[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
NIce try Phil.........If you cant win make a big show and maybe no one will
notice that your argument was completly destroyed and think you actualy won
somthing...you get a "A" of effort and bluffing but an "F" for substance..LOL
Allen the rest of the post was in another world.. Outside the scope of what I
was saying. Thebases for Regner's "Carfull anylisis" is the discussion and what
you are attempting to argue !?. and an attempt to distract from the salient
point I made first concerning newtonian dynamics.. Which i have
alreay pointed out as fact do not prevent the detection of a acceleration in
free fall..In fact Phil in Newtonian dynamics it demands absolute motion
without respect for inertial frames...by definition of absolute
motion......Newton nor anything in Newtonian dynamics including any inertial
ref frames he "created" do not and did not nor did he ever claim to hide or
even have the capability to hide acclerations in free fall nor can it in
Newtonian dynamics...only GR does that ..how and why you think Newtonian
dynamics can make a argument that it cannot and did not make is quite
humerous..... ......you realy need to study Newton and his MS
detractors sometimes cos his detractors obviously understand him better then
you do......Phil GR would serve little purpose if Newtonian dynamics could make
the argument you wish so bad for it to make about detection of accelerations in
a free fall.....LOL
1.Your position that Regner was not basing his "carefull Analysis" on GR and
the Equivalence principle is utter and complete nonsense!.. but he can always
correct me on that one....LOL
2. Your argument(s) based on some Newtonian dynamics for why there is no
detection of a free fall in a grav field without GR’s equivalence principle is
also utter and complete nonsense in any set of facts evaluated within logic!..
but of course there again the door is open for someone to make a logical
argument that demonstrates not merrly assert a differnt conclusion....LOL
Go back to licking your wounds.. again... LOL ...you stand convicted and like
a convicted criminal you would attempt to convict the verdict of guilty itself
...LOL
The truly sad commentary in all this is that apparently you are the only one
who can’t see this (with of course one posible exception i can think of and it
an’t Regner, he has not bothered to come to your defence yet as state that his
"carefull anylisis" was not based on GR) is a completely astounding
demonstration, on your part, pure denial in the face of overwhelming facts
evaluated within logic to the contrary!…..Just like other many blind but
dogmatic MS proponents out there…. ….ummmm.. you employ and demonstrate the
exact same style of “logic” as they do....………..ummmmmmm
Come on Phil......Your comments here about the debate are not "rocket science"
so you have no excuse here.....
I post the coments here for everyone and posterity to see just how bad you
realy beat me, I want you to get all the glory you so richly desirve.........LOL
*************************************************************
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2008 4:35:48 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
NO Phil!
He was only agreeing with your conclustion but BASED on HIS
"CAREFULL AYNALISIS"! ........ but then again I'm sure he knows what he ment,
let him correct me if im wrong....otherwise........Phil you need to pay
attention to the discusion and Wake up and demonstrate not just aset logic!
correction: just asert your postion as logic ...i've already demonstrated not
just asserted as you do that logic does not in any way support your
postionperiod. The only hope you ever phil was with GR and the "equiv
principle" but since you deny the validity of GR, your argument has absolultuly
no bases in any thing observational, logical or any accepted theoretics for
that matter!
***********************************
---- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2008 4:14:28 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
What?!.He most certainly was!........ By all means let him correct me if im
wrong!.........Je states in that post "Without careful analysis,"......What in
the world "analysis" do you think he based the non detection of a acceleration
in free fall on ?!.......... NEWTON?! .. Allen.
NO! dumpkoff! He was evaluating his analysis of what I had said.... and what
I said was based upon sense and logic.. Any body could , and did and does
know that an apple falls and hurts your bonkin. Newton was not needed...And in
any case he got all his thoughts from the occult kabbalists with whom he
secretly associated.. As did Galleleo.. The RC church was full of them in the
woodwork.. They is out in the open now.. Like the coming out of the gays....
go back lick some more wounds.. You lost.
******************************************************
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2008 2:37:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
4. The "equivalence principle" was invoked by Regner in a post directed to you
no less???...LOL
That was not "invoking" the equivalence principle the way I read it.. It
merely stated that Einsteins principle
corroborated what was being discussed. Read it again, and don't try to put on
it more than was stated.
"this is also stated" OK a corroboration by Einstein...see the word also!
This is also stated in Einsteins equivalence principle
Philip.
What?!.He most certainly was!........ By all means let him correct me if im
wrong!.........Je states in that post "Without careful analysis,"......What in
the world "analysis" do you think he based the non detection of a acceleration
in free fall on ?!.......... NEWTON?! ..Newton makes no such claims
period!.......In fact Newton subscribes to absolute motion the detection of
motion is a absolute not dependent on gravity or "inertial reference
frames"! ..That was the whole point of Ernst Mach's rant in his book the
science of mechanics..........If Regner was not invoking GR via
the "equivalence principle" then i would love to know what he was bassing his
assertion on.......his feelings?! ..... or maybe what he had for breakfast that
day?!.......His whole argument is and always was based on relitivity (GR) !?
Only relitivity nothing in Newton sates that a acceleration in a free fall
cannot be detected and the only way relitiviy (GR) does so is via
the "equivalence principle" ! ...I suggest you go back and reread his
post......Philip, I wonder what in the world you are thinking somtimes.....lol
************************************************************
The reasons given thus far have been based on the equivalence principle. ,
However in your last post you attempt to appeal to Newtonian
dynamics?.............. Allen Hello
The reasons given were that a constant velocity in circular orbit (thats
acceleration you know) cannot be detected by a spring accelerometer. The
circular motion can be detected by a gyro.. And from this we can say that we
are accelerating at constant velocity in a prescribed curve.. Why do you keep
saying that anyone has mentioned any funny equivalence principles or other..???
Its plain Newtonian physics. Phil
Phil,
1.The earth in its supposed orbit is not in a constant velocity or acceleration
wrt all those distant grav/inertial fields out there where the secondary
inertial force comes from (in MS) that is supposedly in balance with the grav
inertial field of the body being orbited so as to create a stable orbit .....
that was the whole point of the acceleration and inertial arguments. Earth’s
supposed orbit is not a constant velocity or even acceleration rate. ( this is
my Point # 2 in my last post below)
2. A detectable change in orientation wrt a body within ones own radius (on the
gyros own axis)is the same as a change in orientation wrt external of ones
radius (a orbit around a second body).If that were not true then a orbit around
another body would never produce the same observable change in orientation
while in a orbit as the gyro does on it's own axis,....which would then negate
the whole point of Regner's attempt at the gyro explanation.
3. #2 being true ( also ref the attached diagram i sent with the previous
post)any change in orientation wrt a body is by definition a detectable change
in the acceleration wrt the same body.....therefore you cannot claim the
accelerations in free fall around a body cannot be detected if a gyro is
demonstrating any change of velocity wrt DIRECTION......Which by definition (
Acceleration: a change of velocity wrt magnitude & or direction) is the
observation of detectable change in acceleration!.. you cannot have a change in
direction without having an acceleration in that direction!?
4. The "equivalence principle" was invoked by Regner in a post directed to you
no less???...LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:10:40 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs
Exactly, Philip.
The Earth, and we with it, are in free fall around the Sun, with the
gravitational acceleration
by the Sun (and towards the Sun) keeping us in our elliptic orbit.
Without careful analysis, I actually thought that you might be able to detect
it, but you are right, Philip. This is also stated in Einsteins equivalence
principle which states that a /free-falling/ reference frame is an /inertial
/reference frame, and there will therefore be no fictitious forces
(centrifugal-, Coriolis- and Euler-forces). The equivalence principle means
that the orbit of Earth can just as well be seen as the Earth traveling along a
straight line in a curved space - the two are equivalent - and the latter is
described by /general relativity/.
His first or second post on this subject, but more importantly this is the text
book answer for this issue...The problem is it only create and pushes a
dilemma/ paradoxes further out into the theoretical constructs....... These
further out dilemmas are usually not known or just ignored altogether and as a
consequence folk think and just take for granted that MS has it "figured out" .
What they don’t realize is MS only address just enough of the problem to
convince itself and others that "we have it figured out".." listen to us" .."we
know what we are talking about" .."don’t listen to those Quacks like allen,
they are wasting your time"...and if you believe them ..then their budget of
paradoxes worked "perfectly" and for you and others out there can feel
completely comfortable with the knowledge that we "have a good handle" on the
world around us..besides.....it's close enough for "academic" purposes ryt??
B. Newton did not give us the equivalence principle..
C. Newton accepted absolute motion and thus in Newtonian Dynamics motion & or
the detection thereof is not dependent upon a/any inertial reference frames,
real, imaginary or otherwise...Therefore, the fact that you assume any given
inertial reference frame means nothing wrt the arguments before us....why?
..because it is the nature of the relationship of Gravity, acceleration motion
and inertia not any "ref frame" that would have to affect whether or not we
could detect any such free fall accelerations......so Im not sure what your
attempting to demonstration here with/about Newtonian dynamics and or any
inertial reference frames Newton addresses.
You say a orbit is in free fall and we know that we are in orbit because we can
detect the change in orientation but the acceleration of that orbit cannot be
detected.
1. How can you can have a detectable change in orientation wrt a body (in
grav/inertial free fall) while not having a detectable acceleration wrt the
same body.....Without that little bit of information ( a detectable change in
orientation around another body) you cannot even claim that your body even has
a orbit period!..... around anything real or relative............Without a
detectable change in orientation you cant lay claim to any motion period real
or relative...You say we can do so by looking at the background
stars......Looking at the back ground stars (external of your frame of refer so
as to give you frame of reference a reference frame) still does not tell you
which one of all those things has any motion...Two bodies surrounded by a shell
of stars do not constituent a orbit just because the back ground stars are
moving wrt those two bodies...try it ..you need not have real or relative
motion of those two bodies just because a shell of
background stars has a relative motion wrt those two bodies....If you don’t
know that you have a motion wrt another body then you can’t claim observable
motion of the background stars as evidence for what is in question that you
don’t know and are trying to figure out in the first place. Without a
demonstratable orbit you cant claim that the orbit's acceleration is
"hidden" due to it suposedly being in a free fall.....You must first show that
a orbit exits in the first place, otherwise any two objects placed next to
eachother could be said to orbit each other?......If the argument is real v
relative motions are meaningless wrt each other as Fred Hoyle does then, so to
is the argument against a absolute rest frame ..Why?... If real v relative
motions are meaningless wrt each other then how can you use "relative motion"
to argue against the possibility of an absolute rest frame thus absolute
motion?..The axiom is itself self-defeating in that it
declares itself as meaningless wrt the alternative. If they are meaningless
wrt each other then how can it be a valid argument against it?...... Lets go
one step further ...so 1.how is the theory you employ in your explinations
falseifable and 2. How does it support invalidity for something else when it
can’t even demonstrate validity about itself? So now you all are back to square
one....In a circular or elliptical orbit how do you know that there is ANY
MOTION(orbital) at all, real or relative.
2. You state: A uniform gravitational field cannot change the orientation of a
body, whatever shape it has.The change of direction of the Earth's
gravitational field from one end to the other of, e.g., thespace shuttle, is
neglible and will not keep the shuttle horizontal with respect to Earth -
attitude
thrusters at the front or the back has to be employed.Your Diagrams in your
last post i think we would agree would not have the same orientation to the
gravitational field wrt each other?This is to say that the orientation of "a"
will not be the same as the one in "b" and further that "b" is always changing
wrt the grv/inertia field.
The point: Unlike a falling object wrt earth, (apple from tree...aka.....free
fall) In a orbit you must have, need and cannot just consider the earth's
gravitational/inertial feild to pull the apple toward the earth but you also
need a secondary force (inertial) to keep the propensity for the satilite to
fly off into space in such a way that those two "forces" acting against each
other are in balance with each other so as to have a stable orbit. If the only
field present was grav then what keeps the satellite in orbit from falling to
the earth..we say..inertia...ah but inertia is gravity.............. so which
grav field and from where is acting on the satellite in the opisite direction
of the pull of the gravity coming from the earth?...Explain how a circular/
continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star different from a circular/
continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant star..... inertia is the
force of gravity acting on a body in GTR
.... it is due to those inertial fields that we observably measure when we
detect any accelerations ..How do we isolate the gravitational/ inertial field
of a near body from all the others out there that supposedly cause the reaction
(inertia) in the first place? If we do not isolate them from each other, then a
body has the same orientation to those distant external inertial fields that
cause inertia whether or not it is in a orbit. But, this begs the question, if
those external inertial fields are the cause of inertia then how does the
inertial field of the body that is being orbited prevent those fields from
doing the same thing they do when a body is not in a orbit, particularly since
those distant fields are supposedly the cause of the inertial reaction. If
however on the other hand we claim that the inertial /gravitational field that
creates the inertial effects only pertains to the "Inertial reference frame"
such that the distant
mass/grav/inertial fields do not significantly affect the inertial field of
the "inertial reference frame" thus preventing the detection of the free fall
in that inertial field/ ref frame.....Then what keeps the orbit of the bodies
from collapsing in on each other?!........ If gravity is the force pulling both
bodies toward each other then where is the other vector force ( gravity/
inertial force that causes the bodies to move away from each other) coming from
to balance the motions so as to create a stable orbit?.. If the inertial field
of the distance stars do not significantly affect the inertial state of the
body in orbit (it’’s "inertial reference frame") then while gravity is pulling
the two bodies toward each other how exactly is gravity also the source of the
inertial momentum away from that body that supposedly is in balance with the
pull from that body to create the orbit!? And if the inertial fields of distant
bodies does affect the
"inertial ref frame" so as to produce the inertial force that keeps the
propensity of the orbiting body to move away from the body being orbited,......
then how are the inertial affects due to those distant inertial fields
prevented from deomonstrating a detectable acceleration in orbit while at the
same time providing the inertial force to keep the whole thing working? Does a
straight line trajectory wrt thoes distant inertial feilds produce a different
effect then when the trajectory is a arc? if not why would a orbit matter where
or not we could detect changes wrt thoese exact same distant inertial feilds
that clearly demonstrated detectable accelerations when not moving in a
arc?.......whether or not a body is at rest or in motion it is the distant
inertial fields that cause the detection of motion or acceleration in the first
place. How exactly do you define a free fall and at what point do the inertial
fields that create the inertial effects
(detection of acceleration) and at the same time prevent it? Free fall not a
detection of acceleration is by definition changes wrt those same exact distant
inertial/ gravitational fields. If you do not isolate those fields from your
inertial one you claim we are in free fall around then there is no logical
reason why those distant fields would be prevented from giving us a detectable
acceleration in large arc verse a small one? Here is what you are left with.
explaining, how a orbit or continuous arc trajectory of the body wrt those
distant inertial fields is any different then..... a continuous arc trajectory
wrt those distant inertial fields?! Are you claiming that if the arc makes a
complete circuit then the effects of inertia due to those distant inertial
fields not felt?!... An Acceleration is a measure of the inertial effect (the
change of the state of motion wrt any given body). It is changes wrt those
distant grav/inertia fields that is
supposedly the cause of inertia so how exactly does the size of the arc or
shape of a bodies trajectory wrt those distant fields determine whether or not
we can detect the inertial effects?
3... ......
P.S. I have to admit I get very frustrated sometimes and I was already to shout
and exclaim"COME ON THIS AN"T ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!"...then I realized just how
poor a choice of words that would have been, and that perhaps some
patience here on my part is called for..... :-)If there is not way to detect
the earth’s acceleration around the sun in free fall because grav is pulling
any accelerometer & mass that we would use to observe equally to all parts then
how does that same grav in that exact same inertial field create an observable
and different acceleration with the tides?..You do agree the tides are
observable and accelerated by the sun & moons inertial gravitational field
ryt..?!......If it does then you can’t claim the acceleration in free fall cant
be detected!( but then we would have a difficulty with the force calculations
being continent with the amount of nessisary force to lift that much sea
water.) If the tides are not accelerated by
the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a big problem don’t you?.
The issue is.......Why we should or could not detect the acceleration of a mass
in a free fall is
I say that yes we should be able to detect the acceleration of the earth or any
body in a orbit if the motion exist. further i assert a difference between real
and relitive motions and state that the two are decernable and
detectable....You say nay we cannot and should not expect to detect that
acceleration...
The reasons given thus far have been based on the equivalence principle. ,
However in your last post you attempt to appeal to Newtonian
dynamics?..............
A. Newton does not claim that a acceleration in free fall cannot be detected..
Other related posts:
