"what does this tell you about the relative positions of the red sphere and the green sphere as they pass perihelion? " It tell us exactly what I said it would!....ha!.............oh wait....Thatʼs right, I did not even address or mention the perihelion of any spheres green or otherwise as proof or disproof of anything!?.......so yea...I guess.....I would have to say all that tell us about ...well....absolutely nothing wrt acceleration and motion.!???? But more then that you apparently missed the plurality of the arguments somewhat if not all together. In any case, once again you demonstrate the "unique gift" of MSʼs dogmatic proponents in your/their propensity for ignoring the relevant issues in observation before them in favor of the non-relevant obscure nonsense they can only imagine. P.S. It is not "the sound of your own voice mangling the English language".....this is called WRITTING and when you read it that is called READING..( No Sound Needed [NSN]:-)....but yes I would agree, sometimes I do manage so ably to mangle the English language in my very sloppy writings from time to time but this was not my worst attempt although it does require you to think about what i said ....oops..wrote..hehheheh ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:23:22 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: accelerometer and SR Allen D Well you've convinced me. And what does this tell you about the relative positions of the red sphere and the green sphere as they pass perihelion? Paul D PS If you weren't so enthralled with the sound of your own voice mangling the English language, you'd have picked up on my error -- now corrected. Too late! ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, 16 April, 2008 6:35:50 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: accelerometer and SR "There is just no reply to that." Your right Paul, you nor Regner nor Philip have any vlaid choherant explanations to any of it, just cicular and basless assertions of nonsense......thats my point!. 1. If there is not way to detect the earthʼs 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 differnt acceleration with the tides?..You do agree the tides are observable and accelerated by the sun & moons inertial gravitational fieldryt..?!......If it does then you canʼt claim the acceleration in free fall cant be detected! If the tides are not accelerated by the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a big problem donʼt you?!..... 2.Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant star.....remember 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 you claim that the inertial /gravitational field only pertains to the "Inertial reference frame" such that the distant mass do not significantly affect the inertial field of the "inertia reference frame"...Then please explain what keeps the orbit of the bodies from collapsing?!........ 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 (itʼʼs "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 ..you know ......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 force that keeps the propensity of the orbiting body to move away from the body being orbited,...... then how in your wildest dreams can the inertial affects of acceleration in free fall not be detected by the changes wrt those same exact distant inertial/ gravitational fields that force us to detect the acceleration (inertial effect) when not in free fall?!?!?! If inertia is not gravity then how does gravity prevent inertia? An Acceleration is a measure of the inertial effect (the change of the state of motion wrt any given body)....Contrary to Phil's fits of objections to which as of yet I donʼt know what they are, there is nothing in the definition I use (wrt a change in the state of motion ) that is contrary to the one you quote from in wekipedia!? If you cannot object to me using wrt motion because wrt motion or rest is the exact same thing...what is motion what is rest is it not all relitive or not ?! The non-detecatble acceleration in a free fall assertion only makes sense if and only if Inertia and Graivty are one and the same. If they are not one and the same then the whole non detecatable acceleration in a free fall agument takes off like a lead ballon ... but if on the other hand they are one and the same thing it then creates whole new sets of problems and new even more exotic contridictions in termonologies and concepts........at best it only creates a situatition whereby it robs Peter (one part of the MS theory) to pay Paul (some other part of the MS theory )... 3. How 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.....OH yea......and 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...Oh but wait you say we can do so by looking at the background stars......well then..... 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.......If you donʼʼt know that you have a motion wrt another body then you canʼʼt claim observable motion of the background stars as evidence for what is in question that you donʼʼt know and are trying to figure out in the first place!? If the argument is real v relative motions are meaningless wrt each other as Fred Hole does then, so to is the argument against a absolute rest frame! ..Why?...Simple, because either way not matter what the "truth" of motion is your own argument prevents such knowledge or validation of either motion. 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 your theory falseifable and 2. How does it support invalidity for something else when it canʼʼt 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?! ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:04:08 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: accelerometer and SR Allen D From your latest ramble we have - You never did address how gravity that acts on all and every part equally causes tides and interacts with inertia such that the very principle of inertia demands that we should and could not prevent a observational delectable acceleration in free fall!?!?..What on earth are you guys smoking out there????. There is just no reply to that. I really do wonder just what the hell you are smoking. 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.