[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:08:22 +1100

philip madsen wrote:
The truck drives along a turn in the road.
* A ball is dropped from the ceiling of the container.
Thanks Regner.. I now glean what is meant by the "fiction".. Actually we had discussed the falling ball in a transparant railway carriage passing a station a few times here on this list. I just missed the connection as regards the "fiction" of observation.
I am glad that clarified it.
You make a good case for it being _impossible_ for anybody to establish absolute certainty for any position or movement in space. (we've been here before as well)
Eh, no!
We can still measure our position/velocity relative to the stars.
Then it is a matter of conviction, I guess, whether you believe the whole Universe
to be moving that way, or just the Earth.
But apart from that, you are right that there is no "absolute certainty" in the world
of science.
Its claimed inertial devices will detect acceleration. but that is only part of motion...
Eh, they do.
You don't need more than that - you just integrate once over time to get velocity, and
twice to get position.
But they won't detect acceleration of an object free-falling in a gravitational field.
We both argued for that...

       Regner

Philip.

    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Regner Trampedach <mailto:art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:10 PM
    *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

    Exactly, Philip.
    The Earth, and we with it, are in free fall around the Sun, with
    the gravitational acceleration
    by the Sun (and towards the Sun) keeping us in our elliptic orbit.
       Without careful analysis, I actually thought that you might be
    able to detect it, but you
    are right, Philip. This is also stated in Einsteins equivalence
    principle which states that
    a /free-falling/ reference frame is an /inertial /reference frame,
    and there will therefore be no
    fictitious forces (centrifugal-, Coriolis- and Euler-forces). The
    equivalence principle
    means that the orbit of Earth can just as well be seen as the
    Earth traveling along a straight
    line in a curved space - the two are equivalent - and the latter
    is described by /general relativity/.

       As a partial reply to your (much) earlier post on pseudo
    forces, I will note a few facts
    on them here - and there is nothing dubious about them.
       Pseudo forces, more often called fictitious forces, arise when
    your reference frame is
    being accelerated. Let's say you set up a laboratory inside a
    container on a trailer truck.
    * The truck drives along a turn in the road.
    * A ball is dropped from the ceiling of the container.
    Imagine the container turning transparent, so that your colleague
    can record the
    trajectory of the ball, as seen from the roadside
    * your colleague will see the ball follow a parabola determined by
    the speed of
       the truck when the ball was released, and the local
    acceleration of gravity.
       Only one force, gravity, acts on the ball:  F_obs = F_grav.
    * You, however, will see the ball being acted upon by another
    force, since the
       ball (and you...) will be accelerated towards the side of the
    container:
                      F_obs = F_grav + F_fict
       This force is entirely due to the truck accelerating iin the
    opposite direction,
    towards the inside of the bend in the road, and we call it a
    fictive force.
    Fictive forces are trivial (but often cumbersome) to derive as the
    opposite of
    the acceleration of your (non-interial) reference frame.

              Regards,

                  Regner


    philip madsen wrote:
re Alan and Regners figures. On this business of "feeling" acceleration, whilst I do not
    pretend to having had enough interest in checking the figures, I
    still reason that its a matter of how forces are applied, as to
    whether you feel anything.
In a suddenly braking car you get flung forward... because the
    force is at the wheels..  But if the breaking force was applied
    to every molecule of the vehicle including you, then I concieve
    no effect to be "felt"
If I take the orbiting space station as an example, the people
    inside and even ouside are all exposed to the same accelerating
    forces.. They follow the orbit of the vehicle..  when the man
    steps outside, he does not get flung off on a merry plunge
    towards the sun or the earth for that matter. He would not "feel"
    any movement. Yet he is circling the earth every few hours. Thats
    travelling a fast corner.
Philip.

        ----- Original Message -----
        *From:* Regner Trampedach <mailto:art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:59 PM
        *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

        Alan,
         Thanks for your calculation, but I'm afraid you made a
        mistake - it's easy to do with all those
        crazy units Americans juggle with. You forget that your
        velocities are still per hour, while
        you have the change of velocity per second, so your result is
        actually:
        (1)               11.43 cm/(hour*s) = 0.003175 cm/s2    (cm
        per second squared)
         The actual change is:
(2) (30.29e5 cm/s - 29.29e5 cm/s) / (year/2d0) = 0.006338 cm/s2
        We agree on the velocities and the difference in velocity - I
        just use centimeter-gram-second (cgs)
        units. One year is 365.26 days * 24 hours/day * 3600 s/hour =
        3.155693e7 s.
        The change happens during half a year (I divide year by 2, in
        Eq. [2]) so you would actually
        have underestimated the change (as you can see from my
        correction, Eq. [1]).
          It is always a good idea to put your result in perspective
        by comparing with another relevant
        quantity - the gravitational acceleration at the surface of
        Earth is about g=9.8 m/s2 on average,
        which means that the acceleration along Earth's orbit is
        (3)               (0.006338 cm/s2) / (980 cm/s2) = 0.000006467
        times the average gravitational acceleration at the surface
        of Earth, g.
        or conversely, the acceleration along Earth's orbit is 154600
        times smaller than g.  I don't
        think you would notice that!

          But that is obviously a tiny component of the accelerations
        actually involved.
        Remember that (in HC) the direction of the velocity has also
        changed over the 6 months
        and the velocities in the two instances will be exactly
        opposite. We can get a rough estimate
        of that acceleration by just adding the two velocities in Eq.
        (2), since  a-(-b) = a+b, to get:
(4) (30.29e5 cm/s + 29.29e5 cm/s) / (year/2d0) = 0.3776 cm/s2
        which is then 2595 times smaller than g. Absolutely
        measurable, but it wouldn't exactly
        knock you over.

               Regner


        allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
        Try to move _*4.5 inches within one sec*_ without feeling/
        /(being abel to detect that using current
        technology)/ it. This demonstrates the crux of the problem
        with earths inertial motion. Appealing to some imaginary
        reason why you could not detect it in the earth but you
        could  with anything and everything else is not going to
        work untill you can _*first*_/ /prove that your imaginary
        reason exist in reality. NO one isarguing it could be, but
        if we are to arive at a conclusion and proclaim
        it logical we have to prove the variables along the way not
        make them up as we go along. that is the fundimental
        difference between GC & HC. GC accepts as proof only the
        effidence presented as it goes along through the discovery
        process.....HC makes it up as it goes along to save it's
        conclusions.....
----- Original Message ----
        From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:38:51 AM
        Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

Here it is ..quick & rough.... 18.5 miles per second *_average speed_* * 60 sec for min *
        60 min for MPH = 66600MPH or
        The ~ avg change over the course of a year is 3.4%* 66600=
        2264.4     / 365.4 days=6.2038 MPH per day /24 hours =
        .25840166 MPH change per hour   /60min=.00430819444 MPH
        change per min ……There are 5,280 *feet* *in* *a* *mile*
        .0043081944 MPH = 22.747266432 feet /( or 6.933366807864/
        /meters)/ per min   /60 to convert to seconds = .3791 feet
        per sec/ per second change /( or .11554968 meters per sec
        per sec)./ _*This is  a change in velocity of  ~4.5 inches
        per sec/ per sec*_  Or _*11.43 centimeters per sec per second*_
There is now way to consider this amount to be inertial
        change negligible. The effect rate of change regardless of
        how fast the earth is supposed to be traveling because only
        the rate of any change from the effective inertail 0 is
        measured.
This means that the velocity change of the earth going
        around the sun is not just moving 4.5 inches ever second but
        changing by 4.5 inches per sec. During the earths closest
        approach to the sun /(such as traveling in a moving car)/if
        we experience 0 velocity change because we are traveling
        with the earth then whatever the current velocity is would
        be felt as 0. However, the rate of change just as in a
        moving vehicle would be changed if we "give it some gas" and
        in this case the rate of change would be a increase ~4.5
        inches every sec every sec. This is to say we on second one
        we increase by 4.5 sec on second two we have increased to 9
        by second three we have increased to 13.5….the rate makes
        for a exponential distance traveled curve.  In any case this
        is the rate of change. Assume for the sake of argument that
        your body could not  detect that  change rate, current
        instrumentation however ( acelerometers) are able to detect
        that amount of inertial change to almost infinite amounts,
and they are not "aetheraly" depemdent).
        */Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:


Not me.
                -----Original Message-----
                *From:* allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                *Sent:* Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:55:05 -0800 (PST)

                Since the earth changes its speed throught it's
                orbit, has anyone out there ever calculated the
                actual acceleration force changes to the earth as it
                moves back and fourth through its apogee and perigee
                elliptical orbit around the sun?

            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Preview
            <http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium>
            *Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver*
            Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it
            out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
            <http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium>



        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.8/1235 - Release
        Date: 21/01/2008 9:39 AM

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1237 - Release Date:
    22/01/2008 11:04 AM

Other related posts: