[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:57:59 -0800 (PST)

Regner, I will address this even in more detail when I get back...at the end of 
February. (23rd)..I leave in two days and im trying to get a lot of other stuff 
done now.....I don’t plan on looking or at least responding to any emails while 
i am out..........( "cross my fingers")......However, we are discussing onboard 
instruments of a body free falling in a inertial field ( the earths inertial 
gravitational field) and being able to measure those changes in acceleration 
without using a observer or a observation wrt the earth via visual (ie laser 
range distance measurements).Your post here makes no sense..We are only looking 
for changes in acceleration or orientations . Regardless of what the average or 
min/max acceleration of the satellite or RV (earth) is around the sun (earth) 
at any point in it’s orbit, those changes in acceleration can and are most 
certainly measured all day long even in the earth’s inertial reference frame. 
In fact we can even
 do it on mars as well....without a visual observation wrt the earth or mars 
without referencing the world
outside that free-falling body, in any inertial ref frame ...what are you 
talking about!?..... ...........I did not write nor am I claiming that an 
"acceleration can detect a acceleration" !?..... I'm stating as fact you can 
detect any changes in acceleration all throughout any free falling bodies 
acceleration curve as well as any additional acceleration changes to that body 
free falling beyond the terminal velocity without making any reference to 
something outside a satellite or a RV (reentry vehicle) our whole inventory of 
RV's (re-entry vehicles, not the missiles themselfs)  on ICBM's  use inertial 
guidance systems that measure and detect the changes of those free falling 
bodies within the earths gravitational field. While i'm gone I suggest you do 
some serious research on GR as it relates to MM,MG & Sagnac & laser 
gyroscopes...because your post here is making assertions that are clearly not 
factual and or make no sense.  "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. "
Wrong!  We do not have to reference the world or anything outside of a free 
falling body to find the measurements of  changes in acceleration and 
oreintaion to a satellite or RV's in MIW/ ICBM's. The changes are detected in 
the crafts inertia(accelerometers and laser gyroscopes). Your post is just a 
sells pitch for GR............... . I suppose that is fair in part since I was 
trying to put it in perspective by using a fross analogy. But the real 
difference between my analogy and your sells pitch is as I said before either 
ignore or talk around the fact that the 1. The bottom line is we can and do and 
have measure changes in acceleration and orientation to bodies that free fall 
within earth’s gravitational field all day long for many decades now without 
referenceing anytthing outside!......This is the difference between theoretical 
physics and actual applications. Many claims do not match the reality, period! 
2. atoms or no atoms. ..The explanations
 are inconsistent even within itself. There are nearly infinite number of 
inertial ref frames that include and even overlap each other you cannot isolate 
one independent of the others as you are attempting in that explanation. 
Otherwise, your explanation would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.. 3.We 
are trying to ascertain if we can measure absolutes or not ( that is the 
fundamental purpose of this discussion) ..... Your explanation is in effect 
"since we have GR and we cannot measure absolutes thus......."  This is the 
circular fallacy I talked about before. You attempt to use the GR conclusion/ 
assumption to A. To validate GR’s interpretations of the/ any observations B. 
to invalidate the face value meaning of the test results of actual 
observations/ experiments that show it to be clearly wrong!? 

Your "explanations" are nothing more then assertions, they are not a 
Once a Gyroscope or accelerometer is celebrated to 0 from what ever condition 
in any instance or moment in time, then from that moment in time, any change in 
any body free falling or not will and IS IN FACT detected and measured without 
any reference to the earth or any outside body including stars and anything 
else you can think of . The reference point for the change is the condition at 
calibration 0 at any given moment in time, not the earth or any outside 
reference system. We do it with changes that are smaller then the ones in 
question (satilites to earth v earth to sun)........!?

----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:54:49 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

Regner's reply to Allen's in blue

allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
You seem to agree with the rest, so I'll sign off here.

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 
I can only agree, and if you read my previous post, you would see that I wrote 
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.

The acceleration and deceleration (inertia) of orbiting satellites (newton’s 
orbiting cannon ball) can detect the changes in acceleration/ inertia.
Well. You write that an acceleration can detect an acceleration - which is 
You meant, however, that the acceleration of satellites in orbit can be 
I can only agree - but the stuff in the satellite or the people on board the 
space station,
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 
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 of
the 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....!.... :-o
That 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!

----- Original Message ----
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:26:10 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

P.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 calcs

Regner: 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 
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......LOL
Do you want to measure the difference of Earth's inertia between apogee and
perigee?  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 ARF 
Take 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: 

----- 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: 
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...
That, Allen, is the problem with all theories in physics, as I have said 
in the past. But all physical theories are also disprovable - i.e., you can 
things that does not neccesarily agree with the theory, thereby proving it 
  This is in contrast to, e.g., religion, where an almighty God can do anything 
pleases. All the physical laws that we see enacted in nature, could of course 
be staged by such a God to look like that but in fact be something quite 
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
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 of
physics? - 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 
That is the working assumption of scientists - and it works because that is 
what we
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 

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,
and therefore can't be addressed by science. 

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...!?
On the contrary - it is falsifiable and has withstood falsification for a long 
That is it's strength.

It cannot be falsefiable cause there is no absolute frame of ref from which to 
falsify it against, all is just relatives.......
With Newtonian gravity, and a rest-frame free-falling in that gravitational 
that rest frame is an inertial frame. That is both observed and comes out of the
(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 
by seeing how things race past.
The equivalence principle states that all physical experiments performed inside 
elevator would give the same results as if the elevator had been sitting in the 
space between galaxies (well, anywhere with no net gravity), traveling at any
constant velocity. You can only measure that velocity with respect to something 
i.e., no absolute measurement of velocity, but you can measure whether it 
i.e., an absolute measurement of acceleration.
  People on board the space station can see their acceleration (orbit around 
but fell no forces acting on them - they are weightless. The centripetal 
(gravity) and
centrifugal (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 matter
it'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.

...only assumed.
That is not correct. That their has been no proof against a particular physical 
through a century of experiments and observations, really makes it a very solid 
robust theory - far from a mere assumption.

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.....
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 
however, that is by means of observing motions.

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......
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 
This is obviously a bit harder to do with the Earth, so instead we need to rely 
on Newton's
law of gravity    a_G = G*M/R^2
and 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 the
Earth'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 and
perigee?  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....

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 
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 
only be known in some (well-defined) statistical sense. The same goes for it's 
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.


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 
...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 to
an 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 
than at midnight), because the force of the tracks would work on the Earth and 
through 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 
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.

----- 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 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 
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 
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.



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. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Regner Trampedach 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:59 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

 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 
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 
knock you over. 


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 

----- 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 
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? 

Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at 

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

Other related posts: