Don’t be. That “fact” always traces back to the liner notes on the record you linked to. None of the tracks are collaborations of the two, and the album is just a clever attempt to introduce Gospel fans to Little Richard and R&R fans to Sister Rosetta. I’m not saying the meeting couldn’t have happened (Richard was peddling snake oil at the time), but nothing written by a label flack should be taken at face value.
Goddam. Some things are just too good to be true. 
Thanks for setting me straight. I’ve lost a chunk of faith in Jools Holland.
j
Then how to you explain the accelerometer in orbit measuring zero?
Yes. I believe you’re using a Newtonian interpretation, in a circumstance that it doesn’t explain the evidence.
An object in orbit is following a geodesic. There are no forces on it, and no acceleration. To make the object deviate from the geodesic requires a force be applied to it, and then it will accelerate.
Acceleration in physics (AIUI) is more nuanced than our everyday understanding of “speeding up” (or “slowing down”) - it’s really about any change in the velocity vector, whether that’s magnitude, direction, or both. An object in orbit certainly has a change in its vector at all times in its orbit.
Compare the accelerometer sitting on a kitchen table. Its motion is not following a geodesic, therefore it is undergoing a net force and it is accelerating. As confirmed by its nonzero measurement. (The net force is electromagnetic from the kitchen table, which is preventing it from falling through the floor, as it’s geodesic path would take it.)
Which gets back to the original controversy: whether gravity, which indeed is bending satellites in circular path, is a “force” as least as far as Newton was concerned.
Centripetal acceleration is not acceleration? And the Equivalence Principle does not apply?
You’re using a Newtonian frame of reference. That works for many things, like most orbital calculations. But it does not explain why the accelerometer in orbit measures zero. For that, you need to use a space-time metric that correctly describes the local geometry. In that geometry, the orbiting object has a constant velocity (both speed and direction). And thus explains the zero measurement.
Because the accelerometer is in that same reference frame. The accelerometer reads zero because it’s measuring acceleration relative to its own freely-falling reference frame, not relative to an external inertial frame.
No, it’s not. If things in orbit were accelerating, they’d be traveling in curved paths. They’re not: They’re following geodesics.
If an accelerometer could be constructed entirely of iron and allowed to freely move in a strong magnetic field, would it register acceleration? I say no because all of its atoms would be responding equally to the magnetic field (ideally). There would be no internal strain to register an acceleration.
That would make that an extremely poor design for an accelerometer.
It is pretty confusing, but a geodesic seems to be defined in terms of the old cone slice diagram. Whatever your path plane is relative to the gradient, it is a straight line. All of the planets have non-flat orbits (ellipses) which means that, in an outside frame of reference, their speed is observed to change (accelerate inward, decelerate outward) but in the frame of reference of the planet, speed is constant. From my location, I can infer that my speed is changing by triangulating on other reference points, but if there are no reference points, I can only observe my speed to be constant along my geodesic.
It takes longer for a spacecraft to travel to Mercury than it takes to travel to Saturn.
Well, depends on how you do it. A Hohmann transfer orbit (the most fuel-efficient orbit that doesn’t depend on interactions with third bodies) from Earth to Saturn takes longer than a Hohmann transfer orbit from Earth to Mercury. But there are other ways that use even less fuel, but do depend on interactions with third bodies. If you’re clever enough (and patient enough-- These orbits can take many cycles around many objects, meaning many years), you can get pretty much anywhere, using only slightly more energy than it takes to get to the Moon. And a Hohmann orbit to Mercury requires more fuel than a Hohmann orbit to Saturn, so there’s more incentive to use one of these clever, slow paths.
There’s also the Bi-elliptic transfer which under some circumstances can be more fuel efficient than a straight Hohmann transfer. Also restricting oneself to just the starting body one can use the Oberth effect to use delta-v more efficiently; though as you mention at the cost of greater travel time.
The Equivalence Principle states that, barring tidal effects, standing on the surface of Earth is equivalent to standing on the floor of a ship accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s and being in free-fall is equivalent to being outside of a gravitational field moving at constant velocity.
Yes, astronauts in orbit experience centripetal motion and yet, being in free-fall, they experience no unbalanced force. Their experience is indistinguishable from from astronauts outside a gravitational field moving in a straight line at constant speed.
Contrast that with astronauts using their ship’s engine to circle an empty point in space. They experience both centripetal acceleration and an unbalanced force in the direction of the point they’re circling. It would feel to them like the the floor of their ship were accelerating towards them or, conversely, that they were falling towards the floor, away from the point they’re revolving.
Gravity’s weird, man. When the only force acting on you is gravity, you feel nothing. We can feel electromagnetism. We can feel the weight on our soles (if not our souls.)
Maybe that’s an interesting random fact we stumbled across. Electromagnetism is the only one of the fundamental forces that we can feel.
We spent the weekend outside gardening and got to watch birds at the bird feeder. We have a few mourning doves in the neighborhood, and were chuckling about how clumsy they seem as fliers, and always make this surprised sounding whistling noise whenever they take off. It’s rather amusing, and you can hear it at the link below.
The interesting random fact? The whistle isn’t a vocalization, it’s produced by their wings!
Only because it’s not applied uniformly and simultaneously throughout our body. Hence my multiple references to magnetism.
We have mourning doves back again after them being absent for several years (probably due to the large numbers of crows infesting the area). They walk around the porch eating the bird seed that falls from the feeders. I never see them at the feeders, and ground feeding appears to be the norm for most seed-eating pigeon species. It’s nice to hear their cooing in the early morning.
Interesting fact - according to the Canadian Museum of Nature, field studies show that Canada has only one exclusively carnivorous species - polar bears, and only one exclusively vegetarian species - groundhogs. Caribou are normally herbivorous, but will eat lemmings when they migrate in large numbers. I have seen chipmunks happily chow down on caterpillars they have found.