you as you orbit .....ok! ...Then the acceleration must be detectable by defintinon!....because acceleration as you said is includes a change in direction!?....Well then if even a mechanical gyro shows you changing direction and moving around in a circular orbit (pick any inertial ref frame)......Then how in the world can you claim that the acceleration in a free fall cannot be detected!?  That was the whole point to my comment a change is only a change if somthing changes.  An acceleration demands a change by deffintion...You cant have it both ways a change in a free fall that is not detectable and yet proven by vertue of detecting that change!?

2. On the other hand in a elliptical orbit not only would you have the same problem but now you also have a change in the inertial field itself not just a detectable change in directional .

3.The point i originally put forward is that a Acceleration can be detected even within a free fall...you say no but your explanations ultimately led you to invoke a gryro around the inertial ref frame to give you a change in direction so that you could claim an acceleration in a circular orbit!?..well if the gyro gives you a change in direction then you have just detected the acceleration of the orbiting body in free fall around that inertial reference frame...!?

2. As for the difference between a circular orbit and a elliptical orbit the acceleration in the circular orbit stays constant it does not change. In the elliptical orbit not only is there acceleration

However, the acceleration rate itself is in constant change due to the orbiting body changing its distance and orientation to the gravitational/ inertial field itself.

All im claiming is that a change in inertial state no mater what that state is or what inertial frame of ref you use can and is detectable. You just made my case.

1. for both circular and elliptical orbits the change in direction/accelerations is detected by the accelerometer & or gyroscopes in both.

2. For elliptical orbits the gravitational field itself dose not remain constant wrt the orbiting body as it does in the circular orbit... that is always detectable in free fall or not....

Please if anyone does not understand what just happened here please state that.....

----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:04:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Allen, You very quickly degenerate into non-sensical conglomerates of words.

A gravitational field is an inertial reference frame, as much as a shower is an apple.
A reference frame that is free-falling in a gravitational field is an inertial reference frame.
But that is a very different statement.

You have no need for absolute space in order to tell a change in direction.
From Wikipedia:
  "Devices that sense rotation in 3-space, without reliance on observation of external objects.
   Classically, a gyroscope consists of a spinning mass, but it also includes "Laser Gyros"
   utilizing coherent light reflected around a closed path. Gyros require initialization by some
   other means, as they can only measure changes in orientation."

       - Regner

Allen Daves wrote:

----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:01:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Allen Daves wrote:
 in blue,

----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:28:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment

Allen, I'm afraid you got your accelerations in circular motions a bit wrong.

The definition of acceleration, a, is "change of velocity". Now a velocity, v, is a
vector and it has both a direction and a magnitude - the magnitude of a velocity
is called speed.
Absolutly right...but wrt what?.......in a perfectly circular orbit where the velocity remains constant.....
You say you agree and you still get it wrong! No, im arguing using relitivities own precepts..The gravitaionl feild is the only frame of ref....you cant claim a direction change wrt to the inertial feid if no change in the feild exist.... That is my point. In inertial ref frames  the direction is wrt what?..
 The speed is constant.
The velocity changes <=> acceleration.
In a perfectly circular orbit only the direction of the velocity changes. That would and can only be true as long as you have a absolute ref frame from wich to gauge direction from!  ..but that is my postion not relitivities...you cant have it both ways....only relitive inertial ref frames but absolute changes in direction at the same time...
Direction can always be measured with your gyroscope, whether quantum or not. That is the point of absolute space time v relitvities version.......by the way that gyro you mention will always show that change in direction wrt earth/stars (spining earth or rotaing stars) reguardless of what inertial frame it is in.........ummmm
Ives, 1938. Op cit., P 299
Ives, HE 1938, Jrnl. of the optical Soc. of Am 28:296
Dufour, A & F prunier, 1937. Competes Rendus, 204, 1925. also 1942

Acceleration of your reference-frame can only be measured internally if your
accelerometer is not affected by the force accelerating your reference-frame.
In the case of gravity only - both are accelerated by the same force and you can't
tell the (absolutely real) acceleration using your accelerometer. that is my point!...without absolute space, the only valid frame of ref is the inertial feild, as such there is no way to define a change in "direction" within a inertial ref frame except wrt to a change in how the gravitaional feild is acting on the orbiting body in question! 
  What you do instead, is looking out the window and measure with respect to
something external, e.g., the stars. You have to do that with a lot of stars so that
you don't accidentally pick one that is accelerated itself.
What? According to relitivity the frame is inertial and only valid within itself...so which is it?
We are discussing "inertial ref frames" so you can't use background stars (objects outsise your ref frame) to give your reference frame a frame of reference !?( directions)......
but direction it self has requirments one of which is ..direction requires dimention....ummmm 
The "sentence" above makes no sense at all. You are just obfuscating as usual,
and I have therefore not read the rest of your post.


Ok i will make it more clear for you........There can be no calim to a change of direction  without somthing to get  direction from!? ....  Points even within inertial ref frames are mathematical abstractions that have no dimention in and of themselfs you can't get direction or a change in direction (which requires all 3 dimentions)  from a dimensionless point!? From relitivities precepts the center of a body in a inertial ref frame has no way of determining direction in and of itself!...That is why in GTR/STR it claims the inertial/gravitaional feild as the frame of re:......If then the feild being the ref frame then there can be no claim to change in a circular orbit, the feild remains constant in a circular orbit but not in a eliptical  ......You can't claim the center of your inertial ref frame for direction. A point or center of a inertial ref frame is not a direction nor can it give you direction therfore it cant change. That is why Relitiviy uses the inertatial feild as the ref frame.  You must have something else in your universe/ ref frame outside your "center"  "dimentionless point" to first give you the nessisary dimentions so as to be able to change direction from some place to some place?.. ..


You call it "along the orbit" what is the orbit?...Does the feild strenth remain constent in eliptical orbits?....NO!....Not in a eliptical orbit...therfore a change must exist by defintion.....The velocity nor direction of the orbiting body never changes wrt the center of the parent body in a circular orbit,  however, it must with elitpical orbits by defintion..?
A circular oribt Changes direction but only in absolute space/RFs. In relitivity, a circular orbit has no meaningfull way to calim  a change in acceleration because in relitiveity the only way to define a ref frame is the inertial feild itself not direction.
I'm only demonstrating relitivities inconsitency and problems not my obfusucation techniques.....

      - Regner


  From that knowledge we see that there are two different ways of changing
a velocity (and having an acceleration): by changing either speed or direction. Right! but again wrt what?..
  In a perfectly circular motion, the speed is constant, but the direction changes
continuously. realy!? wrt what?...And which way does the velocity change?
The velocity does not change in a perfectly circular because the body is within the gravitaitonal/ inertial feild and it keeps the same orentitaion to that inertial feild. In GTR/STR the inertail/gravitational  feild is used as the Ref frame, therfore you cannot claim a change in velocity or oreintaion to that feild/ frame of ref. "along the orbit" what is the orbit wrt?...does the feild strenth remain constent?....YES then you cannot claim a change to somthing that does not change!
The velocity remains constant wrt the gravity feild. further, the velocity can never changes wrt to the center of anything? If you calim the center of the body itself then, as long as the obiting body stays tangetal to the center point of the parent body you can't calim any change direction from that a point...! Circular directions are meaningless to those mathematical abstracts (Points)....... A radial orentiation to a common point (orbit) does not and cannot consititue a change in direction, unless you argue for absolute space/ time...!!! Why? Because w/o absolute space/t ime directions are meaningless. all is relitive but relitive to what?..A point has no dimention therfore no way of defining a direction only a orentation..but then again as long as the satilite remains tangital there is no cahnge in orentaion! Relitive to a "point" or the center point of a parenet body being orbitied, every direction that is tangital to that center point is the same direction/orentation w/o somthing to reference external of the point!
There can be no calim to a change of direction  without Absolute space time to get directio from!? In either the free fall toward earth or the tangital vector both are equal and thus there is no acceleration by defintion....  Points are mathematical abstractions that have no dimention in and of themselfs you cant get direction or change direction (which requires dimention)  from a dimensionless point!? You have to have something in your universe outside your "dimentionless point" to first give you dimention so as to be able to change direction ????.....Ahh but we are discussing "inertial ref frames" so you can't use background stars (objects outsise your ref frame) to give your reference frame a frame of reference !?( directions)......umm
 Towards the centre of
the circular motion. Instead of following the tangent to the circle (as it would
without the acceleration) the object is pulled in towards the centre. Since
acceleration is proportional (by mass) to the force, F=m*a, (and m is a simple
number, i.e., not a vector) it follows that the force is also towards the centre of
the motion. It is a so-called "centripetal force".
  For a perfectly circular motion, the magnitude of the acceleration (the length of
the acceleration vector) is constant, but changes direction through 360° in one
period of the orbit. The force is always perpendicular to the velocity in this case. velocity wrt what?.....The velocity of the body never changes wrt to any point or the feild in a circular orbit ..you can't calim a change when there is no change by defintion!........   In elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic orbits you will also have some acceleration an aceleration is a change by defintion.. you can't have a change that is not a change!?....... but wrt what?..
You call it "along the orbit" what is the orbit?...Does the feild strenth remain constent in eliptical orbits?....NO!.Not in a eliptical orbit...therfore a change must exist by defintion.....The velocity nor direction of the orbiting body never changes wrt the center of the parent body in a circular orbit,  however, it must with elitpical orbits by defintion..?
along the orbit, but the force and acceleration is still towards the centre (or focal
point) of the orbit. Not in eliptical orbits it is not sagnac shows that..... In those cases the force is not perpendicular to the velocity.
  I hope that helped clear-up the concept of acceleration.
The confussion here is yours, a circular orbit could not change velocity..if it ever did wrt what?..Where a eliptical orbit must do so but wrt the body and its feild being orbited in a real way.  In fact there is no difference between a Rocket that launches into a parabolic or hyperbolic orbits  and a planet in an eliptical orbit.....The body first moves against or away from the bodies feild streangth and then with/ towards  the feild.....We can and do always measure that change! beteen perogiee and apogee w/o referenceing anything outside the craft itself every time, we can detect it......!  Again  you can't calim a real change if there is no change to measure in reality.  If a change exist in reality then it must have a real quantity that can be measured. If it cannot be measured in reality then it can only exist as an imagintion/ relitivistic, manthematicl, abstraction of nonsense!. That is the difference between living with mathematical abstracts and living in reality.

        - Regner

Allen Daves wrote:

----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:43:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

1. Paul you obviously did not read my previous post Friday, 14 March, 2008 4:00:54 PM...????



2. I suggest you consult your local HS or coldge Physic lab...?.....Your objections make no sense in any pratical application of physics as it relates to Acceleration.everything i said stand...and you can do it yourself if you like most HS students who have taken physics have.....There is no difference between traviling at a constent 100 mpH or 0 mph as far as inertial /gravitational feilds and  acceleration are concerned..????.... The bomb with the spring accelerometer suspended in air has the same inertia in the same way that travailing at 100 mPH there is no difference between the two….nor is there any difference in a bomb on a airplane flying at 100 MPH then suddenly the bomb is dropped the state of acceleration existed for the bomb before it was dropped it had no acceleration…............It makes no difference if the bomb is travailing at 100 or 0 MPH the drop changes the velocity/ changes the acceleration…period!…….. That is and always is and can be detected!….Traviling toward the sun is not any more different anymore then a rocket that climbs at the gravity rate of gravity while Gravity attempts to pull the rocked back and then  then begins to free fall  back to the earth..........you can most certainly detect the acceleration changes.... ....There is no difference in a orbiting body!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....All of the motion is still toward or away from the grav feild ( toward is less resistnace/inertia, away from is more resitance/inertia) and that can always be detected no matter what Inertial ref frame you are in!!!.. The mass on the spring may not detect the 100 or 0 mph constant velocity but any change is by definition an acceleration / inertial change and will be detected in any frame of reference….It makes no difference that the bomb is in the earth’s "inertial ref frame" or that "Gravity pulls on all objects equally". When the bomb is suspended Gravity is puling on the bomb and the spring/mass accelerometer "equally". Further,  when it is dropped the only force acting on it is still Gravity and yet we can detect that drop with the accelerometer….why?.....Because the state of inertia has changed….. ummmm the whole free fall suggesting is not only pure conjecture of relativity but worse, it can and is shown to be completly false in any and every "ref frame" you can perform it in..!?


3. You still don’t get it.!?..It is the fact that gravity is not pulling on all parts of every atom on the earth equally at the same time that is the reason for tides and bulges and cyclones (clockwise and counter)...That being the case you cannot make the argument that gravity is pulling on the mass/spring at the exact same way as it is the bomb....WHY?..coz A. we can measure it in real life, your assertions and objections are nonsense...! B. If gravity pulled everything equal simultaneously then there could be no tides or bulges do to Grav cos gravity would be pulling the rest of the planet at the same degree thus there could be NO VARIATIONS IN GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS (anywhere on the planet )BECAUSE GRAVITY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY VERIATIONS TO AFFECT ANYTHING!? If the gravitational forces of the moon and sun all pull at the same rate to every particle on the earth then the earth would only orbit the barrycenter of all three bodies but with absolutely no bulges or tides whatsoever due to the moons gravity pulling extra on the water as it passes over!? …You really should read my post on gravity what is it and how it works.

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:17:40 PM
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

 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.
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.
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
----- 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.

Other related posts: