[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:10:40 +1100

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

Other related posts: