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:
Regner,
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.
However;
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:
Purple.........
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
Ref:
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
Allen.....
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:
attachment....
-----
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
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.
|