Regner's reply to Allen's in blue allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I can only agree, and if you read my previous post, you would see that I wrote exactlyYou seem to agree with the rest, so I'll sign off here. Regner No.........Take Newton thought experiment with the earth, cannon and cannon ball....you most certainly can detect it’s acceleration as well as the balls deceleration /(inertia)/....
that (for the example of the elevator).
it is in free fall in a gravitational field.
Yes - so the atoms that makes up the cannon-ball feel no acceleration.
Well. You write that an acceleration can detect an acceleration - which is non-sense. You meant, however, that the acceleration of satellites in orbit can be measured. I can only agree - but the stuff in the satellite or the people on board the space station,The acceleration and deceleration /(inertia)/ of orbiting satellites /(newton’s orbiting cannon ball)/ can detect the changes in acceleration/ inertia.
do not feel any acceleration. They can just look out the window to see it."Zero gravity" is used to describe this condition (free fall), but is clearly a misnomer.
Footage from human space travel shows the effect very clearly. The distinction is between what can be measured purely from within the free-falling body, and what can only be measured by referencing the world outside that free-falling body. We pretty much agree on the next paragraph too, but obviously not on your characterization of general relativity - it is very falsifiable. I would like to point out, here, that general relativity is a consequence ofthe observation that a reference frame in free fall in a gravitational potential
is an inertial reference frame - general relativity does not postulate that.Your aggressions towards general relativity are therefore quite misplaced, here.
If you drop a ball from outer space to earth /(comet)/ you most certainly can detect and measure it’s inertia/ acceleration as long as it is in acceleration to earth and not just moving to earth with a static velocity. The earth does not move around the sun with static velocity it must change its velocity through it’s orbit....KEPLER DEMANDS IT! ...There is no difference between the ball/ satellite/ comet in free fall to the earth’s inertial ref frame or the earth to the sun’s.....This whole business of not being able to detect the earth’s acceleration changes in it’s elliptical orbit only makes sense in relativistic sound bites, but not in any actually experiment or observation ever performed anywhere at any time!............. oh yea....except the one where we cannot detect the earth’s acceleration changes due to its elliptical orbit............LOL........Relativity might claim that is proof that you can't detect it....NO!........... It is proof there is no such motion! Secondly it demonstrates relativity is wrong because we can reproduce and measure acceleration within a/the earth’s "inertial ref frame" all day long, free fall or not. All other explanations via relativity are nothing more then imagination, not any actual observation or experience! Again, if your theory is greater then your judge and jury /(test metrics)/ then it can never be indited!.............. but then that is not a test of a theory that is simply your theory dictating all the test results....!.... :-oThat is why relativity is not falsifiable and thus not a valid theory. If on the other hand it actually submitted to the results of any of the falsifiable test performed, it would have already been deemed untinable. However, when any test were and are performed and show it in error, it only turns and attempts to put the whole test on trail /(in question)/ and claim like some despot it does not recognize the courts authority because it is the dictator /(authority)/ and "this court is not even qualified to judge me". Facts and observation are not what they appear to be if they contridict relitivity and they are what they appear to be if they support or are neutral to it...........If only the dumb judge and jury ////(logic observation & experience/experimentation) //of the court had any sense at all then they would have realized they did not see the defendant /(relativity)/ shoot the victim in the head on the CCT what the "dumb judge & jury" saw was the victim putting himself in the way of the bulit!....sheshhhh......... no wonder the "Science community" and general population at large consider us just a bunch of ignorant science illiterate bafoons and especialy us GC Jesus freaks!............LOL ----- Original Message ---- From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:26:10 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcsP.S. I used a totaly useless, worthless auto spell checker........you know, to save some time in typing and all.......... and as usual ....well what can I say..?????????....Resistivity = Relativity :-(----- Original Message ---- From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:16:49 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcsRegner: Sorry this is long but this will be one of my last before i leave the country for a while .......i think when you get to MM & MG sagnac it will become more obvious particulary as we move along in the 5 points and other stuff... .......... Everyone else , it is long but.....quit complaining! ..lol :-)full context at bottom of this post....If i say the earth is motion less and at the center of the universe that is falsefiable. I could demonstrate/prove its motion and velocity through space. If it were the cetner of the universe i might expect all other mass in the universe to be centered on it. If the earth were at rest i could prove that it is not at rest not with just a theory but some fact that demands it’s motion. GC is falefiable. But all attempts to falsify it have failed. All attempts to prove its motion have failed, the distribution of mass, double galaxies, quasars, gama ray burster you name it...in deed all red shifted objects in space demonstrate them selves aligned in concentric shells as view from the earth....Resistivity claims there is not frame at rest and thus not center motionless...Relativity claims that all the experimentation and observations that show the motionless earth centered in the universe don’t infact demonstrate that because the laws of physics are so strange and the universe is so strange..I can live with that....but Relativity cannot by definition prove any motion or lack thereof it is simply a assertion of relativity that all is just relative motion with no absolute frame to measure from.....It is not a provable or falefiable premise by its own definition!?...Yes the universe could be so strange as not to be able to take the experiments and observations at face value but and this is the key there is absolutely no justification for doing that without first assuming it is true...that is called a circular fallacy. Resistivity can be falsified but not by anyone who attempts to use it as proof for itself. That is what its adherents do...Example light is not isotropic experiments show that to be the case...however when it is show to relativist they invoke not some other demonstratable or proven observation but another theory called lorenz transformations..... when you show them light is not isotropic they appeal to lorenz but lorenze was invented to support relativity you cannot use relativity to prove lorenze transformations then use lorenze transformations to validate resistivity. When you do get to MM MG & SAGNAC you will see that is all there is to the validity of all of resistivity. That is not validity that is a circular Fallacy. Resistivity and HC which is now propped up by relativity is not falesfiable coz when a effect is demonstrated to contradict it just makes up a new theory without any observations or experimentations to back it and patch it up. Then the claim is that resistivity demands the new theory /( which is true otherwise resistivity would be shown false)/ but it is the new theroy that proves resistivity...it is pure circular nonsense. I don’t have a problem with things not being as they seem but there are a awfull lot of things that are exactly as they appear...so if i see something ;i need a valid reason for why they are not what they appear, now just some abstract theory that cannot be proven or validated outside of a circular falicy....... Relativity is a metaphysical philosophy not logic observation and experience. Relitivy is only evaluated with logic observation and experience as long as the "facts" are always interpreted within it. That by nature as well as it’s own constructs make it completely unfalsifiable. What in the world are you talking about when you say"On the contrary - it is falsifiable and has withstood falsification for a long while.That is it's strength."when? where? At every turn the theory morphs and creates new even more exotic theories /( without any observation or experience or logic other then relativity demand it..the very thing we are trying to falsify..!?)/ to explain how and why what was demonstrated was not realy what it demonstrated...!?And if all motion is relative then it cannot disprove GC and thus there is Absolutely no good or valid reason for not taking GC which is face value other then philosophical reasons. Therefore logicaly the most valid and most logical position to hold is the GC not the HC. HC cant prove anything anymore then GC . HC has to keep morphing to patch its holes. It would not be so bad if it’s predictions were exclusive to HC or relativity but even the ones it gets right are just a valid in GC but GC does not have any holes it must patch in terms of contradictions. Sure you can hold on to Relativity for ever and it will stand the test of time but only because it can never be falsified as long as all of its patches and changes are built on other theories that have no other purpose then to explain how it was really not falsified. Light is not isotropic and there is no experiment anywhere that proves that but there are plenty that show it is not. But if you are going to just claim that it does not falsify relativity then what in the world could ever falsify a theory that claims any and all falsifications of relativity’s premises actually prove "just how strange it all is"!? Sure it could be but the logical explanation is that it is just wrong. To add insult to injury it’s proponents actually believe that folk like me are anti science that it is we who are more interesting in feelings and philosophy then they are about the facts......LOLDo you want to measure the difference of Earth's inertia between apogee andperigee? I am puzzled here..... This is so weird, Allen. The only thing I am saying, is that you cannot use single atoms to define your coordinate system.What has 3d coordinates got to do with inertial ref frames?......and if it does and a atom is in 3d space with dimension (iner and outer) there is nothing in relativity that prevents, in fact it demands that it is abut one of a infinite possible set of inertial reference frame. MY POINT IS....Where do you draw the line for reference frames...at the molecular level how big does something have to be..? You are only attempting to hide relitivities inertail decriptions behind scale...your argument with free falling objects in inertial reference frames is moot, not just because you cant realy appeal to earths inertail ref frame while ignoring the suns or galexies or even of the individual atom but because the only actually demonstration about interia is that it can be measured with respect to free falling objects even within earths inertial reference frame...In GC we don’t have your problem...There is only one inertial reference frame. There is only one absolute reference frame and all others are just relative to each other wrt the ARFTake a ride on the vomit rocket /( plane that free falls to simulate 0 gravity)/ if you calibrate the accelerometer to 0 while in a free fall then if you accelerate move from that 0 freefall condition /accelerate as noticed by your position relative to the inside of the plane, now you have just "detect(ed) acceleration of an object free-falling in a gravitational field"....ummmmm your explanation is only valid in relativity but relativity is a philosophy not a absolute truth as shown in experiments that plainly falsify it.... free falling at g’s terminal velocity is no different then travailing at 50 or 100 or 1000 miles per hour however until you reach that terminal velocity any point in the acceleration curve that the instrument is zeroed to will show the changes in acceleration. We do it all the time here on earth withing the earths inertial gravitational field. There is no difference here......the inertial gravitational field is the solar system ...so why can we not measure it...."because relativity says you can’t"..true but it offers no good and valid reason for such a claim. On the other hand since you "know" relativity is true then the fact that you cant measure the acceleration "proves" that relativity was correct ...Wrong! It proves there is not motion and relativity is nothing more then a philosophy that claims _*"if im shown to be wrong im not really wrong because you can’t prove me wrong coz all attempts that proved me wrong only show you did not understand what was shown in the first place.....Ha*_"....!? A theroy like that (relitivity) cannot be show falsifed, ever, becuase when convicted it just turns aroudn and puts its judges and jury on trial.......think about it......GC does not have this "character flaw"....----- Original Message ---- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:56:59 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs Regner Trampedach in red. allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:I am not either - I was telling you that physical theories are not provable but falsifiable, and I was giving an example of something that is not falsifiable,*** Purple.........* ----- Original Message ---- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:52:06 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:That, Allen, is the problem with all theories in physics, as I have said repeatedly in the past. But all physical theories are also disprovable - i.e., you can measure things that does not neccesarily agree with the theory, thereby proving it wrong. This is in contrast to, e.g., religion, where an almighty God can do anything she pleases. All the physical laws that we see enacted in nature, could of course just be staged by such a God to look like that but in fact be something quite different. In science, Okham's razor comes in and says that the physical laws are a much simpler explanation for what we see, compared to having an omnipotent sentient*Regner......This is the problem with the equivalence principle argument.**1. It can only be proven to be false it has never been positivly proven...*being stage everything to look the same. Where would this God come from?What does she consist of? Does this God exist within our outside our Universe? Is this God restricted by any laws of (other) physics? - are there any laws ofphysics? - and why do they seem to work anyway?Since the laws of physics seems to work, and science has no way of addressing the question of God, we use Okham's razor to say that the laws of physics are real. That is the working assumption of scientists - and it works because that is what weobserve. *Notice* that this does not exclude the existence of a God.*Im not arguing the existance or non existance of God here..? you miss me all together..** *and therefore can't be addressed by science.On the contrary - it is falsifiable and has withstood falsification for a long while.*On the one hand a sound theory must be falsefiable to be valid but the strength of the the theory you employ is that there is no way to falsify it...!?*That is it's strength.With Newtonian gravity, and a rest-frame free-falling in that gravitational field, that rest frame is an inertial frame. That is both observed and comes out of the*It cannot be falsefiable cause there is no absolute frame of ref from which to falsify it against, all is just relatives.......*(simple) calculations.Somebody in a free falling elevator would not feel any force (until hitting the bottom) - if the elevator is transparent, however, the acceleration could be measured,by seeing how things race past.The equivalence principle states that all physical experiments performed inside the elevator would give the same results as if the elevator had been sitting in the empty space between galaxies (well, anywhere with no net gravity), traveling at any constant velocity. You can only measure that velocity with respect to something else, i.e., no absolute measurement of velocity, but you can measure whether it changesi.e., an absolute measurement of acceleration.People on board the space station can see their acceleration (orbit around Earth) but fell no forces acting on them - they are weightless. The centripetal (gravity) andcentrifugal (fictitious) forces obviously balance out.Free floating inertial frames (zero net gravitational force acting on them) will have to travel at constant velocity in order to be inertial - relativity says there is no absolute zero-point for that velocity - or, conversely, an inertial frame stays inertial, no matterit's velocity.*Relativity is works flawlessly in its construct and explanations...... but only if you allow it to play both sides of the testability/validation fence! Your explination has no vlaidity outside of itself.....it does not work without assuming that it works first that is the whole point to what we have tried to get accosss to you MM MG SAGNAC all Demonstrate this fact.....?*I don't think they do... But I will investigate that soon.That is not correct. That their has been no proof against a particular physical theory, through a century of experiments and observations, really makes it a very solid and*...only assumed.*robust theory - far from a mere assumption.Correct, the Solar system's orbit in the Galaxy, and the Earth's orbit in the Solar system, are both cases of free fall - which means we cannot measure them dynamically (by means of extra fictitious forces showing up in our experiments). We can measure them kinematically,*2. The solar system itself is in free fall around the galactic center and thus the solar system is a inertial ref fame that we should be able to measure within just as the earth is with the solarsytem and we can measure inertia in earths inertail reference system.....*however, that is by means of observing motions.Inertia is easy to measure: You measure how much force, /F/, is needed to obtain a particular acceleration, a, of a specific object: F= m*a, m is the inertia or mass. This can be measured (and is unchanged) whether the object is in free fall or not. This is obviously a bit harder to do with the Earth, so instead we need to rely on Newton's*So you cant hid behind the equivalence principle for a lack of detection of inertia any more then you could with a car or a airplane in free fall on earth.......inertia is still measured against all free falling objects in every case. If you could not detect the earths inertia then you could not detect any inertia from any object in space or on the earth......*law of gravity a_G = G*M/R^2and the radius, R, of Earth coupled with measurements of the local acceleration of gravity, a_G... The gravitational constant, G, can be measured in the lab, leaving just theEarth's mass, M, as unknown.*No all we have to observe is a change from appogie to parigee not the actual values....we are only interested and measuring change not absolutes.....relitive changes not absolute values....being a relitivity guy i would have thought you would appreciate that fact.....*I don't quite know what you refer to here..?...Do you want to measure the difference of Earth's inertia between apogee andperigee? I am puzzled here.*3. All ref frames are equivalent in relativity...you can have any number or pick any sections for your reference frame....*True.*individual atoms are inertial reference frames!?*A reference frame is a 3D coordinate system-*There fore Atoms do not exist in 3d space ...? I don't know why you needed to make that up. That half sentence of mine, that you quoted, says nothing about that. *so you need both a position and two directions in order to specify a reference frame. *you are only attempting to hide behind scale ...?*Where do you get that from?*Position:* Most atoms would be close to other atoms, and would constantly collide with (feel the electric forces) of these other atoms - our atom would therefore be accelerated constantly and randomly. In a gas or a liquid, this is know as Brownian motion.Not an inertial rest frame at all. A lone, free-falling atom could be an inertial rest frame, but read on.*Orientation:* Some atoms are spherical (no directional indicators are avaiable) and others are non-spherical in various ways (some would be able to indicate two directions). But atoms are governed by quantum mechanics, and the orientation of an atom can therefore only be known in some (well-defined) statistical sense. The same goes for it's position.*Conclusion:* You cannot use single atoms as inertial reference frames.*all you are attempting to to negate coordinate systems based on scale..this i particulay funny coz atoms are not the smallest scale.....?*This is so weird, Allen. The only thing I am saying, is that you cannot use single atoms to define your coordinate system. Of course you can use coordinate systems on any scale you want. When analyzing collisions in a particle accelerator you choose a coordinate system that is aligned with the beam of particles, i.e., the tube of the accelerator - that coordinate system is defined by macroscopic objects, but is used to handle sub-atomic particles. There is no problem here. You seem to agree with the rest, so I'll sign off here. Regner*Philip...........What we are measuring is not the velocity of the earth in its orbit but its change in velocity, in the same way that a change in velocity is felt/ measured when you either put the brakes on a car or you give the car some gas...*...or you turn a corner. I have the distinct impression that Philip understands all of that.*you may not feel like your moving 100 mph but if you either put on the brakes or give it some gas you will feel the change even as small as it is.....*Excellent Allen. A very good summary of Newton's 1st law.You don't feel velocity, but you do feel accelerations = forces, relative toan inertial rest frame. That's the reason we don't feel the 30 km/s speed of Earth in it's orbit around the Sun.However, there is that acceleration of 0.3776 cm/s2 to keep Earth in it's elliptic orbit. If Earth was a cart traveling on a track that kept it in orbit (that is, no gravity from the Sun), then we would all feel a centrifugal force (we would weigh more at noon than at midnight), because the force of the tracks would work on the Earth and onlythrough it, on us. This is analogous to your example of a car.In the actual case, where the centripetal force is caused not by a track, but by gravity, the centripetal force (gravity from the Sun) works on every atom of everything, and exactly balances the fictitious centrifugal force. The result is that we do not experience any net force from the Earth travelling in it's orbit.Exactly as Philip wrote. Regards, Regner----- Original Message ---- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:10:40 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs Exactly, Philip.The Earth, and we with it, are in free fall around the Sun, with the gravitational accelerationby 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 factson 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 thetrajectory 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_fictThis 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 ofthe 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. ) so you would actually have underestimated the change (as you can see from my correction, Eq. ). 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/s2which 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 calcsHere it is ..quick & rough.... 18.5 miles per second *_average speed_* * 60 sec for min * 60min 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 changenegligible. 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 aroundthe 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