[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 09:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
The reason you guys don't understand how or why a mass spring will demonstrate
a acceleration regurdless of Grav is because:
1. You dont undertand or understanding how grav works you assume not
demonstrate that grav tied to motion or accelerations/ inerta, It is
not period! Motion is not determined or dependent on or by grav nor is inertia
determined by gravity.
2. The reason you guys have such a hard time with #1 is that your concepts of
inertia are completly wrong!!!!!!!!!!.. MS states Ineria is a force and you all
treat it as one even if you deny MS's explination. Inertia is not a force! MS
states that it is! (even though some of you even contridict your own postion by
"accepting" MS's defintion but denouncing MS's explination!?)..Again I have
already demonstrated not just asserted my lomg held "feelings" on the
matter via observations framed logicaly to :
A. (Directly) demonstrate a logical path to my conclusions
B. (Indirectly) demonstrate the logical error of the converse arguments and as
a consequence all other alternitives.
However, a proper understanding of ineria would be to say that inertia is to
force what darkness is to light!..............we say light is photons.....where
darkness is litterly "nothing" it is simply a description of a absent state wrt
photons.........it is simply that absense of photons, but in lietterl terms
darkness has not substance it is not somthing but rather a descrition of the
absence of somthing photons or light. IN the same way inertia is not a force
but simply the absence of a force where any state will remain constant as long
as there is no change if there is a change then that change was due to a force
...however if there was no changein the state then there was no force to act
upon it!..it is that simple inetia is not a force in fact it is not anythig
with any substance it is only a decription for when there is no force to act
upon so as to change any given state....it takes a force or energy to creat any
given state ...thus is
take energy to change that state......no change no energy no energy no
change...that is what inertia is litterly nothing more then a term that
describes "nothingness" wrt to energy...........in the exact same way that
darkness is used to describe "nothingness" wrt a particular kind of energy
namely photons.
Summary: Once Phil , Paul and Regner understand this and the fact that their
ideas, concepts and accepted constructs are contridictory with not only
observations but are even contridictory within their own concpets and
constructs themselvs, only then will they be able to truly even begin to grasp
the true nature of Gravity and begin to have a real not just a psudo scientific
outlook on the universe that they, unwittingly or not, currently have now ..by
deffintion.....(The absense of Observation and Experinace framed within a
Logical evaluation)...... Asserting contridictry postions/ arguments cannot
be said to lay claim to a scientific approach!
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 7:59:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Phil,
The bottom line is i state a acceleration can be detected in a free fall when
only grav is the cause of the acceleration ....you say it cannot but then you
go to great lengths to explain how before we drop the mass weiged 30 gm i think
you said..then at the moment of drop we become weightless..and the scale will
not show 30 gm any more.......
Phil for the last time a acceleration is a change ..if you detect that change
you cannot then claim the change is undetectable...you contridict your self and
you still don't even see it.........!?
Again we are only looking for a detectable change not nessisarily a fixed
magnitude you admit the change exist and that we will detect the change but
you claim it does not demonstrate a detection of a acceleration in free
fall....????!!!...LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 7:05:57 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
as well as any constant velocity to any other differnet velocity… as long as a
velocity remains constant then yes a mass on a spring will eventually "zero
itself out" just like you in the elevator notice the initial change but
eventually the "sensation"and scale on board "zeros out" acceleration is only
the change not any certain magnitude…
very contradictory in the one sentence.. The underlined is unintelligable,
but the bit I changed to color is not what I said. and not true in a free
falling object in an elevator.. The fall in the sealed elevator is
acceleration at 32ft/sec/sec Even as the velocity is rapidly increasing, the
spring scales will remain at zero and not register any weight.
What in the world are you describing when you say "we will all notice the state
" ?!
Getting close Allen.. Starting to comprehend the meaning of acceleration..
Suddenly experiencing weightlessness is the absence of a force on mass in
producing weight.. i.e gravity. It is not a sense of motion.
the magnitude is the most important point you brought up and which you are
discounting.
Acceleration is change in velocity.. the magnitude of the velocity change if
you like. That change small or large cannot be detected in free fall.. Only
your brain tells you that you are falling... nothing else. Not even the sensory
parts of your inner ear will detect an increasing velocity.. or any movement
at all during the fall.
The change in state in the initial instant, get that at zero velocity, is the
removal of the sense of weight.. It is not a change in velocity, not yet.
necessary for there to be acceleration. From then onwards the duration of the
fall the senses will not detect even that you are moving, let alone the
magnitude of velocity change which is acceleration. the feeling you sense will
be exactly the same near the bottom of the fall as it was at the instant BEFORE
you began to fall.
I know you are still baffled... imagine you throw a ball up.. At the very top
of its flight it will have no weight, no motion, and no sense of up or down.
Finally one of the first sensations the astronauts reported in weightlessness
whilst in orbit, was a sense of falling.. just like the elevator, but they
could not and cannot sense in which direction they were falling.. Only when
they looked out the window could they see and reason it out, but all their
senses told them they were motionless, with a spinning ball EARTH over
there... Not even down there.. They have no sense of what is up or down.
They can have a seat on the ceiling or the floor.. LOL
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
An accelerometer detects only the change in state of motion that includes any
change including from 0- to any velocity, as well as any constant velocity to
any other differnet velocity… as long as a velocity remains constant then yes a
mass on a spring will eventually "zero itself out" just like you in the
elevator notice the initial change but eventually the "sensation" and scale on
board "zeros out" acceleration is only the change not any certain
magnitude…only the change is noticed, we are only looking for the changes …..
The magnitude of the change(s) are not even relevant at this point.
Detecting an acceleration is not the same as measuring (quantifiably defining)
the magnitude of that change.
Guys, a detectable acceleration is only the change wrt magnitude or
direction, not the magnitude or direction of the change itself.....
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 5:12:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Phil,
"At the instant you initiate the drop we will all notice the state of
weightlessness"..
if you notice any change then you just detected the change in
acceleration !?...That state would be demonstrated by a scale and or drift that
takes place without ref anything outside...so what is your point?..you
admit..quote " For the duration of the fall from that instant, though we may
know we are weightless and the ounce of mass will show no weight on the spring
scale, there is no way of us determining any change of velocity,"Phil the
change was only from 0 to the inital velocity you have agreed that inertia and
a acceleration are detecatable changes wrt motion...ok...you were haning(at a
given weight) ..no moiton ..........then i droped you........... the notice of
weightlessnes and scale shows no weight....You just showed a detectable change
in velocity wrt magnitude or direction....Phil, that is a acceleration by
defintion without referenceing anything out side of the craft....???....You
just made my case??? further if any other changes are
introduced in your acceleration rate thoes two will be detectable...???? The
same holds true for a satilite in orbit you say "free fall"..well any change in
velocity of that orbit will e detected even if the change is due to the
moons/stars gravitaional fields..in fact that is why they say stailites
dirft but they most certanly do detect it and the cause of the accelerations is
gravity!? your postion and MS's is a self contridictory......... The orbit of
the earth is not a constent acceleration it constantly changes wrt all thoes
other inertial/ grav feilds...
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 3:20:20 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
If I blind folded and suspend you magnetically in a closed metal elevator from
a high tower turn off the electricity to the magnet suspending you....I wonder
if you or a scale will notice anything even before you hit the ground ..ummmm.
.Remember you and the elevator and all in it are only "accelerated by gravity"
and "equally to all parts".... Allen
A good question Allen, that may give me a chance to get through to you.
No need for a blindfold.. we is in a sealed tin box.
Let me hold a spring balance holding say 30 grms of mass. reading about 1 ounce
on the scale.
At the instant you initiate the drop we will all notice the state of
weightlessness.. This is instantaneous at zero velocity, before anything falls.
(no acelleration)
At the same instant making alowance for the time delay for the spring to act,
the spring balance will return to zero, registering zero weight on the scale
for the duration.
At the same instant plus a microsecond or so both I and the floor will remain
in contact, and remain so for the duration. (no jumping or muscular reactions
allowed)
For the duration of the fall from that instant, though we may know we are
weightless and the ounce of mass will show no weight on the spring scale, there
is no way of us determining any change of velocity, whether it be constant or
accelerating at 32ft. sec. sec.
Try it allen!
Philip.
Phil or anyone,
Please cite the observation(s) that proves gravity is:
1. Pulling
2. Acts equally to all parts simoltaniously
3. Gravity determines inertial effects
You guys keep doing the same thing thinking no one notices .. You first assume
those three things are true and then attempt to interprete and thus argue from
those assumptions...That is not a logical argument or evaluation of anything.
That is a circular fallicy!
I have show you that the only direct observation(s) show:
1. Gravity to push rather then pull.
2. Gravity is never equall to all parts (all parts are never equal wrt whatever
the cause of gravity is in any ref frame) ..If it was then elevators going
down and roller costers who are only accelerated by gravity ( gravity is the
cause of the accelerations) could never demonstrate accelerations....and yet
they do so wonderfully!!
3. Inertial effects are not determined by the absense or presence of gravity
I have accomplished all that by two logical proof methods....
A. Directly with observations and experiments
B. Indirectly by assuming the assertion of a given argument is true and then
take it to it's logical conclusion to see if it contridics either itself or
other observations.....
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. All I claimed is that if a change existed in reality then necessarily
we should be able to detect that change in "free fall" or not . You even
outline for us exactly what we would detect "At the instant you initiate the
drop we will all notice the state of weightlessness" and yet you say we can't
detect the change (acceleration) in velocity !?.... What in the world are you
describing when you say "we will all notice the state " ?!
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1414 - Release Date: 4/05/2008
12:31 PM
Other related posts:
