Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Einsteinhoax - 30 Mar 2005 15:37 GMT
Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein

    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 "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
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 Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/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

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
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.
akalaniz@hotmail.com - 30 Mar 2005 20:44 GMT
Dear sir, your distinguished ignorance shines brilliantly through yet
again!  What are "fictitious" forces?  Had you a wee modicum of
mathematical background, you would know that a fictitious force is a
"coordinate force."  If I lived my whole life on a spinning, childhood
merry-go-round, and I considered myself at rest (as we do when we sit
on the surface of the Earth), and kids would toss balls over my head, I
would observe the balls following all manner of strange trajectories.
I would then come up with some very complicated force law to desribe,
given a particular ball's initial conditions, its trajectory.  A
genius, such as the one you mock, would come around to the edge of your
merry-go-round and realize that your force law, when transformed to his
coordinate system, would simplify to a great degree.  Term after term
of your force law would vanish into thin air in his coordinate system,
leading him, aptly so, to the appellation of many of your force terms
as fictitious forces.  You would know this had you but worked through
one lousy calculus based physics text.  Instead, with true unmitigated
genius, you make a stupendous a.s of yourself.

PS--Still, after manifold challanges, I await your promised rebuttal
with alacrity.  I pointed out that your webpage contains a perpetual
motion machine of the second kind, and where the error of your ways
are.  Further silence from you will be tantamount to your admission
into the leagues of the world's most laughable crackpots.

Sincerely,

AA PhD
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.