[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Paul,
The reason you and Phil are having such a hard time is that you thinf the fact
that grav pulling all parts equaly and simoltanioulsy has any bearing
whatsoever t do with accelerations or inertia...your argument is assuming that
how gravity works does or would affect how we detect inertial effects!? it does
not, one has nothing to do with the other. Gravity and inertia have nothing to
do with each other! So why you think that since gravity is pulling all parts
equaly and simoltanioulsy has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not we can
detect an acceleration/ inertial effect is quite humorous...one has nothing to
do with the other ....gravity would have to determine inertia inorder to make
that argument.....
you asked for: entirely absent to this time -- of how a spring
accelerometer is able to register acceleration when caused by gravity. wrong i
have explained this in the past already so many times..???Just once I'd like to
see him defend his position by explaining why he is rightrather than why his
detractor is wrong.1. Gravity is not the cause of inertia period!. …however,
Inertia is the observable change/ resistance to any motion (aka acceleration)
The absence or presence of a gravitational feild is totaly irrelevant wrt
motion & inertia. motion & inertia are not tied to nor are they even dependent
upon gravity! That is why i am right!…The detection of an acceleration with a
mass on a spring is affected by motion & the real "cause" of inertia not
gravity/inertia !! that Paul is why I am right…….Period!….. What do you not
understand now?!
2. You assume it is my postion that must be defended ..mine reflects reality
yours only imagines something other then what we observe! it is your postion
which states things are somthing other then what we observe that must be
defended..you have it backwards Paul the burden of proof and demonstration is
on your argument not mine...mine takes what we observe as face value there is
nothing for me to defend..You on the other hand suppose it is all just some
illusion,,ok i will go with that when you can demonstrate it before you assume
it is true......
Regaurdless of what gravity is or how gravity works inertial detection is not
dependent on how gravity work! So even though we can say that gravity pulls on
all parts of the mass spring simoltaniously ..who cares Gravity is not the
cause of inertia nor does it determine the detecion thereof!?
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...
1... ......If there is not way to detect the earth’s acceleration around the
sun in free fall (assuming that inertia is gravitationaly dependent) and 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?.
2. 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.
3. It has been stated: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?
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..
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.
Other related posts:
