Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts]
Author Message
Lij
science forum beginner

Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:18 pm    Post subject: "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations 2"

"Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations"

Basis physics texts define acceleration as the second derivative of
position with respect to time (d^2*L/dT^2) or, in more straight forward
language as the rate of change of the rate of change of position with
respect to time. This experienced directly when one is in an automobile
which is increasing its speed. The speed, which is the distance traveled in
a given time, increases as time passes and, for a constant acceleration, the
distance traveled increases in proportion to the square of the elapsed time.

When one considers gravitational an unfortunate semantic problem
arises. Quite often the force applied to the seat of your pants by your
chair is asserted to be the acceleration of gravity. This assertion is false
and apparently leads to confusion. The force one feels is not the
acceleration of gravity but rather is the force which would produce the
downward acceleration
(the second derivative of elevation with respect to time) which we call free
fall. The force you feel against the chair a force which opposes the force
of gravity, it is not the acceleration of gravity. This acceleration only
occurs when you are in free fall and hence cannot sense the force of
gravity,
It is this careless of definition which allows theoretical physicists
to assert that there is no force of gravity an what we consider to be the
force of gravity occurs because the chair restricts you from following a
null geodesic path around the center of the Earth. What the theoreticians
have done is to combine two independent effects which interact (inertial and
gravitational acceleration) into a single entity which they falsely assert
to be fundamental.

Newton's Second Law of Motion asserts that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. That is to say that for a force to exist there
must be an opposing force equal in magnitude and opposite direction. Modern
physicists admit of only two exceptions to this rule, the force exerted
during inertial acceleration and the force exerted by a gravitational field.
Since these forces supposedly have nothing to sustain them they are named
"fictitious forces". If however, one admitted the existence of the classical
Aether, these forces would no longer need to be considered "fictitious",
they would exist as simple pushes or pulls against that Aether. It is too
bad that modern physics has falsely asserted that the non-existence of the
Aether has been proven. if the classical Aether existed the answers to many
puzzles would be apparent.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
gb7648
science forum Guru

Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 606

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:04 am    Post subject: Re: "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations 2"

Lij wrote:
 Quote: "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations" Basis physics texts define acceleration as the second derivative of position with respect to time (d^2*L/dT^2) or, in more straight forward language as the rate of change of the rate of change of position with respect to time. This experienced directly when one is in an automobile which is increasing its speed. The speed, which is the distance traveled in a given time, increases as time passes and, for a constant acceleration, the distance traveled increases in proportion to the square of the elapsed time. When one considers gravitational an unfortunate semantic problem arises. Quite often the force applied to the seat of your pants by your chair is asserted to be the acceleration of gravity. This assertion is false and apparently leads to confusion. The force one feels is not the acceleration of gravity but rather is the force which would produce the downward acceleration

Inertial energy or thermatic gravitation, in a way. Gravity is
gravity.
On much greater distances do inertial accelerations become more
important. Galactic scales.

 Quote: (the second derivative of elevation with respect to time) which we call free fall.

Its a binding force. Like strings pulling because of a
disagreement
of high and low pressures arising when seeking an equilibrium
in time and forces.

 Quote: The force you feel against the chair a force which opposes the force of gravity, it is not the acceleration of gravity. This acceleration only occurs when you are in free fall and hence cannot sense the force of gravity, It is this careless of definition which allows theoretical physicists to assert that there is no force of gravity an what we consider to be the force of gravity occurs because the chair restricts you from following a null geodesic path around the center of the Earth.

Yeah, a geodesic inertia.

 Quote: What the theoreticians have done is to combine two independent effects which interact (inertial and gravitational acceleration) into a single entity which they falsely assert to be fundamental.

Yes, both exist in unique forms. Mass gives life to gravity,
and an accumulation of several mass entities uniformly, especially
when gaining combined rotations give rise the inertial mmomentum
(dark energy fields) aside from local gravitational fields.

 Quote: Newton's Second Law of Motion asserts that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is to say that for a force to exist there must be an opposing force equal in magnitude and opposite direction. Modern physicists admit of only two exceptions to this rule, the force exerted during inertial acceleration and the force exerted by a gravitational field.

The forces are only excerted by mass, and inertial energies arise
from collective inertias. The mass of the galaxy appears 9 times
greater
due to its collective rotation as a galaxy *giving birth* to
inertial (binding)
energies.

 Quote: Since these forces supposedly have nothing to sustain them they are named "fictitious forces".

Very smart. What sustains them is long distance (>gravitational)
inertial
energies. They are not fictitious in the real world.

 Quote: If however, one admitted the existence of the classical Aether, these forces would no longer need to be considered "fictitious",

Evidence for them already exists. you are looking at the local effects
while the forces behind the inertial energies lay in the harmony
and relativistic aspects of the greater Universe. To me the forces
seem to be a magnetic aspect to gravity, which itself is like
a magnet, but gravitational magnetisms arise as thermatic
processes of inertia.

 Quote: they would exist as simple pushes or pulls against that Aether. It is too bad that modern physics has falsely asserted that the non-existence of the Aether has been proven. if the classical Aether existed the answers to many puzzles would be apparent. The source material for this posting may be found in http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS. All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm. Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary. E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your mail reception is not blocked. The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided.

George

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts]
 The time now is Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:29 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Gravitational redshift wgilmour@i-zoom.net Research 5 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:44 pm Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results Charlie-Boo Math 21 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:32 pm "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations 5" Lij Relativity 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:20 pm "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations 4" Lij Particle 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:19 pm