Very interesting question, Yendor.
Much like, "why do people walking on the moon appear to be moving in slow motion?"
In reduced gravity, it is reasonable to think that they would actually move faster. But that's not what the "footage" shows. Maybe a believer can educate us?
(http://i.imgur.com/dlM1536.jpg)
This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth.
When I was growing up it was centrifugal force that caused objects to move outwards. Like centrifugal clutches and the weights in a distributor would move outwards to advance the timing. Then I started reading that centrifugal force was not a real force at all it was really centripetal force. So, I thought I'd study this a little deeper. That is when I got on the subject of satellites in orbit. I read the following:Inertia is not what keeps airplanes from falling. Lift opposes gravity for an airplane. And the difference between airplanes and satellites is not how high they fly, it is the speed.Velocity, Acceleration and Force VectorsThe motion of an orbiting satellite can be described by the same motion characteristics as any object in circular motion. The velocity of the satellite would be directed tangent to the circle at every point along its path. The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards the center of the circle - towards the central body that it is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force that is directed inwards in the same direction as the acceleration. This centripetal force is supplied by gravity - the force that universally acts at a distance between any two objects that have mass. Were it not for this force, the satellite in motion would continue in motion at the same speed and in the same direction. It would follow its inertial, straight-line path. Like any projectile, gravity alone influences the satellite's trajectory such that it always falls below its straight-line, inertial path. They demonstrated this with the following image:
(http://i.imgur.com/dlM1536.jpg)
This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth. Well, if this is the case, then isn't this the same thing airplanes do. They fly around the Earth everyday. The airplane's engine is providing the inertia to cause the airplane to fly forward and gravity is trying to pull the airplane down. The pilot has to maintain altitude and direction and a nice curved path is maintained around the Earth just like a satellite does. It is really a balancing act between gravity and inertia. Gravity is trying to pull it down, but inertia keeps it from happening. If the airplane's engine stops, gravity will take over and it will free fall to the ground. If the satellite's inertia runs out, then the satellite will free fall to the ground. In this case, the only real difference between a satellite and an airplane is how high each fly. What I don't understand is why do all the videos show the astronauts floating around inside the ISS. To me that is no more possible than passengers on an airplane floating around inside the airplane. We all know that doesn't happen. Some say it is because the ISS is in free fall and it is like being on an free falling elevator. That can't be true because inertia is what keeps satellites and airplanes from free falling to the ground in the first place. Others say they float around because there is no gravity in space. That is not true, there is only 10% less gravity on the ISS then on Earth and that is not enough difference to keep passengers on an airplane from floating around. So, I sit here and wonder if the videos of the ISS true, false or I'm I totally off base on my reasoning?
Very interesting question, Yendor.You might move faster if the only difference was you had less weight to move around but you still have the full mass to move. Then you have less friction with the ground so it is harder to get moving as well as stop. The lower gravity makes them appear to move slower as they have more "hang time" vertically but if you watch their arms they still move at normal speeds. Speeding up the footage makes their arms move way too fast.
Much like, "why do people walking on the moon appear to be moving in slow motion?"
In reduced gravity, it is reasonable to think that they would actually move faster. But that's not what the "footage" shows. Maybe a believer can educate us?
When I was growing up it was centrifugal force that caused objects to move outwards. Like centrifugal clutches and the weights in a distributor would move outwards to advance the timing. Then I started reading that centrifugal force was not a real force at all it was really centripetal force. So, I thought I'd study this a little deeper. That is when I got on the subject of satellites in orbit. I read the following:No, it's not.Velocity, Acceleration and Force VectorsThe motion of an orbiting satellite can be described by the same motion characteristics as any object in circular motion. The velocity of the satellite would be directed tangent to the circle at every point along its path. The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards the center of the circle - towards the central body that it is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force that is directed inwards in the same direction as the acceleration. This centripetal force is supplied by gravity - the force that universally acts at a distance between any two objects that have mass. Were it not for this force, the satellite in motion would continue in motion at the same speed and in the same direction. It would follow its inertial, straight-line path. Like any projectile, gravity alone influences the satellite's trajectory such that it always falls below its straight-line, inertial path. They demonstrated this with the following image:
(http://i.imgur.com/dlM1536.jpg)
This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth. Well, if this is the case, then isn't this the same thing airplanes do.
They fly around the Earth everyday. The airplane's engine is providing the inertia to cause the airplane to fly forward and gravity is trying to pull the airplane down.No, the engine is providing thrust, which is necessary to overcome drag from air resistance. The wings provide lift, which is necessary to overcome weight, which is due to gravity.
The pilot has to maintain altitude and direction and a nice curved path is maintained around the Earth just like a satellite does. It is really a balancing act between gravity and inertia. Gravity is trying to pull it down, but inertia keeps it from happening.No, if thrust equals drag and lift equals weight, the airplane flies at a constant altitude and speed. More generally, the vector sum of thrust, drag, lift and weight determines whether the aircraft gains or loses altitude, speeds up or slows down; if they sum to zero, it has no altitude change and maintains speed.
If the airplane's engine stops, gravity will take over and it will free fall to the ground.No, it will glide to the ground, which isn't free fall, because the wings provide some lift if they're moving forward. With the loss of thrust, drag will reduce speed, which reduces lift, so weight exceeds lift and the aircraft loses altitude.
If the satellite's inertia runs out, then the satellite will free fall to the ground.Yes. But what would cause this?
In this case, the only real difference between a satellite and an airplane is how high each fly.Nope. They are completely different.
What I don't understand is why do all the videos show the astronauts floating around inside the ISS. To me that is no more possible than passengers on an airplane floating around inside the airplane. We all know that doesn't happen.Not true... stay tuned.
Some say it is because the ISS is in free fall and it is like being on an free falling elevator.They're right, too!
That can't be true because inertia is what keeps satellites and airplanes from free falling to the ground in the first place.Satellites are in free-fall. Because their forward motion is high, the ground is falling away at the same rate, though. Airplanes stay aloft because of lift generated (mostly) by the wings, which causes drag, which must be overcome by thrust. They are not is free fall when flying normally.
Others say they float around because there is no gravity in space. That is not true, there is only 10% less gravity on the ISS then on Earth and that is not enough difference to keep passengers on an airplane from floating around.You are correct. Zero gravity is a misconception and does cause some confusion. Passengers in an orbiting spacecraft are in the same orbit as the spacecraft they're in, and both are in free fall, so there is nothing resisting the acceleration of gravity toward the center of the Earth, so they feel no weight. Gravity is very much in effect.
So, I sit here and wonder if the videos of the ISS true, false or I'm I totally off base on my reasoning?The first and last are correct.
When I was growing up it was centrifugal force that caused objects to move outwards. Like centrifugal clutches and the weights in a distributor would move outwards to advance the timing. Then I started reading that centrifugal force was not a real force at all it was really centripetal force. So, I thought I'd study this a little deeper. That is when I got on the subject of satellites in orbit. I read the following:No, it's not.Velocity, Acceleration and Force VectorsThe motion of an orbiting satellite can be described by the same motion characteristics as any object in circular motion. The velocity of the satellite would be directed tangent to the circle at every point along its path. The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards the center of the circle - towards the central body that it is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force that is directed inwards in the same direction as the acceleration. This centripetal force is supplied by gravity - the force that universally acts at a distance between any two objects that have mass. Were it not for this force, the satellite in motion would continue in motion at the same speed and in the same direction. It would follow its inertial, straight-line path. Like any projectile, gravity alone influences the satellite's trajectory such that it always falls below its straight-line, inertial path. They demonstrated this with the following image:
(http://i.imgur.com/dlM1536.jpg)
This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth. Well, if this is the case, then isn't this the same thing airplanes do.
An airplane's forward motion is much too low for this to work. The dashed blue lines in the illustration would be far shorter for an airplane, but the green inward-pointing arrows would be the same size, so it wouldn't follow the red circular path; it would intercept the Earth.
QuoteNo, the engine is providing thrust, which is necessary to overcome drag from air resistance. The wings provide lift, which is necessary to overcome weight, which is due to gravity.
They fly around the Earth everyday. The airplane's engine is providing the inertia to cause the airplane to fly forward and gravity is trying to pull the airplane down.QuoteThe pilot has to maintain altitude and direction and a nice curved path is maintained around the Earth just like a satellite does. It is really a balancing act between gravity and inertia. Gravity is trying to pull it down, but inertia keeps it from happening.No, if thrust equals drag and lift equals weight, the airplane flies at a constant altitude and speed. More generally, the vector sum of thrust, drag, lift and weight determines whether the aircraft gains or loses altitude, speeds up or slows down; if they sum to zero, it has no altitude change and maintains speed.QuoteIf the airplane's engine stops, gravity will take over and it will free fall to the ground.No, it will glide to the ground, which isn't free fall, because the wings provide some lift if they're moving forward. With the loss of thrust, drag will reduce speed, which reduces lift, so weight exceeds lift and the aircraft loses altitude.QuoteIf the satellite's inertia runs out, then the satellite will free fall to the ground.Yes. But what would cause this?
As it is, because there is a very tenuous atmosphere even at the heights most satellites orbit, they do lose a little energy (and momentum) colliding with these particles, and their orbits do decay unless additional energy is supplied, usually in the form of a rocket engine in some form. This is a very slow process until the satellites get very low (for a satellite), however.QuoteIn this case, the only real difference between a satellite and an airplane is how high each fly.Nope. They are completely different.QuoteWhat I don't understand is why do all the videos show the astronauts floating around inside the ISS. To me that is no more possible than passengers on an airplane floating around inside the airplane. We all know that doesn't happen.Not true... stay tuned.QuoteSome say it is because the ISS is in free fall and it is like being on an free falling elevator.They're right, too!QuoteThat can't be true because inertia is what keeps satellites and airplanes from free falling to the ground in the first place.Satellites are in free-fall. Because their forward motion is high, the ground is falling away at the same rate, though. Airplanes stay aloft because of lift generated (mostly) by the wings, which causes drag, which must be overcome by thrust. They are not is free fall when flying normally.
--> An example of an airplane in free fall is the "Vomit Comet", whose passengers do float around inside the airplaneQuoteOthers say they float around because there is no gravity in space. That is not true, there is only 10% less gravity on the ISS then on Earth and that is not enough difference to keep passengers on an airplane from floating around.You are correct. Zero gravity is a misconception and does cause some confusion. Passengers in an orbiting spacecraft are in the same orbit as the spacecraft they're in, and both are in free fall, so there is nothing resisting the acceleration of gravity toward the center of the Earth, so they feel no weight. Gravity is very much in effect.QuoteSo, I sit here and wonder if the videos of the ISS true, false or I'm I totally off base on my reasoning?The first and last are correct.
Loosely speaking what you say has some validity, at least it is something to be considered in looking at the orbits of not only satellites, but the moon itself. What makes it harder to grasp initially is that the sun's gravitational field at the moon is greater than that of the earth, so it is hard to see why the moon orbits the earth and not the sun.(http://i.imgur.com/dlM1536.jpg)This depiction of "reality" is impossible.
This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth.
Any drawing showing a circular orbit of an object around the Earth is bogus. Geostationary satellites are not only physically but also conceptually impossible.
In the vicinity of the Earth 3 main gravitational forces play a role (excluding the effects of our neighbors Mars and Venus, giant planets farther away and effects of the Milky Way).
Any object in space around the Earth must be susceptible (and thus the orbit of such an object is defined by that) to the gravitational fields/forces of:
- Earth
- Moon
- Sun
We know that the Earth and Moon are in an eternal tidal orbital dance with each other; the gravitational pull of the Earth at least works to the Moon (~380,000 km) and the center of gravity of this combined system is skewed. Even if a "geostationary" satellite were possible, it would orbit around that "point" (it's a path as Moon and Earth move in 3D) rather than around Earth.If when you say "orbit around that point" you mean the satellite orbits the barycentre of the earth-moon combination, no that is not true any more than the moon orbiting the barycentre of the earth-sun combination - that would be inside or very near the sun.
Reciprocally our grand small sister gives us the effects of spring tides; it is able to lift half the water mass on the planet by meters and push it down by the same "pulling effect" (no physical term) on the antipodal side of Earth.Yes, the moon (and sun) do control our tides, but do not so much bodily lift the oceans as cause the ocean water to move towards where the moon-sun combination has the greatest effect. The second tide (when the moon is on the opposite side) happens because the gravitational effect of the moon-sun is least there, so the rotation of the earth causes the bulge on that side.
Then we have a huge Sun which is acting on this whole system as well.
To paint a circular orbit around Earth like the Earth-Moon gravitational field and the gravitational effects of the Sun do not exist is ridiculous science fiction showing a lack of understanding of the dynamic forces of space.
It can still be used as a basis to compare different flight paths, though. Do you not understand what it's illustrating?
No, it's not.
An airplane's forward motion is much too low for this to work. The dashed blue lines in the illustration would be far shorter for an airplane, but the green inward-pointing arrows would be the same size, so it wouldn't follow the red circular path; it would intercept the Earth.
I would say the picture is just for providing an illustration. It is certainly not to scale.
I've watched the ISS flight around the Earth and it makes a nice smooth curved path.Yes, it does. Orbits are smooth curves. So?
No, the engine is providing thrust, which is necessary to overcome drag from air resistance. The wings provide lift, which is necessary to overcome weight, which is due to gravity.Do you think inertia and thrust are interchangeable? Really? They're not.
You don't like it when I said the engine provides inertia? I can use thrust if you like.
I understand that an airplane flies in the atmosphere and uses wings to give lift. However, The ISS has weight tooNo, it has mass but no weight because it's in free fall.
and gravity is trying to pull it down also.That's the centripetal acceleration you keep bringing up. It exactly matches the rate of increase in distance from the center of the Earth a straight line path would have at all times in a circular orbit.
I don't see much difference here between an airplane and the ISS.Since you're confusing inertia with thrust, and a very muddled idea how things work in reality, this is not surprising.
So this does not show why the astronauts float.Your not understanding the difference between an airplane and the ISS is why you don't understand why the astronauts float within (and near) the ISS. Airplanes in level flight are not in free fall. The ISS is (almost) always in free fall. So is everything inside it.
No, if thrust equals drag and lift equals weight, the airplane flies at a constant altitude and speed. More generally, the vector sum of thrust, drag, lift and weight determines whether the aircraft gains or loses altitude, speeds up or slows down; if they sum to zero, it has no altitude change and maintains speed.Airplanes flying in the atmosphere require thrust to overcome atmospheric drag, and require lift to compensate for weight because a free-fall trajectory would intercept the Earth. The ISS, and all satellites in stable orbits, have no atmospheric drag, so they require no thrust, and have no weight, even though they have mass, because they are in free fall, so they don't need lift. Needing thrust and lift to overcome drag and weight is different from not needing thrust and lift because there is no drag and weight. That's how they're different.
How is this different for the ISS.
I don't see your point. How does this cause the Astronauts to float around?Both the astronauts and the spacecraft they're in are in the same orbit, so they follow the same path through space, so their relative motions are zero.
No, it will glide to the ground, which isn't free fall, because the wings provide some lift if they're moving forward. With the loss of thrust, drag will reduce speed, which reduces lift, so weight exceeds lift and the aircraft loses altitude.Yes, they will glide some because as long as there is forward airspeed the wings will produce some lift. The glide ratio of a Boeing 747-200 is 15:1; that is, it can travel 15 km horizontally for each 1 km of altitude it loses.
I believe that a large plane will glide a little if the engines fail,
but they will take a nose dive directly to the ground.This doesn't necessarily follow. Look up British Airway Flight 9 to see the particulars of the record for the longest glide of a non-purpose-built aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9) that stood for years. Since FE enthusiasts seem to like youtube videos, here's a 45-minute-long, but entertaining, documentary about it: (http://)
I don't see why this causes Astronauts to float.Astronauts floating in the ISS aren't aboard airplanes. The ISS is different from an airplane. That's not hard to see.
Yes. But what would cause this?Yes, you've made that plain. Either you're lying about not seeing why astronauts float, you're very slow on the uptake, or you're trying really, really hard not to understand. You probably know which of these is right. Which one is it?
As it is, because there is a very tenuous atmosphere even at the heights most satellites orbit, they do lose a little energy (and momentum) colliding with these particles, and their orbits do decay unless additional energy is supplied, usually in the form of a rocket engine in some form. This is a very slow process until the satellites get very low (for a satellite), however.
I realize all this. I still don't see why Astronauts float.
Nope. They are completely different.OK. When you say the only real difference is the altitude, you didn't mean that. Got it.
When I said the only real difference between an airplane and a satellite was how high they fly, I meant that one flies in the atmosphere and one flies in no atmosphere and because of this there would be physical differences between them. I guess I didn't explain that well enough.
Not true... stay tuned.If "inertia" is the same as "thrust and lift" to you, then, yeah. But it's not, really. I can see why this is hard for you to understand.
I'm staying tuned.
They're right, too!
I don't believe so. Inertia keeps it from happening.
Satellites are in free-fall. Because their forward motion is high, the ground is falling away at the same rate, though. Airplanes stay aloft because of lift generated (mostly) by the wings, which causes drag, which must be overcome by thrust. They are not is free fall when flying normally.If that was a ballistic trajectory, yes.
--> An example of an airplane in free fall is the "Vomit Comet", whose passengers do float around inside the airplane
You say that satellites are in freefall because their forward motion is high and the ground is actually falling away from them at the same rate. If that is the case then there should be less gravity caused by centripetal force and the straight-line path due to the high rate of inertia [inertia isn't a rate; I think you mean speed] should cause the object to go flying away from Earth and not curve around it. Like I said before, airplanes do not fly in outer space so they do need an engine and wings to fly and maintain theinertiaspeedto keep them flying around the Earththe same way the ISS does[going around the Earth is about the only thing they might have in common]. Granted, the "Vomit Comet" does cause the passengers to float around because the plane is heading straight towards the ground at a high rate of speed and the passenger do float around[they're not going "straight towards the ground", they follow a flight path that mimics a ballistic curve]. So would the Astronauts float around if the ISS was heading straight towards the ground.
However, that is not the normal way an airplane or the ISS flies around the Earth [not normal (but, obviously possible) for an airplane, normal for the ISS]. Watch some videos of the ISS in flight, they follow the Earth's curvature perfectly because of Inertia or thrust and wings in the airplanes case, in order to keep gravity or whatever it is from pulling them to the ground.Inertia or thrust and wings? What?
There has to be a better answer as to why Astronauts float around.Nope. Both the astronauts and the spacecraft they're in are in the same orbit, so they follow the same path through space, so their relative motions are zero. They're both in free fall. What's wrong with that answer? "I don't like it" is not an explanation. Nor is "I don't understand it.
If the so called ISS is orbiting or falling around the Earth like we are told then something must be acting on it to push it away as the so called gravity of Earth tries to pull it down.
Now if it's the speed of the ISS that keeps it up it must require something more than gravity. Why?
Well, if we are told that an aeroplane stays up high by going fast around Earth's supposed ball shape and it also uses the atmosphere to give it lift to keep it orbiting against the so called pull of gravity, then surely your space should have something more for the ISS.
Any ideas?
If the so called ISS is orbiting or falling around the Earth like we are told then something must be acting on it to push it away as the so called gravity of Earth tries to pull it down.
Now if it's the speed of the ISS that keeps it up it must require something more than gravity. Why?
Well, if we are told that an aeroplane stays up high by going fast around Earth's supposed ball shape and it also uses the atmosphere to give it lift to keep it orbiting against the so called pull of gravity, then surely your space should have something more for the ISS.
Any ideas?
Maybe you'll call this a load of rubbish, but whatever there it is!
E&OE as they say.
Loosely speaking what you say has some validity, at least it is something to be considered in looking at the orbits of not only satellites, but the moon itself. What makes it harder to grasp initially is that the sun's gravitational field at the moon is greater than that of the earth, so it is hard to see why the moon orbits the earth and not the sun.
Certainly we know the moon does orbit the earth, then the earth-moon combination orbits the sun. The calculations a way beyond me, but a so-called "Hills Sphere" around the earth can be defined where a satellite (such as the moon) will orbit the earth and not be trapped by the sun. You can read up on it in https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=18501 (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=18501).
For artificial satellites orbiting the earth ...
If when you say "orbit around that point" you mean the satellite orbits the barycentre of the earth-moon combination, no that is not true any more than the moon orbiting the barycentre of the earth-sun combination - that would be inside or very near the sun.
Orbital corrections for these satellites are done, and when they run aout of fuel for this task their service life quickly ends.
Yes, the moon (and sun) do control our tides, but do not so much bodily lift the oceans as cause the ocean water to move towards where the moon-sun combination has the greatest effect. The second tide (when the moon is on the opposite side) happens because the gravitational effect of the moon-sun is least there, so the rotation of the earth causes the bulge on that side.
Hence:
1) the time of high or low tide lags the moon and is also greatly affected but the local ocean floor profile, so much so that some places get extreme tides (Bay of Fundy), and some places get almost no tide (parts of Western Australian Coast).
2) small bodies of water do not experience significant tides, even the Mediterranean Sea has tides of only a few centimetres.
While the whole system is certainly extremely complicated, luckily the effects of bodies other than the earth on artificial satellites of earth is quite small - maybe more by good luck that good management.
The sun, other planets and especially the other stars have no significant effect till we get much further from earth that geostationary satellites.
E&OE as they say.Enjoy & over enjoy? I don't know this abbreviation.
Yendor, the ISS is falling. The people inside are falling with it. It's lateral velocity means it continually misses the planet.
I don't know what is so hard to understand about all this. Do you think the astronauts should be held to the 'floor' of the ISS or held to the 'ceiling' if they can't possibly 'float' (as you say)?
The ISS simply has enough lateral motion that the ground falls away aat the same rate as the ISS falls towards the earth.
To me, the notion that orbiting satellites or the ISS are in free fall back to Earth but keeps missing it is ridiculous. People are also floating around because of it. What happened to gravity pulling things to the center of the Earth. This whole notion makes it sound like gravity pulls things towards the side of the Earth. The definition of free fall alone should be enough to convince someone this is wrong.Yes, it convinces me that you don't understand the concept of vector components.
To me, the notion that orbiting satellites or the ISS are in free fall back to Earth but keeps missing it is ridiculous.Statements like this are why people like silhouette and me wonder why it's so hard for you to grasp the concept of free fall.
People are also floating around because of it. What happened to gravity pulling things to the center of the Earth. This whole notion makes it sound like gravity pulls things towards the side of the Earth. The definition of free fall alone should be enough to convince someone this is wrong.Note the term "force" in that definition. Gravity is the only force involved in Keplerian orbits. The horizontal component doesn't require any force to maintain.
free fall
noun
1.
downward movement under the force of gravity only.
"the path of a body in free fall"
verb
1.
move under the force of gravity only; fall rapidly.
Free fall is the downward movement under the force of gravity only. the key here is 'gravity only'.Gravity is the only thing exerting downward (or upward) force. This is completely consistent with the definitions above.
The satellite is not under the influence of the force of gravity alone.What are the other forces acting on it?
If flying objects were, then yes they would probably free fall back to Earth and not miss it. The force of Inertia is also in play here. Inertia is what keeps the satellite's velocity going strong.Inertia keeps a mass moving in a straight line at a constant speed (i.e. keeps it moving at a constant velocity - that's what inertia does). A force is necessary to cause it to change velocity. The force of gravity causes a satellite in a circular orbit to change direction, but not speed.
We use the word inertia because the satellites and the ISS are claimed to be in a vacuum, free from atmospheric resistance.You use the word inertia when you mean velocity, probably because you don't understand what you are talking about.
If we are talking airplanes then we use the word thrust because they fly in the atmosphere and there is atmospheric resistance. The velocity is what keeps gravity from pulling flying objects to the ground. If velocity is not enough then flying objects will fall to the ground. Unless it is a blimp or a hot air or helium filled balloon.No, lift is what keeps these things from falling to the ground. Lift for an airfoil (like an airplane wing) is a function of air speed; if the air speed is too low, there is not enough lift to overcome the airplane's weight, and it loses altitude. Lift for aerostats (lighter-than-air craft) is due to buoyancy, and is not dependent on air speed.
The article at this website http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf (http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf) touches on my meaning a little. I do think there would be no floating around of people though.That's a nice paper. Thanks for the reference! It nicely puts to rest the argument for UA as a substitute for gravity. Thanks, again!! Link saved.
The article at this website http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf (http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf) touches on my meaning a little. I do think there would be no floating around of people though.That is really a very telling article and should be read before anyone criticises too severely what I put here.
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.This very brief statement of Einstein needs a little qualification. If the reference system under consideration is not small enough for the gravitational field to be considered constant over its range then there can be no complete physical equivalence.
— Einstein, 1907
Importance of the Equivalence PrincipleIn the case of the earth we can readily measure variations in the gravitational field. The most obvious is due to altitude, but there are more subtle variations due to the presence of ore bodies as used in gravimetric surveys for minerals.
An equivalent formulation of the Principle of Equivalence is that at any local (that is, sufficiently small) region in spacetime it is possible to formulate the equations governing physical laws such that the effect of gravitation can be neglected. This in turn means that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid for that particular situation, and this in turn allows a number of things to be deduced because the solution of the equations for the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond the scope of our course, but is not particularly difficult for those trained in the required mathematics. from http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html)
Even if a "geostationary" satellite were possible, it would orbit around that "point" (it's a path as Moon and Earth move in 3D) rather than around Earth.
I know I'm late but I just have to point this out. The center of mass of the Earth-Moon system is actually inside the Earth.Welcome, yes, that has been shown with a simple animation already here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65140.40#.VnVfEL-Wkk8). So a "geostationary orbit", even if that were technically possible, would be an orbit around that center of mass inside the Earth and will never produce a circular geostationary orbit whose center of mass is the exact core of the Earth.
The ISS simply has enough lateral motion that the ground falls away aat the same rate as the ISS falls towards the earth.
This is why you lot really shouldn't try to explain things in a simple manner.
Because it always shows what complete garbage you are pushing.
Stick to spamming 'science-like language' & authoritative-looking equations in future.
Plus: LOL!!!
To me, the notion that orbiting satellites or the ISS are in free fall back to Earth but keeps missing it is ridiculous.Statements like this are why people like silhouette and me wonder why it's so hard for you to grasp the concept of free fall.QuotePeople are also floating around because of it. What happened to gravity pulling things to the center of the Earth. This whole notion makes it sound like gravity pulls things towards the side of the Earth. The definition of free fall alone should be enough to convince someone this is wrong.Note the term "force" in that definition. Gravity is the only force involved in Keplerian orbits. The horizontal component doesn't require any force to maintain.
free fall
noun
1.
downward movement under the force of gravity only.
"the path of a body in free fall"
verb
1.
move under the force of gravity only; fall rapidly.QuoteFree fall is the downward movement under the force of gravity only. the key here is 'gravity only'.Gravity is the only thing exerting downward (or upward) force. This is completely consistent with the definitions above.QuoteThe satellite is not under the influence of the force of gravity alone.What are the other forces acting on it?QuoteIf flying objects were, then yes they would probably free fall back to Earth and not miss it. The force of Inertia is also in play here. Inertia is what keeps the satellite's velocity going strong.Inertia keeps a mass moving in a straight line at a constant speed (i.e. keeps it moving at a constant velocity - that's what inertia does). A force is necessary to cause it to change velocity. The force of gravity causes a satellite in a circular orbit to change direction, but not speed.QuoteWe use the word inertia because the satellites and the ISS are claimed to be in a vacuum, free from atmospheric resistance.You use the word inertia when you mean velocity, probably because you don't understand what you are talking about.QuoteIf we are talking airplanes then we use the word thrust because they fly in the atmosphere and there is atmospheric resistance. The velocity is what keeps gravity from pulling flying objects to the ground. If velocity is not enough then flying objects will fall to the ground. Unless it is a blimp or a hot air or helium filled balloon.No, lift is what keeps these things from falling to the ground. Lift for an airfoil (like an airplane wing) is a function of air speed; if the air speed is too low, there is not enough lift to overcome the airplane's weight, and it loses altitude. Lift for aerostats (lighter-than-air craft) is due to buoyancy, and is not dependent on air speed.QuoteThe article at this website http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf (http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf) touches on my meaning a little. I do think there would be no floating around of people though.That's a nice paper. Thanks for the reference! It nicely puts to rest the argument for UA as a substitute for gravity. Thanks, again!! Link saved.
Did you read it? Did you understand what it is saying? The fact that you cite it here along with that comment suggests you don't have a clue what it means. Can you describe, in your own words, what the section titled "Is an Orbiting Satellite in Free Fall?" is saying? How large is the described effect in a body the size of the ISS?
[Edit] Typo and formatting.
1. A satellite is launched into orbit and it flies around the Earth.at an average speed of 17,000mph.
2. An airplane flies off the runway and it too flies around the Earth.at an average speed of 100-200mph. Airliners cruise at 500-600mph.
3. Without getting on another subject, Let's say gravity tries to pull both satellites and airplanes back down to Earth.
4. Inertia keeps the satellite and an airplane from allowing gravity to pull them both back down to Earth.
It just seems to me that if an airplane could fly outside Earth's atmosphere, it would act no different then it does flying inside Earth's atmosphere.At it's same atmospheric speed, it would drop quickly as there would be no air for the wings to provide lift.
The only way, that I can see a satellite in free fall is if inertia gives out and then gravity can pull it back down to Earth.It is in free-fall. Inertia keeps it moving sideways fast enough that is keeps missing the planet. Thrust brought it up to that speed (or is used occasionally to keep it at that speed)
This too will happen with an airplane.In the atmosphere, yes. It will lose it's speed, which is required in addition to air for the wings to provide lift. Outside the atmosphere at it's normal speed, yes. It would not be going fast enough. If sped up to the same speed as a satellite, it would act the same as a satellite.
1. A satellite is launched into orbit and it flies around the Earth.at an average speed of 17,000mph.Quote2. An airplane flies off the runway and it too flies around the Earth.at an average speed of 100-200mph. Airliners cruise at 500-600mph.Quote3. Without getting on another subject, Let's say gravity tries to pull both satellites and airplanes back down to Earth.
4. Inertia keeps the satellite and an airplane from allowing gravity to pull them both back down to Earth.
Inertia keeps the satellite moving at that high-rate of speed while gravity pulls it toward Earth. It continually misses, and there is almost nothing to slow it.
Inertia will let the airplane glide for a bit before dropping. Without the constant thrust from the propeller, etc, wind resistance would slow it quickly. Lift generated by the wings is what keeps it flying.QuoteIt just seems to me that if an airplane could fly outside Earth's atmosphere, it would act no different then it does flying inside Earth's atmosphere.At it's same atmospheric speed, it would drop quickly as there would be no air for the wings to provide lift.
QuoteThe only way, that I can see a satellite in free fall is if inertia gives out and then gravity can pull it back down to Earth.It is in free-fall. Inertia keeps it moving sideways fast enough that is keeps missing the planet. Thrust brought it up to that speed (or is used occasionally to keep it at that speed)QuoteThis too will happen with an airplane.In the atmosphere, yes. It will lose it's speed, which is required in addition to air for the wings to provide lift. Outside the atmosphere at it's normal speed, yes. It would not be going fast enough. If sped up to the same speed as a satellite, it would act the same as a satellite.
I'm confused. At first you were asking simple questions and now you are acting like you know everything. Which is it?
The problem is you don't know what you are talking about.I'm confused. At first you were asking simple questions and now you are acting like you know everything. Which is it?
You get confused easy. Please try and keep up.
Back to you again alpha,So do I, and I agree. I'm sorry if you thought I was being mean to you.
I enjoy this debate, but I do want to keep it civil. Let's not get into a pissing contest over this matter.
I don't claim to have learned everything about science and you will catch me saying things that doesn't coincide with what you were taught. That doesn't mean you have to call me out about it and make me look foolish.If you don't want to be called out and made to look foolish for saying things that are just wrong, then don't make statements like "the notion that orbiting satellites or the ISS are in free fall back to Earth but keeps missing it is ridiculous." If you don't understand, you might say "I just don't see how an orbiting satellite can be in free-fall and keep missing the Earth." Stating that some well-known fact "is ridiculous" simply because you don't understand it is what makes you look foolish. If you want kid-glove treatment, then dial back the rhetoric. OK?
Let's start again with a clean slate on this matter and see if we can find some common ground. The subject of this thread is, "Why do astronauts on board ISS float around?". My thoughts are this, I've always heard that satellites stay in orbit because they free fall around the Earth and that is why astronauts float around inside the ISS. I pondered this notion and wondered why they say this because it really made little sense to me. I thought about airplanes, they don't fall around the Earth and the passengers don't float around. So I wondered what is the differences between a satellite and an airplane. They both fly around the Earth. So this is what I came up with.[Trying to be as nice as possible] Why do you think an airplane flying in the Earth's atmosphere is no different than if it were in orbit outside the atmosphere? They're completely different. In order for an object at, say, 10 km above mean sea level (33,000 feet, roughly) to stay at a constant altitude without lift, like a satellite in free fall, it would have to be traveling at close to 17,000 mi/hr. Airplanes can't fly this fast through the atmosphere at 10 km altitude because drag increases exponentially with speed, so they need lift to stay aloft, so they aren't in free fall. It really is that simple.
1. A satellite is launched into orbit and it flies around the Earth.
2. An airplane flies off the runway and it too flies around the Earth.
3. Without getting on another subject, Let's say gravity tries to pull both satellites and airplanes back down to Earth.
4. Inertia keeps the satellite and an airplane from allowing gravity to pull them both back down to Earth.
It just seems to me that if an airplane could fly outside Earth's atmosphere, it would act no different then it does flying inside Earth's atmosphere.
Now, please go to the below NASA website and read what it says about satellites.That is not a NASA website. It belongs to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, which appears to be concerned with fisheries, and unaffiliated with NASA, although they probably do use some satellite data provided by or through NASA. The page has a NASA logo on it, and it may (or may not) have originated with NASA; at any rate, the paragraph with the word 'inertia' in it is a bit of a muddle. Trying to use informal, conversational lingo to explain technical subjects will often lead to confusion.
Take note it says,"When these two forces are equal, the ball remains in orbit", meaning gravity and inertia. (You had mentioned before that gravity was the only force acting upon a satellite.)
http://www.gma.org/surfing/satellites/inorbit.html (http://www.gma.org/surfing/satellites/inorbit.html)
My thoughts are this, If these two forces, gravity and inertiaInertia isn't a force.
are acting on an airplane and a satellite to keep them both flying around the Earth, then when does this free fall come into play? Notice too that the article does say, "A satellite's forward motion is controlled by rockets. When the rockets are not fired, inertia keeps the satellite going in one direction." So, rockets provide the inertia for satellites and a jet engine provides the inertia for airplanes.No, inertia is a property of mass. The rockets provide energy by doing work (applied force over distance). Occasionally inertia is used to mean momentum, which may be where you're getting confused. Momentum isn't a force, either, though.
I realize that the rockets are probably not used that much because a satellite is flying in a vacuum with little resistance. However, it does clearly say inertia is required for a satellite to fly around the Earth. The only way, that I can see a satellite in free fall is if inertia gives out and then gravity can pull it back down to Earth. This too will happen with an airplane. Lets not get into, well a plane will glide because of its wings and some planes will glide longer than others. That is just meaningless and does nothing but try and change the subject. So alpha, without getting all pissed off, please explain to me, as simple as possible, in your own words, without math and not saying so and so said it works this way, why my thoughts are all wrong.Your notion that "free fall" implies "moving directly toward the center of the Earth" is incorrect. Free fall means "accelerating directly toward the center of the Earth" when the only force is the gravitational attraction of the Earth. Momentum isn't a force, even though some web page you found might kinda sorta make you think it is. If you have a lateral velocity in addition to the downward acceleration, your free-fall path is not a straight line directly toward the center of the Earth, it's a curved path. For instance, if you're hanging from a bar just beyond the edge of a cliff and let go, you're in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb] until you hit the ground or something else. If you run as fast as you can off the edge of that same cliff, you're also in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb] once your feet go past the edge, but you follow a different trajectory, a curved path that carries you away from the cliff face, but you're still in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb]. A punted football is in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb] from the time it leaves the kicker's foot until it strikes the ground or some other object; it follows a parabolic arc, though, most likely not straight up and down.
Back to you again alpha,So do I, and I agree. I'm sorry if you thought I was being mean to you.
I enjoy this debate, but I do want to keep it civil. Let's not get into a pissing contest over this matter.QuoteI don't claim to have learned everything about science and you will catch me saying things that doesn't coincide with what you were taught. That doesn't mean you have to call me out about it and make me look foolish.If you don't want to be called out and made to look foolish for saying things that are just wrong, then don't make statements like "the notion that orbiting satellites or the ISS are in free fall back to Earth but keeps missing it is ridiculous." If you don't understand, you might say "I just don't see how an orbiting satellite can be in free-fall and keep missing the Earth." Stating that some well-known fact "is ridiculous" simply because you don't understand it is what makes you look foolish. If you want kid-glove treatment, then dial back the rhetoric. OK?QuoteLet's start again with a clean slate on this matter and see if we can find some common ground. The subject of this thread is, "Why do astronauts on board ISS float around?". My thoughts are this, I've always heard that satellites stay in orbit because they free fall around the Earth and that is why astronauts float around inside the ISS. I pondered this notion and wondered why they say this because it really made little sense to me. I thought about airplanes, they don't fall around the Earth and the passengers don't float around. So I wondered what is the differences between a satellite and an airplane. They both fly around the Earth. So this is what I came up with.[Trying to be as nice as possible] Why do you think an airplane flying in the Earth's atmosphere is no different than if it were in orbit outside the atmosphere? They're completely different. In order for an object at, say, 10 km above mean sea level (33,000 feet, roughly) to stay at a constant altitude without lift, like a satellite in free fall, it would have to be traveling at close to 17,000 mi/hr. Airplanes can't fly this fast through the atmosphere at 10 km altitude because drag increases exponentially with speed, so they need lift to stay aloft, so they aren't in free fall. It really is that simple.
1. A satellite is launched into orbit and it flies around the Earth.
2. An airplane flies off the runway and it too flies around the Earth.
3. Without getting on another subject, Let's say gravity tries to pull both satellites and airplanes back down to Earth.
4. Inertia keeps the satellite and an airplane from allowing gravity to pull them both back down to Earth.
It just seems to me that if an airplane could fly outside Earth's atmosphere, it would act no different then it does flying inside Earth's atmosphere.QuoteNow, please go to the below NASA website and read what it says about satellites.That is not a NASA website. It belongs to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, which appears to be concerned with fisheries, and unaffiliated with NASA, although they probably do use some satellite data provided by or through NASA. The page has a NASA logo on it, and it may (or may not) have originated with NASA; at any rate, the paragraph with the word 'inertia' in it is a bit of a muddle. Trying to use informal, conversational lingo to explain technical subjects will often lead to confusion.
Take note it says,"When these two forces are equal, the ball remains in orbit", meaning gravity and inertia. (You had mentioned before that gravity was the only force acting upon a satellite.)
http://www.gma.org/surfing/satellites/inorbit.html (http://www.gma.org/surfing/satellites/inorbit.html)QuoteMy thoughts are this, If these two forces, gravity and inertiaInertia isn't a force.Quoteare acting on an airplane and a satellite to keep them both flying around the Earth, then when does this free fall come into play? Notice too that the article does say, "A satellite's forward motion is controlled by rockets. When the rockets are not fired, inertia keeps the satellite going in one direction." So, rockets provide the inertia for satellites and a jet engine provides the inertia for airplanes.No, inertia is a property of mass. The rockets provide energy by doing work (applied force over distance). Occasionally inertia is used to mean momentum, which may be where you're getting confused. Momentum isn't a force, either, though.QuoteI realize that the rockets are probably not used that much because a satellite is flying in a vacuum with little resistance. However, it does clearly say inertia is required for a satellite to fly around the Earth. The only way, that I can see a satellite in free fall is if inertia gives out and then gravity can pull it back down to Earth. This too will happen with an airplane. Lets not get into, well a plane will glide because of its wings and some planes will glide longer than others. That is just meaningless and does nothing but try and change the subject. So alpha, without getting all pissed off, please explain to me, as simple as possible, in your own words, without math and not saying so and so said it works this way, why my thoughts are all wrong.Your notion that "free fall" implies "moving directly toward the center of the Earth" is incorrect. Free fall means "accelerating directly toward the center of the Earth" when the only force is the gravitational attraction of the Earth. Momentum isn't a force, even though some web page you found might kinda sorta make you think it is. If you have a lateral velocity in addition to the downward acceleration, your free-fall path is not a straight line directly toward the center of the Earth, it's a curved path. For instance, if you're hanging from a bar just beyond the edge of a cliff and let go, you're in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb] until you hit the ground or something else. If you run as fast as you can off the edge of that same cliff, you're also in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb] once your feet go past the edge, but you follow a different trajectory, a curved path that carries you away from the cliff face, but you're still in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb]. A punted football is in free fall[nb]Neglecting air resistance.[/nb] from the time it leaves the kicker's foot until it strikes the ground or some other object; it follows a parabolic arc, though, most likely not straight up and down.
I'm interested yendor. Just because I haven't contributed, doesn't mean I'm not following what you're saying and probably quite a few other's who agree with what you're saying.
I appreciate that. If in fact others do agree with me it would be very nice If they would offer support like you do. Some do but most don't. I can tell you one thing. The other side certainly does. Most of the time I create a thread I get a bunch from the other side lending support to each other trying to bring me down. I don't see much of that on the FE side. Really, the only one is you.The indoctrinates support each other because they feel comfortable attacking and intimidating in numbers, little realising that they are actually following people that are doing this stuff by design. It's orchestrated with some of there so called indoctrinated global Earth theorists.
It seems to me most REers believe what they are taught in school and they take it as being sacred or something. It simply don't believe it can be any other way. They try and explain the same thing that I can read on the internet. I know all that because I can read and comprehend. A lot of It just doesn't seem logical to me. They try and make it seem as simple as driving a car, but I know it can't be that simple. Just like you can watch the videos of people on board the ISS. I've watched tons of them and I can spot the obvious harnesses they wear under their clothing.Yeah it does seem obvious to you and to me and many other's. It really does beggar belief how a so called intelligent person can fall for this clear as day bullshit.
Watch how the hair moves on the women. That can't be real. Their hair would not behave that way.It would if she had a perm or hair spray along with being harnessed upside down.
They will stay on board for a year without taking showers or baths. The one lady astronaut, who had been on board for a year had said she actually asked the new arrivals if she stunk. Of course they said, Oh NO! I could go on and on.Don't forget menstruation. We've seen video where good old Chris Hadfield tells us he can't cry in space because the tears won't fall. Imagine menstruation?
What is wrong with people, how can they believe this stuff. Most people I know don't give a damn about this stuff. They could care less, so they never care to pay attention. I think that is the way most people are.Correct, most people don't care for logical things as long as their lives appear to work for them.
But, for those that do care and do pay attention, how in the world can they possibly believe it is real. To me it is like going to watch a 'Star Wars' movie and believing it is all real. I simply don't get it.The people that can see the bullshit like us, either talk about it amid a barrage of nastiness against the obvious or are too intimidated to bother to say anything and just sit there nodding quietly without creating any fuss.
Again, I do appreciate it when you step in and help me out when they gang up. I wish others would do the same. Of course you have Papa. He chewed me out because I was on his thread. Even though I was on his side. He, under no certain terms, wanted me fighting any of his battles for him. That brought me down a little. So, Maybe because of that, REers don't want other's support. It could be just me that does.It's just about gaining a certain trust and because many of us have never really been involved much with each other, even in pm, then we tend to stand back a little bit to see how the land lies, kind of thing.
I appreciate that. If in fact others do agree with me it would be very nice If they would offer support like you do. Some do but most don't. I can tell you one thing. The other side certainly does. Most of the time I create a thread I get a bunch from the other side lending support to each other trying to bring me down. I don't see much of that on the FE side. Really, the only one is you.The indoctrinates support each other because they feel comfortable attacking and intimidating in numbers, little realising that they are actually following people that are doing this stuff by design. It's orchestrated with some of there so called indoctrinated global Earth theorists.
Most flat Earth or free thinkers don't jump in because there aren't too many for starters and those you think are flat Earther's are mainly piss takers on a mission.
The problem arises when someone like me jumps in as an extra back up to someone like you, or you aiding someone like me and then maybe Papa or legion may add extra weight. What happens?
They indoctrinates are made out to be pressing the complaint button wildly.
This leads to warnings for the bad free thinkers who are told about the rules and the given little irritating bans.
The only winners are the so called indoctrinated one's.
Unless you adhere to a flat Earth disc with UA and all the trimming's, then you are nothing to these these people and will be dealt with as mere fodder if you ever argue the toss with a group of so called global indocs.
Sounds crazy doesn't it as to why the many globals get away with 100 times worse crap towards free thinkers and yet a free thinker who questions stuff and has a dig at the posse; is banned or constantly warned.
It's about trust as well. As is, who to trust. For all you know, I could be here to muddy the waters and just add confusion but the same can be said of you and even Papa or a new mod who just appears after a year or so away and comes back too posting with moderator status and yet no mention of it anywhere on the forum for clarity.
What happened? a letter to the admin through pm or email just asking and getting the status.
It's laughable and it's about trust and who merits trust.
I'm not saying I don't trust you. You've been pretty consistent so I'm inclined to trust you as I do with legion and Papa.
There's one or two other's I trust but that's about it.It seems to me most REers believe what they are taught in school and they take it as being sacred or something. It simply don't believe it can be any other way. They try and explain the same thing that I can read on the internet. I know all that because I can read and comprehend. A lot of It just doesn't seem logical to me. They try and make it seem as simple as driving a car, but I know it can't be that simple. Just like you can watch the videos of people on board the ISS. I've watched tons of them and I can spot the obvious harnesses they wear under their clothing.Yeah it does seem obvious to you and to me and many other's. It really does beggar belief how a so called intelligent person can fall for this clear as day bullshit.
The reality is, top surgeons/doctors and such are conned every day by smooth talking roofers and window salesmen who ask for deposits for a deal. What happens is, they pay up and receive no work. Why?...Because they TRUST unconditionally because they've never experienced distrust.
Same with being told about amazing space feats. They simply accept them for how they're shown and told rather than look for obvious errors.Watch how the hair moves on the women. That can't be real. Their hair would not behave that way.It would if she had a perm or hair spray along with being harnessed upside down.
In all sensibility we can see it crap. We know that a woman would happily gop bald if they were so hell bent on being a so called space station commander/astronaut or whatever.
No way in hell would they be sent up to so called space into that electronic nightmare as well as a so called pressurised, air conditioned contraption, with a frigging hair do like they go up with.
I mean even the most gullible should understand that a shaved head means a wipe and no nightmare shampooing or attempts to mess with packaged water and such.
It's like telling a female surgeon in a theatre with long hair that it's not ok for that hair to dangle down as she's doing the operation so she'd be better off applying stiffener to it so it points towards the ceiling, or she can wear a cap to cover it.
They take us for retards because they literally know that most of the world is asleep due to more pressing engagements, like material lives and worrying about what their neighbour is doing or buying.They will stay on board for a year without taking showers or baths. The one lady astronaut, who had been on board for a year had said she actually asked the new arrivals if she stunk. Of course they said, Oh NO! I could go on and on.Don't forget menstruation. We've seen video where good old Chris Hadfield tells us he can't cry in space because the tears won't fall. Imagine menstruation?
No so called gravity to rid the female of that monthly nightmare, eh?What is wrong with people, how can they believe this stuff. Most people I know don't give a damn about this stuff. They could care less, so they never care to pay attention. I think that is the way most people are.Correct, most people don't care for logical things as long as their lives appear to work for them.But, for those that do care and do pay attention, how in the world can they possibly believe it is real. To me it is like going to watch a 'Star Wars' movie and believing it is all real. I simply don't get it.The people that can see the bullshit like us, either talk about it amid a barrage of nastiness against the obvious or are too intimidated to bother to say anything and just sit there nodding quietly without creating any fuss.
There's many many people that see this stuff for the crap it is but very few speak out because they know it will change nothing unless it's done en masse. The trouble is, people have to have a reason to do that and it must be for their gain to be worthwhile.
A conspiracy nut is not something many people want to be known as and even more so in kn owing there is no gain for them other than ridicule because people who question official lines are already stamped as nutters and tin foil hat looney's.Again, I do appreciate it when you step in and help me out when they gang up. I wish others would do the same. Of course you have Papa. He chewed me out because I was on his thread. Even though I was on his side. He, under no certain terms, wanted me fighting any of his battles for him. That brought me down a little. So, Maybe because of that, REers don't want other's support. It could be just me that does.It's just about gaining a certain trust and because many of us have never really been involved much with each other, even in pm, then we tend to stand back a little bit to see how the land lies, kind of thing.
Samantha cristoforetti has pretty short hairs.
Once u can make electronics withstand accelerations and vibrations of the launch I think u can easily make them waterproof.
There are even smartphones that are waterproof
Scepti and Yendor manage to bore everyone else out of the debate....
There should be little difference between them except for the obvious reasons an airplane can't fly without air for the engines.I was going to type a longer reply, but then the site seemed to be down, and now others have pretty much said the same thing, so I'll just ask something instead...
Of course you have Papa. He chewed me out because I was on his thread. Even though I was on his side. He, under no certain terms, wanted me fighting any of his battles for him. That brought me down a little.Papa is a troll.
There should be little difference between them except for the obvious reasons an airplane can't fly without air for the engines.I was going to type a longer reply, but then the site seemed to be down, and now others have pretty much said the same thing, so I'll just ask something instead...
Can you describe how an airplane takes off and stays in the air?Of course you have Papa. He chewed me out because I was on his thread. Even though I was on his side. He, under no certain terms, wanted me fighting any of his battles for him. That brought me down a little.Papa is a troll.
Papa is a troll.
The wings provide the means to defy gravity and give it movability.And how do the wings provide the means to "defy gravity"? (yes, I know. I'm just curious how you believe they work)
The wings provide the means to defy gravity and give it movability.And how do the wings provide the means to "defy gravity"? (yes, I know. I'm just curious how you believe they work)
Elevators are usually at the rear of the plane, and yes I agree they change the pitch. If the wings fall off however, the elevators can try changing the pitch all they want, but the plane is still going to go down.
How do the wings provide the actual lift that lifts the plane off the ground and keeps it airborne?
To keep it simple, an engine provides the necessary inertia to keep it flying.Presumably you mean thrust?
The wings provide the means to defy gravity and give it movability.Presumably you mean they provide lift?
To keep it simple, an engine provides the necessary inertia to keep it flying.Presumably you mean thrust?
No, I mean inertia. The meaning of inertia is: Inertia is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The engine is what gives an airplane the constant velocity. Thrust is push (something or someone) suddenly or violently in the specified direction. I'm not talking about suddenly pushing the airplane violently because that would change velocity.QuoteThe wings provide the means to defy gravity and give it movability.Presumably you mean they provide lift?
Yes, the wings will provide lift. If not for lift, gravity will cause the airplane to fall. thus, the wings defy gravity. I should not have to explain that to you.
For someone who was apparently some kind of engineer, you do seem to get awfully confused about the basics. It makes it difficult to follow your argument.
The meaning of inertia is: Inertia is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The engine is what gives an airplane the constant velocity. Thrust is push (something or someone) suddenly or violently in the specified direction.Engines provide thrust, not inertia. Inertia is an property inherent to all physical objects, nothing needs to "provide" it. The definition of thrust has nothing to do with levels of "violence" or how "suddenly" it occurs.
I'm not talking aboutWithout a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?suddenlypushing the airplaneviolentlybecause that would change velocity.
Maybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them.Or maybe because its you're making stuff up as you go along?
The meaning of inertia is: Inertia is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The engine is what gives an airplane the constant velocity. Thrust is push (something or someone) suddenly or violently in the specified direction.Engines provide thrust, not inertia. Inertia is an property inherent to all physical objects, nothing needs to "provide" it. The definition of thrust has nothing to do with levels of "violence" or how "suddenly" it occurs.QuoteI'm not talking aboutWithout a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?suddenlypushing the airplaneviolentlybecause that would change velocity.QuoteMaybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them.Or maybe because its you're making stuff up as you go along?
I've followed the entire thread, however that doesn't change the fact that you are using terms like "inertia" when you mean thrust.The meaning of inertia is: Inertia is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The engine is what gives an airplane the constant velocity. Thrust is push (something or someone) suddenly or violently in the specified direction.Engines provide thrust, not inertia. Inertia is an property inherent to all physical objects, nothing needs to "provide" it. The definition of thrust has nothing to do with levels of "violence" or how "suddenly" it occurs.QuoteI'm not talking aboutWithout a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?suddenlypushing the airplaneviolentlybecause that would change velocity.QuoteMaybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them.Or maybe because its you're making stuff up as you go along?
Apparently you haven't been following the whole thread. The thread started out with me comparing a satellite to an airplane. If you have a mind to, go back through the thread and read what was debated. Maybe then you will see where I'm coming from pertaining to an airplane. After that, then we can discuss it in a civil manner without taking cheap shots at each other.
Maybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them.And then whine when you get one sent back at you. You do this every time.
I've followed the entire thread, however that doesn't change the fact that you are using terms like "inertia" when you mean thrust.The meaning of inertia is: Inertia is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The engine is what gives an airplane the constant velocity. Thrust is push (something or someone) suddenly or violently in the specified direction.Engines provide thrust, not inertia. Inertia is an property inherent to all physical objects, nothing needs to "provide" it. The definition of thrust has nothing to do with levels of "violence" or how "suddenly" it occurs.QuoteI'm not talking aboutWithout a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?suddenlypushing the airplaneviolentlybecause that would change velocity.QuoteMaybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them.Or maybe because its you're making stuff up as you go along?
Apparently you haven't been following the whole thread. The thread started out with me comparing a satellite to an airplane. If you have a mind to, go back through the thread and read what was debated. Maybe then you will see where I'm coming from pertaining to an airplane. After that, then we can discuss it in a civil manner without taking cheap shots at each other.
You're like a little child, you start with the "cheap shot" yourself:QuoteMaybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them.And then whine when you get one sent back at you. You do this every time.
Basically I was referring to this from the article, "These forces of inertia and gravity have to be perfectly balanced for an orbit to happen."
My thoughts are, why does a satellite have to be in space orbiting the Earth in the first place? The way I look at it, a satellite can be inside the Earths atmosphere doing the same thing as a satellite orbiting the Earth. To me a satellite is really no different than an airplane or an airplane can do the same thing as a satellite.
That is when I brought up gravity works on an airplane the same as a satellite and the engine will provide the inertia to overcome the pull of gravity. I know that the engine provides thrust to get the airplane moving and wings provide the lift to get the airplane off the ground, but once the plane is at altitude and at a certain cruising speed, the engine provides the inertia to keep the airplane going in a straight path and the wings are defying gravity by providing lift to keep the plane from falling to the ground. That is all I was trying to bring out in the debate.In steady flight he engine does not provide "inertia", but thrust to overcome drag due both to air friction and component of lift directed to the back (the wing's lift is not purely vertical, but almost normal to the wing).
Why can't, what we call satellites, be no more than airplanes flying around in the sky? The U.S. has many military planes flying all the time. Why can't they be GPS satellites? NASA still uses U2 airplanes. Why can't tropospheric scatter be used instead of geosynchronous satellites. Most people think that most communications with other countries are through the use of satellites, But there not, most communications are done with submarine underwater cables. The general public is not privy to all that goes on in this world. Few knew that we had a stealth jet fighter, until they rolled out the F-117.While it might be possible to provide some of these services with high flying aircraft, there would need to be thousands flying all the time over the whole earth. These aircraft would have to be refueled regularly from bases all over the earth!
I know that people like yourself don't want to think about it that way because you believe in space travel. So, it is your job to shoot as many holes in my ideas as you can and it is my job to try and defend them. I just don't like it when the belittling begins.
When I was growing up it was centrifugal force that caused objects to move outwards. Like centrifugal clutches and the weights in a distributor would move outwards to advance the timing. Then I started reading that centrifugal force was not a real force at all it was really centripetal force. So, I thought I'd study this a little deeper. That is when I got on the subject of satellites in orbit. I read the following:No, it's not.Velocity, Acceleration and Force VectorsThe motion of an orbiting satellite can be described by the same motion characteristics as any object in circular motion. The velocity of the satellite would be directed tangent to the circle at every point along its path. The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards the center of the circle - towards the central body that it is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force that is directed inwards in the same direction as the acceleration. This centripetal force is supplied by gravity - the force that universally acts at a distance between any two objects that have mass. Were it not for this force, the satellite in motion would continue in motion at the same speed and in the same direction. It would follow its inertial, straight-line path. Like any projectile, gravity alone influences the satellite's trajectory such that it always falls below its straight-line, inertial path. They demonstrated this with the following image:
(http://i.imgur.com/dlM1536.jpg)
This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth. Well, if this is the case, then isn't this the same thing airplanes do.
An airplane's forward motion is much too low for this to work. The dashed blue lines in the illustration would be far shorter for an airplane, but the green inward-pointing arrows would be the same size, so it wouldn't follow the red circular path; it would intercept the Earth.
QuoteThey fly around the Earth everyday. The airplane's engine is providing the inertia to cause the airplane to fly forward and gravity is trying to pull the airplane down.No, the engine is providing thrust, which is necessary to overcome drag from air resistance. The wings provide lift, which is necessary to overcome weight, which is due to gravity.QuoteThe pilot has to maintain altitude and direction and a nice curved path is maintained around the Earth just like a satellite does. It is really a balancing act between gravity and inertia. Gravity is trying to pull it down, but inertia keeps it from happening.No, if thrust equals drag and lift equals weight, the airplane flies at a constant altitude and speed. More generally, the vector sum of thrust, drag, lift and weight determines whether the aircraft gains or loses altitude, speeds up or slows down; if they sum to zero, it has no altitude change and maintains speed.QuoteIf the airplane's engine stops, gravity will take over and it will free fall to the ground.No, it will glide to the ground, which isn't free fall, because the wings provide some lift if they're moving forward. With the loss of thrust, drag will reduce speed, which reduces lift, so weight exceeds lift and the aircraft loses altitude.QuoteIf the satellite's inertia runs out, then the satellite will free fall to the ground.Yes. But what would cause this?
As it is, because there is a very tenuous atmosphere even at the heights most satellites orbit, they do lose a little energy (and momentum) colliding with these particles, and their orbits do decay unless additional energy is supplied, usually in the form of a rocket engine in some form. This is a very slow process until the satellites get very low (for a satellite), however.QuoteIn this case, the only real difference between a satellite and an airplane is how high each fly.Nope. They are completely different.QuoteWhat I don't understand is why do all the videos show the astronauts floating around inside the ISS. To me that is no more possible than passengers on an airplane floating around inside the airplane. We all know that doesn't happen.Not true... stay tuned.QuoteSome say it is because the ISS is in free fall and it is like being on an free falling elevator.They're right, too!QuoteThat can't be true because inertia is what keeps satellites and airplanes from free falling to the ground in the first place.Satellites are in free-fall. Because their forward motion is high, the ground is falling away at the same rate, though. Airplanes stay aloft because of lift generated (mostly) by the wings, which causes drag, which must be overcome by thrust. They are not is free fall when flying normally.
--> An example of an airplane in free fall is the "Vomit Comet", whose passengers do float around inside the airplaneQuoteOthers say they float around because there is no gravity in space. That is not true, there is only 10% less gravity on the ISS then on Earth and that is not enough difference to keep passengers on an airplane from floating around.You are correct. Zero gravity is a misconception and does cause some confusion. Passengers in an orbiting spacecraft are in the same orbit as the spacecraft they're in, and both are in free fall, so there is nothing resisting the acceleration of gravity toward the center of the Earth, so they feel no weight. Gravity is very much in effect.QuoteSo, I sit here and wonder if the videos of the ISS true, false or I'm I totally off base on my reasoning?The first and last are correct.
Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
ISS exists, and you can prove it for yourself.
Quote from: getrealzommb
ISS exists, and you can prove it for yourself.
Yes? Is the NA§A SSwimming pool acceSSible to the public?
:D :D
spectators go freeQuote from: getrealzommb
ISS exists, and you can prove it for yourself.
Yes? Is the NA§A SSwimming pool acceSSible to the public?
:D :D
Good point. However, I believe you need a member ship card from the actors guild to swim in it.
gaia...if gravity is so strong what prevents all the planets from being absorbed by the sun?Because they are in gravitational equilibrium; orbit.
So you don't believe satellites or the ISS exist. OK.Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
I realize that they show them floating around because they are either on the Vomit Comet or suspended by wires. It is not because they are free falling back to Earth.
equilibrium between gravity and whatelse? if there is gravity u need at least another force(of equal magnitude) to be in equilibriumgaia...if gravity is so strong what prevents all the planets from being absorbed by the sun?Because they are in gravitational equilibrium; orbit.
There are also objects not in gravitational equilibrium; proof of that can be obseved every day on Earth; meteors a.k.a. falling stars.
There's nothing else; orbit or crashing.
Objects can be caught in orbit from desequilibrium; Phobos and Deimos have experienced just that and are now orbiting Mars.
equilibrium between gravity and whatelse? if there is gravity u need at least another force(of equal magnitude) to be in equilibriumgaia...if gravity is so strong what prevents all the planets from being absorbed by the sun?Because they are in gravitational equilibrium; orbit.
There are also objects not in gravitational equilibrium; proof of that can be obseved every day on Earth; meteors a.k.a. falling stars.
There's nothing else; orbit or crashing.
Objects can be caught in orbit from desequilibrium; Phobos and Deimos have experienced just that and are now orbiting Mars.
So you don't believe satellites or the ISS exist. OK.Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
I realize that they show them floating around because they are either on the Vomit Comet or suspended by wires. It is not because they are free falling back to Earth.
Let me rephrase my question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?So you don't believe satellites or the ISS exist. OK.Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
I realize that they show them floating around because they are either on the Vomit Comet or suspended by wires. It is not because they are free falling back to Earth.
Let me rephrase my question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?
I understand the definition of orbit. That does not mean artificial satellites orbit.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?So you don't believe satellites or the ISS exist. OK.Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
I realize that they show them floating around because they are either on the Vomit Comet or suspended by wires. It is not because they are free falling back to Earth.
Let me rephrase my question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?
I understand the definition of orbit. That does not mean artificial satellites orbit.
This really is just a 'yes' or 'no' question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?So you don't believe satellites or the ISS exist. OK.Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
I realize that they show them floating around because they are either on the Vomit Comet or suspended by wires. It is not because they are free falling back to Earth.
Let me rephrase my question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?
I understand the definition of orbit. That does not mean artificial satellites orbit.
This really is just a 'yes' or 'no' question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?So you don't believe satellites or the ISS exist. OK.Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?
I realize that they show them floating around because they are either on the Vomit Comet or suspended by wires. It is not because they are free falling back to Earth.
Let me rephrase my question.
Do you at least understand now how orbiting works and why astronauts would float around on board the ISS if it were in orbit?
I understand the definition of orbit. That does not mean artificial satellites orbit.
This really is just a 'yes' or 'no' question.
Reading this below article, nothing is said about free fall, so I don't see why they would be floating around. My answer is NO.
(http://i.imgur.com/F7Kql1A.jpg)
Reading this below article, nothing is said about free fall, so I don't see why they would be floating around. My answer is NO.
(http://i.imgur.com/F7Kql1A.jpg)
Reading this below article, nothing is said about free fall, so I don't see why they would be floating around.I would interpret "gravity of another body in space pulls it in." or "pulled into the other one completely and crash." as freefall, but that's just me.
(http://i.imgur.com/F7Kql1A.jpg)
My answer is NO.I realize now you haven't made the following connection: The astronauts themselves, their cameras, computers, pens, papers, watches, clothes, etc, are also all in orbit along with the ISS.
Reading this below article, nothing is said about free fall, so I don't see why they would be floating around. My answer is NO.
(http://i.imgur.com/F7Kql1A.jpg)
Circular orbits around a single body... Kepler and me are laughing at the clowns coming up with that nonsense. :D :D
Reading this below article, nothing is said about free fall, so I don't see why they would be floating around.I would interpret "gravity of another body in space pulls it in." or "pulled into the other one completely and crash." as freefall, but that's just me.
(http://i.imgur.com/F7Kql1A.jpg)QuoteMy answer is NO.I realize now you haven't made the following connection: The astronauts themselves, their cameras, computers, pens, papers, watches, clothes, etc, are also all in orbit along with the ISS.
Now then, if you understand how the ISS orbits Earth, you should understand how astronauts float inside it.
Referring to the article on orbiting I presented to you, you are saying that because an object orbits the Earth, everything inside that object is floating. Please explain why that would happen?I did.
The astronauts themselves, their cameras, computers, pens, papers, watches, clothes, etc, are also all in orbit along with the ISS.
Referring to the article on orbiting I presented to you, you are saying that because an object orbits the Earth, everything inside that object is floating. Please explain why that would happen?I did.QuoteThe astronauts themselves, their cameras, computers, pens, papers, watches, clothes, etc, are also all in orbit along with the ISS.
Referring to the article on orbiting I presented to you, you are saying that because an object orbits the Earth, everything inside that object is floating. Please explain why that would happen?
Referring to the article on orbiting I presented to you, you are saying that because an object orbits the Earth, everything inside that object is floating. Please explain why that would happen?
It's because everything inside that object is traveling at the same speed than the object... When inside the ISS you travel at the same speed as the ISS, in other words the same forces (inertia and gravity) will apply to you.
When you open the door of the ISS and get out you will then travel alongside the ISS. If you slow down the ISS with a rocket it won't affect you but the ISS will fall behind and start to decent to earth. You will carry on in your trajectory.
If you were inside the ISS when it slowed down you will slow down as well.
When your car accelerates you accelerate along with it
Referring to the article on orbiting I presented to you, you are saying that because an object orbits the Earth, everything inside that object is floating. Please explain why that would happen?
It's because everything inside that object is traveling at the same speed than the object... When inside the ISS you travel at the same speed as the ISS, in other words the same forces (inertia and gravity) will apply to you.
When you open the door of the ISS and get out you will then travel alongside the ISS. If you slow down the ISS with a rocket it won't affect you but the ISS will fall behind and start to decent to earth. You will carry on in your trajectory.
If you were inside the ISS when it slowed down you will slow down as well.
When your car accelerates you accelerate along with it
You are saying that people and things float around because of the speed the ISS is traveling? How fast would does an airplane have to travel until the passengers start to float around?
Just tell me why something is in orbitThis has been explained over the last 4 pages by several people, including articles you linked to.
why things inside float around.Because they are also in orbit.
You are saying that people and things float around because of the speed the ISS is traveling?Yes.
How fast would does an airplane have to travel until the passengers start to float around?About 17,000 mph (good luck doing that at the elevations they fly at), unless it's a 'zero-g' parabolic flight (vomit-comet), which as you posted back on page one, you also have almost no understanding of.
18,000 mph/~30,000 km/h?? :D :D
Fucking clowns. Nothing man-made has or will ever be able to go that fast.
"Son, quit playing games now, you'll get stuck in that fantasy world..."
18,000 mph/~30,000 km/h?? :D :D
Fucking clowns. Nothing man-made has or will ever be able to go that fast.
"Son, quit playing games now, you'll get stuck in that fantasy world..."
If everyone had your mindset then we wouldn't have had technologies and discoveries because everything simply would have seemed to impossible.
18,000 mph/~30,000 km/h?? :D :D
Fucking clowns. Nothing man-made has or will ever be able to go that fast.
"Son, quit playing games now, you'll get stuck in that fantasy world..."
If everyone had your mindset then we wouldn't have had technologies and discoveries because everything simply would have seemed to impossible.
:D You don't even know me, clown.
Oh I love science fiction.
But I don't forget the second word; "fiction".
I embrace science as well; after all I am a scientist.
Hence my focus; separating the science from the fiction.
Just tell me why something is in orbitThis has been explained over the last 4 pages by several people, including articles you linked to.Quotewhy things inside float around.Because they are also in orbit.You are saying that people and things float around because of the speed the ISS is traveling?Yes.QuoteHow fast would does an airplane have to travel until the passengers start to float around?About 17,000 mph (good luck doing that at the elevations they fly at), unless it's a 'zero-g' parabolic flight (vomit-comet), which as you posted back on page one, you also have almost no understanding of.
*17,686mph after a quick search
Just tell me why something is in orbitThis has been explained over the last 4 pages by several people, including articles you linked to.Quotewhy things inside float around.Because they are also in orbit.You are saying that people and things float around because of the speed the ISS is traveling?Yes.QuoteHow fast would does an airplane have to travel until the passengers start to float around?About 17,000 mph (good luck doing that at the elevations they fly at), unless it's a 'zero-g' parabolic flight (vomit-comet), which as you posted back on page one, you also have almost no understanding of.
*17,686mph after a quick search
Trust me, I'm trying hard to see the logic in this, so please bear with me.
How doe the ISS travel that fast? Everyone on here has told me that inertia is not a force. So the only force acting on the ISS, that I can see, is the force of gravity. I would think the ISS has to be in free fall towards the center of Earth because the definition of gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. Traveling 17,150 mph, it will take 52 seconds to hit the ground. And somehow it misses the Earth and goes around it? in order to go around it, wouldn't it have to be pulled at an angle towards the side of the Earth and not pulled towards the center? Explain that please.
The rockets that accelerated the parts into that orbit.
Trust me, I'm trying hard to see the logic in this, so please bear with me.
How doe the ISS travel that fast?
Everyone on here has told me that inertia is not a force. So the only force acting on the ISS, that I can see, is the force of gravity. I would think the ISS has to be in free fall towards the center of Earth because the definition of gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. Traveling 17,150 mph, it will take 52 seconds to hit the ground. And somehow it misses the Earth and goes around it? in order to go around it, wouldn't it have to be pulled at an angle towards the side of the Earth and not pulled towards the center? Explain that please.It's moving 17,150 mph parallel with the surface of the planet while being pulled down, therefore it keeps missing the planet. Look at your own links and pictures you keep posting.
The science and engineering of airplanes and self-driven cars make sense. Both from and engineering and scientific standpoint.Oh I love science fiction.
But I don't forget the second word; "fiction".
I embrace science as well; after all I am a scientist.
Hence my focus; separating the science from the fiction.
Many years ago airplanes and self driven cars were science fiction, if the designers of cars and airplanes had your mindset then we wouldn't have had cars and airplanes
The science and engineering of airplanes and self-driven cars make sense. Both from and engineering and scientific standpoint.
The space fantasies only make sense in the same way that Santa Claus makes sense; "we want it to be true, so it must be true". Unfortunately; I was very disappointed to learn it can only be fake(d).
The rockets that accelerated the parts into that orbit.
Trust me, I'm trying hard to see the logic in this, so please bear with me.
How doe the ISS travel that fast?QuoteEveryone on here has told me that inertia is not a force. So the only force acting on the ISS, that I can see, is the force of gravity. I would think the ISS has to be in free fall towards the center of Earth because the definition of gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. Traveling 17,150 mph, it will take 52 seconds to hit the ground. And somehow it misses the Earth and goes around it? in order to go around it, wouldn't it have to be pulled at an angle towards the side of the Earth and not pulled towards the center? Explain that please.It's moving 17,150 mph parallel with the surface of the planet while being pulled down, therefore it keeps missing the planet. Look at your own links and pictures you keep posting.
The rockets that accelerated the parts into that orbit.
Trust me, I'm trying hard to see the logic in this, so please bear with me.
How doe the ISS travel that fast?QuoteEveryone on here has told me that inertia is not a force. So the only force acting on the ISS, that I can see, is the force of gravity. I would think the ISS has to be in free fall towards the center of Earth because the definition of gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. Traveling 17,150 mph, it will take 52 seconds to hit the ground. And somehow it misses the Earth and goes around it? in order to go around it, wouldn't it have to be pulled at an angle towards the side of the Earth and not pulled towards the center? Explain that please.It's moving 17,150 mph parallel with the surface of the planet while being pulled down, therefore it keeps missing the planet. Look at your own links and pictures you keep posting.
To answer getrealzommb, No it doesn't. on line it say that the floating is because of free fall, as if they are on an elevator or the vomit comet.
Back to 29silhouette, You are telling that the ISS is traveling 17,500 mph parallel with the earth and gravity is trying to pull it down. And That causes free fall.
The rockets that accelerated the parts into that orbit.
Trust me, I'm trying hard to see the logic in this, so please bear with me.
How doe the ISS travel that fast?QuoteEveryone on here has told me that inertia is not a force. So the only force acting on the ISS, that I can see, is the force of gravity. I would think the ISS has to be in free fall towards the center of Earth because the definition of gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. Traveling 17,150 mph, it will take 52 seconds to hit the ground. And somehow it misses the Earth and goes around it? in order to go around it, wouldn't it have to be pulled at an angle towards the side of the Earth and not pulled towards the center? Explain that please.It's moving 17,150 mph parallel with the surface of the planet while being pulled down, therefore it keeps missing the planet. Look at your own links and pictures you keep posting.
To answer getrealzommb, No it doesn't. on line it say that the floating is because of free fall, as if they are on an elevator or the vomit comet.
Back to 29silhouette, You are telling that the ISS is traveling 17,500 mph parallel with the earth and gravity is trying to pull it down. And That causes free fall.
Yendor imagine you are standing on a earth with no atmosphere... and you drop a ball from your hand... It will fall directly down.
If you throw that same ball softly it will travel a couple of meter before it will hit the ground.
The harder you throw it the further it will travel before it will hit the ground.
Now imagine you throw that ball at 17 000 mph then you will throw the ball over the edge in other word the ball will travel so fast that it will never reach the ground and as the earth is round at will just keep on falling over the edge
The rockets that accelerated the parts into that orbit.
Trust me, I'm trying hard to see the logic in this, so please bear with me.
How doe the ISS travel that fast?QuoteEveryone on here has told me that inertia is not a force. So the only force acting on the ISS, that I can see, is the force of gravity. I would think the ISS has to be in free fall towards the center of Earth because the definition of gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. Traveling 17,150 mph, it will take 52 seconds to hit the ground. And somehow it misses the Earth and goes around it? in order to go around it, wouldn't it have to be pulled at an angle towards the side of the Earth and not pulled towards the center? Explain that please.It's moving 17,150 mph parallel with the surface of the planet while being pulled down, therefore it keeps missing the planet. Look at your own links and pictures you keep posting.
To answer getrealzommb, No it doesn't. on line it say that the floating is because of free fall, as if they are on an elevator or the vomit comet.
Back to 29silhouette, You are telling that the ISS is traveling 17,500 mph parallel with the earth and gravity is trying to pull it down. And That causes free fall.
Yendor imagine you are standing on a earth with no atmosphere... and you drop a ball from your hand... It will fall directly down.
If you throw that same ball softly it will travel a couple of meter before it will hit the ground.
The harder you throw it the further it will travel before it will hit the ground.
Now imagine you throw that ball at 17 000 mph then you will throw the ball over the edge in other word the ball will travel so fast that it will never reach the ground and as the earth is round at will just keep on falling over the edge
Pavarotti, Imagine you are flying in an airplane fast enough that you can defy gravity. You fly over the edge and never reach the ground as the earth is round and you keep falling over the edge. Would the passengers float around? If not, why?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ (https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ (https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ)
I watched your video. How does that explain that the astronauts float around.
Because as I said earlier, they are also in orbit.https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ (https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ)
I watched your video. How does that explain that the astronauts float around.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ (https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC1JQu9xGHQ)
I watched your video. How does that explain that the astronauts float around.
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
I see the insults are coming out and trust me, I understand what everyone is saying, I've read what everyone has mentioned many times. I've tried to find the reason why object actually float on board the ISS and I can't. Mostly I find is that they are in free fall. I just want someone to explain why when they show the videos of the ISS everyone is floating and the women's hair is standing straight up and it looks unnatural as hell. They are all floating around as if they are falling slower than the ISS is falling. I was under the understanding that objects in space fall at the same rate. It is not obvious to me that that is true on the ISS because it looks like the spacecraft is actually falling faster than the objects inside and they never seem to catch up. I would expect to see them simply walking around normal. The gravity is only about 10% less, so it can't be that. I don't see the astronauts falling slower than the ISS when they are outside tethered to the craft. They seem to be falling at the same rate or the tether would be tight. It always seem to be loose. When I'm on an elevator and as it starts to go down I feel as if the floor drops out from underneath my feet, but as soon as my body catches up I don't feel it any longer. I would just expect the ISS to be the same way. I don't want anyone to get mad and start chunking more insults towards me, but this is the way I see it and I simply don't understand. If no one has an answer then please don't bother with this thread and I'll just live with it.
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!
How embarrassing. For YOU.
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!
How embarrassing. For YOU.
The videos are accurate and Easy to understand.
Its people like you confusing the fuck out of naive, gullible, slightly slow of learning people, with bullshit theories. That's the biggest embarrassment of all!
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!
How embarrassing. For YOU.
The videos are accurate and Easy to understand.
Its people like you confusing the fuck out of naive, gullible, slightly slow of learning people, with bullshit theories. That's the biggest embarrassment of all!
Yendor is not slow of learning. He can smell bullshit like any other intelligent person. And the kids videos you accept as truth, are bullshit. Maybe, he is too polite to say "you believe in bullshit".
I'm not that polite.
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!
How embarrassing. For YOU.
The videos are accurate and Easy to understand.
Its people like you confusing the fuck out of naive, gullible, slightly slow of learning people, with bullshit theories. That's the biggest embarrassment of all!
Yendor is not slow of learning. He can smell bullshit like any other intelligent person. And the kids videos you accept as truth, are bullshit. Maybe, he is too polite to say "you believe in bullshit".
I'm not that polite.
Prove what I believe is bullshit.
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!
How embarrassing. For YOU.
The videos are accurate and Easy to understand.
Its people like you confusing the fuck out of naive, gullible, slightly slow of learning people, with bullshit theories. That's the biggest embarrassment of all!
Yendor is not slow of learning. He can smell bullshit like any other intelligent person. And the kids videos you accept as truth, are bullshit. Maybe, he is too polite to say "you believe in bullshit".
I'm not that polite.
Prove what I believe is bullshit.
You can believe what you want. Why would I attempt to disprove fairly tales you believe?
Yendor, myself, and many others don't.
Prove us wrong.
Kids videos don't count.
Prove us wrong.
SERIOUSLY
Those videos are aimed at 5th graders, 10 year old Kids.
If you still cant understand: Have you actually had any kind of education?
Embarrassing
or Trolling
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!
How embarrassing. For YOU.
The videos are accurate and Easy to understand.
Its people like you confusing the fuck out of naive, gullible, slightly slow of learning people, with bullshit theories. That's the biggest embarrassment of all!
Yendor is not slow of learning. He can smell bullshit like any other intelligent person. And the kids videos you accept as truth, are bullshit. Maybe, he is too polite to say "you believe in bullshit".
I'm not that polite.
Prove what I believe is bullshit.
You can believe what you want. Why would I attempt to disprove fairly tales you believe?
Yendor, myself, and many others don't.
Prove us wrong.
Kids videos don't count.
I already have. The balls in your court to form an intelligent rebuttal. One that I can observe, test and measure. Until that is done I have the upper hand weather you wish to believe that or not.
Now trot off and do some work.
I claim that you are a liar. Your post was made up and you have done no observation, whatsoever.
You are trolling, nothing more.
I claim that you are a liar. Your post was made up and you have done no observation, whatsoever.
You are trolling, nothing more.
And where is your proof?
The science and engineering of airplanes and self-driven cars make sense. Both from and engineering and scientific standpoint.
The space fantasies only make sense in the same way that Santa Claus makes sense; "we want it to be true, so it must be true". Unfortunately; I was very disappointed to learn it can only be fake(d).
The science and engineering of space rockets and space travel make sense. Both from and engineering and scientific standpoint. And proven over and over.
The Flat Earth fantasies only make sense in the same way that Santa Claus makes sense; "we want it to be true, so it must be true". Unfortunately for flat earth believers; everything points to the opposite.
There was a lot of activity on here after I left last night. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this subject. I especially want to thank legion because he came to my rescue and defended me. I know everyone is trying to relate me to a child because you all believe what you've been taught and it makes all the sense in the world to you. But to me, not so much. I've been taught the same as most on here but I have a little difficulty believing it.
From what I've gathered, it is the free falling that causes the astronauts to float around inside the ISS. Even though they are falling the same speed. I don't believe this is true. I'm going to attempt to give my reasoning and I hope I can explain it well enough for everyone to understand.
Picture the ISS located at the equator at the very middle of the earth. The earth's diameter is around 8000 miles. That means you are 4000 miles from the edge. The ISS has to travel parallel with the earth for around 14 minutes before it reaches the edge of the earth. The ISS is around 250 mile above the Earth, but it is only around 188 miles from the Kármán line before it starts to enter the earth's atmosphere. If gravity pulls the ISS down, it would only take 38 seconds before it starts to enter earth's atmosphere. Since gravity is the only force acting on the ISS to cause it to go into free fall, it couldn't be in free fall very long and it has to keep traveling parallel to the earth to keep from being pulled to earth. The vision everyone has is that this great big ISS just falls around this little ball earth and everyone is okay with that. My vision is this tiny ISS is flying around this great big earth. To me, it is traveling parallel with the earth all the time and maybe a slight bit of gravity is pulling it so they would have to use rocket thrust to bring it back up over time. But it is not free falling at all. You can watch the videos of the ISS and I don't see it free falling. It is flying parallel and level with the earth just like an airplane would fly around the earth only faster. I'm sure everyone on here has heard or used the story of traveling in an airplane traveling 600 mph and you don't feel the movement at all because you are traveling the same speed as the airplane. Well I use that same argument here. The ISS traveling 17,000 mph and the passengers will not notice it either because they are traveling the same speed as the ISS. That is my reasoning and I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. You can call it childish thinking if you want, but to me it seems logical and I'm not a child.
I just gave you an answer, both the iss and the astronauts have the same speed and acceleration, so there is no relative motion between an astronaut and the iss.
There's a valid reason why Yendor is puzzled by the actions of this supposed ISS and its supposed orbit around a supposed globe. The reason is because he's intelligent enough to see bullshit when it rears its ugly head so blatantly.
Then you get the globalites jumping on him and trying their best to make him appear child like when they know for a fact that he's questioning because it BEGS questions, which is why Legion is backing him up, because Legion and many other logical people who possess common sense can see that the official explanations are clear and utter made up magical fantasies.
Falling around the Earth for crying out loud. ::)
This centrifugal that is now not a force and is centripetal force that isn't a force unless it becomes a force when people start to question, yet manages to exert a force onto a so called space craft by is counteracted by another force that isn't actually a force unless questioned constantly, which then turns back into a sort of force that we simply just don't understand.
Imagine that?
Imagine trying to explain that from scratch to people who haven't been brainwashed.
A defiance of genuine physics. When you see a wall of death motorcycle stunt person going around and around, you don't wonder why he's not flying into the crowd outside because you can see that his motorbike tyres are pushing against a barrier and that barrier is resisting that push.
Imagine that motorbike going super fast around a ball. What force could seriously pull it into the ball as opposed to stopping it shooting outwards in a straight line?
This centripetal force supposedly acts upon the ISS in space as if it's a swing ball machine and the ISS is the ball attached to the string as it's whizzing around the pole.
It doesn't fly off because of the string. The very same string that is bullshit gravity.
This invisible string force where the ISS just wants to piss off into space but good old gravity string says, "not on your Nelly Mr, you're on a leash."
Centripetal force and gravity allow the ISS to simply fall around Earth. ::)
Ok all you scientific minded people. All those who possess the logic and common sense. I have an experiment you can do that will show you how much bullshit this is.
The tools you need are thus:
A lid from a jar that has a lip so it can hold a few small plastic beads.
A few small plastic beads.
A hand held battery operated face fan. A £ store or a $ store one.
A glue stick gun or some strong glue.
Oh and the main thing you need is a small vacuum chamber that will hold the fan and accessories.
Ok here's what you do.
You take the fan blade from the fan and pierce a tiny hole in the jar lid. You then push it firmly onto the fan shaft and glue the back and front so that the lid is stuck to the shaft.
You now glue the fan bottom to the bell jar vacuum base as close to the centre as you can and allow it to dry so it cannot fall over.
You put a few beads in the inside of the rim of the jar lid and switch it on.
You will find that your centripetal force is keeping the beads stuck to the rim, because it's basically like the motorbike wall of death, only this is vertical but same thing.
It's also how they tell you that the ISS is doing its rounds in space.
Now here's the key.
Place your bell jar over the base with the working fan motor and jar lid plus beads spinning like crazy and start evacuating the pressure from that jar.
This is where you see your ISS fall from space to the bottom of the bell jar base, because centripetal force has now been rendered useless.
You see, the beads no longer adhere to the rim because it only works with atmospheric pressure and cannot and does not work without it.
Now all you genuine thinkers that want the truth, don't take my word for it, go and try it out for yourself.
If you have a chamber then the rest will cost you £1 or a $1.
I'll see if anyone is willing to try this and if they are then it should clarify one hell of a lot to them.
There's a valid reason why Yendor is puzzled by the actions of this supposed ISS and its supposed orbit around a supposed globe. The reason is because he's intelligent enough to see bullshit when it rears its ugly head so blatantly.
Then you get the globalites jumping on him and trying their best to make him appear child like when they know for a fact that he's questioning because it BEGS questions, which is why Legion is backing him up, because Legion and many other logical people who possess common sense can see that the official explanations are clear and utter made up magical fantasies.
Falling around the Earth for crying out loud. ::)
This centrifugal that is now not a force and is centripetal force that isn't a force unless it becomes a force when people start to question, yet manages to exert a force onto a so called space craft by is counteracted by another force that isn't actually a force unless questioned constantly, which then turns back into a sort of force that we simply just don't understand.
Imagine that?
Imagine trying to explain that from scratch to people who haven't been brainwashed.
A defiance of genuine physics. When you see a wall of death motorcycle stunt person going around and around, you don't wonder why he's not flying into the crowd outside because you can see that his motorbike tyres are pushing against a barrier and that barrier is resisting that push.
Imagine that motorbike going super fast around a ball. What force could seriously pull it into the ball as opposed to stopping it shooting outwards in a straight line?
This centripetal force supposedly acts upon the ISS in space as if it's a swing ball machine and the ISS is the ball attached to the string as it's whizzing around the pole.
It doesn't fly off because of the string. The very same string that is bullshit gravity.
This invisible string force where the ISS just wants to piss off into space but good old gravity string says, "not on your Nelly Mr, you're on a leash."
Centripetal force and gravity allow the ISS to simply fall around Earth. ::)
Ok all you scientific minded people. All those who possess the logic and common sense. I have an experiment you can do that will show you how much bullshit this is.
The tools you need are thus:
A lid from a jar that has a lip so it can hold a few small plastic beads.
A few small plastic beads.
A hand held battery operated face fan. A £ store or a $ store one.
A glue stick gun or some strong glue.
Oh and the main thing you need is a small vacuum chamber that will hold the fan and accessories.
Ok here's what you do.
You take the fan blade from the fan and pierce a tiny hole in the jar lid. You then push it firmly onto the fan shaft and glue the back and front so that the lid is stuck to the shaft.
You now glue the fan bottom to the bell jar vacuum base as close to the centre as you can and allow it to dry so it cannot fall over.
You put a few beads in the inside of the rim of the jar lid and switch it on.
You will find that your centripetal force is keeping the beads stuck to the rim, because it's basically like the motorbike wall of death, only this is vertical but same thing.
It's also how they tell you that the ISS is doing its rounds in space.
Now here's the key.
Place your bell jar over the base with the working fan motor and jar lid plus beads spinning like crazy and start evacuating the pressure from that jar.
This is where you see your ISS fall from space to the bottom of the bell jar base, because centripetal force has now been rendered useless.
You see, the beads no longer adhere to the rim because it only works with atmospheric pressure and cannot and does not work without it.
Now all you genuine thinkers that want the truth, don't take my word for it, go and try it out for yourself.
If you have a chamber then the rest will cost you £1 or a $1.
I'll see if anyone is willing to try this and if they are then it should clarify one hell of a lot to them.
Except you're whole argument is based on centripetal force.....
We have not mention that in any of our supporting evidence.
We have discuss Gravity, Orbital velocity, and Friction (or lack of).
Again you are, someone attempting to look clever, but you're actually Looking like someone whom an IQ of 80 would be a nice ambition.
...snip...
If you go back to the very first page of this thread you will see that centrifugal and centripetal force was what got me started on the subject of orbit. scepti and legion are here to help back me up because they know that it takes a lot of common sense to wake people up and help them to realize that NASA is not your friend. NASA is lying about space travel and the truth need to be told. I just hope some people, that maybe on the fence about this stuff, find some understanding and realize they have been duped. I know I sure did. So, all and all I believe this thread has been worth it.
I hope they read the thread and realize what a bunch of retards you FEers are.
You and your mates may as well live in Cloud Cookoo land
The confusion here seems to be "free fall". If by free fall you mean falling straight down to earth, then the astronauts are not in freefall, personally I think freefall is the wrong word for the situation.I just gave you an answer, both the iss and the astronauts have the same speed and acceleration, so there is no relative motion between an astronaut and the iss.
Why would there be acceleration? If both are the same speed why do they depict people and everything else floating? They should not float until they go free falling towards the earth and I never see that happening unless they purposely want to.
The confusion here seems to be "free fall". If by free fall you mean falling straight down to earth, then the astronauts are not in freefall, personally I think freefall is the wrong word for the situation.I just gave you an answer, both the iss and the astronauts have the same speed and acceleration, so there is no relative motion between an astronaut and the iss.
Why would there be acceleration? If both are the same speed why do they depict people and everything else floating? They should not float until they go free falling towards the earth and I never see that happening unless they purposely want to.
Ill separate my argument into sections, tell me which one you don't agree with.
1. To be floating in the iss, an astronaut has to be not moving relative to the iss when he is not trying to move and is not touching any walls.
Freefall is one way of this happening but in this case it isn't
Videos show the folks and objects to be floating when they are not tied down or holding on.
2. The acceleration is caused by gravity, and acceleration due to gravity is the same for all objects in a vacuum. So both the astronaut and the iss have the same acceleration and velocity.
Okay
3. Since the astronaut and iss have the same velocity and acceleration, they will follow the same path.
Okay
4. Since they follow the same path, there will be no relative movement between the iss and the astronaut.
Okay
Combine 1 and 4, and you have a floating astronaut.
Here is the problem I have. NASA says the astronauts are floating in space because of free fall and they even demonstrate this with the vomit comet. They say the ISS or any satellite simply falls around the earth. and because of that the objects are weightless and they float around. You have to be smart enough to know that any object coming under the influence of so called gravity is going to fall to earth unless it has a way to defy gravity. Even if the ISS or an airplane is flying, gravity will bring it down if it has no lift to keep it defying gravity. I don't see the ISS having wings.
To me, floating is when you are not under the influence of gravity or lighter than air.
I think 1 is the one you don't get.
If you think a person in a plane is also going at the same speed and acceleration, there is a difference. A plane a person has to be touching the floor to not be falling, because the plane is generating lift to counter gravity, so a person has to be on the floor to be effected by the lift. On the iss this isn't the case, the iss is not producing any force, the only force effecting the system is gravity, which effects the astronaut where or not he is touching a wall.
Edit: reading what you have said I want to ask you something, what do you define floating as.
Videos show the folks and objects to be floating when they are not tied down or holding on. [/color]Ok, that is because I was only looking at the force of gravity, the main force in the situation. If gravity was the only force there would be no relative motion, when you include the astronaut pushing off from surfaces and the force from the air inside the station hitting his body you will have him moving relative to the station. I defined floating badly; I'll give a better one.
Here is the problem I have. NASA says the astronauts are floating in space because of free fall and they even demonstrate this with the vomit comet. They say the ISS or any satellite simply falls around the earth. and because of that the objects are weightless and they float around. You have to be smart enough to know that any object coming under the influence of so called gravity is going to fall to earth unless it has a way to defy gravity. Even if the ISS or an airplane is flying, gravity will bring it down if it has no lift to keep it defying gravity. I don't see the ISS having wings.Now I think you have said you understand orbits, you just don’t consider them as free falling because they don’t go down. On the vomit comet you float because both you and the plane are being affected by gravity and nothing else, this causes you to not be pushed against any surface of the plane. Now in the ISS isn’t falling as in moving downwards, but it is accelerating downwards, so it’s not “free falling”, more “free accelerating”. It’s the “free accelerating” that causes things to float, since it means objects within it will not be pushed to one surface. If you think you would be pushed towards one surface of the ISIS, which one, down, up, backwards, and why.
You have to be smart enough to know that any object coming under the influence of so called gravity is going to fall to earth unless it has a way to defy gravity. Even if the ISS or an airplane is flying, gravity will bring it down if it has no lift to keep it defying gravity. I don't see the ISS having wings.And you have to be smart enough to factor in, and comprehend, the lateral velocity of the ISS and the astronauts traveling with it.
I embrace science as well; after all I am a scientist.Why do I have a hard time believing that?
Videos show the folks and objects to be floating when they are not tied down or holding on. [/color]Ok, that is because I was only looking at the force of gravity, the main force in the situation. If gravity was the only force there would be no relative motion, when you include the astronaut pushing off from surfaces and the force from the air inside the station hitting his body you will have him moving relative to the station. I defined floating badly; I'll give a better one.
Floating="When there is no permanent force pushing you against a surface.”
I hope this definition makes more sense, on earth we don’t float because we have a force pushing us down, so we can’t float up, and the friction from being pushed to the ground stops us from floating forwards, backwards, left and right. Same on a plane, the plane is staying at a constant height, and you are still going downwards because of gravity, so you are pushed against a surface again.QuoteHere is the problem I have. NASA says the astronauts are floating in space because of free fall and they even demonstrate this with the vomit comet. They say the ISS or any satellite simply falls around the earth. and because of that the objects are weightless and they float around. You have to be smart enough to know that any object coming under the influence of so called gravity is going to fall to earth unless it has a way to defy gravity. Even if the ISS or an airplane is flying, gravity will bring it down if it has no lift to keep it defying gravity. I don't see the ISS having wings.Now I think you have said you understand orbits, you just don’t consider them as free falling because they don’t go down. On the vomit comet you float because both you and the plane are being affected by gravity and nothing else, this causes you to not be pushed against any surface of the plane. Now in the ISS isn’t falling as in moving downwards, but it is accelerating downwards, so it’s not “free falling”, more “free accelerating”. It’s the “free accelerating” that causes things to float, since it means objects within it will not be pushed to one surface. If you think you would be pushed towards one surface of the ISIS, which one, down, up, backwards, and why.
I understand what they mean by orbit. I understand that forward motion is counteracting gravity and the object will travel around the earth.No, you obviously don't understand what they mean by orbit. Forward motion does not counteract gravity. Gravity is always pulling the ISS downwards. The forward speed simply ensures that the ISS misses the earth.
I see the insults are coming out
Just because they are aimed at children; that doesn't make them true. Only a complete idiot would suggest that. And that you believe these videos knowing that they were "designed for children"!Yep. You're right. This was the very next post.
How embarrassing. For YOU.
trust me, I understand what everyone is saying,That doesn't seem so clear. Based on what you write here, you don't understand it at all.
I've read what everyone has mentioned many times. I've tried to find the reason why object actually float on board the ISS and I can't. Mostly I find is that they are in free fall. I just want someone to explain why when they show the videos of the ISS everyone is floating and the women's hair is standing straight up and it looks unnatural as hell.They are in free-fall and it isn't natural for people to be in that environment.
They are all floating around as if they are falling slower than the ISS is falling.Why do you think this? If they were falling slower than the ISS is falling, they'd all be pinned to the ceiling[nb]The "ceiling" in this case is the part farthest from earth.[/nb]. But they're floating around, which is what you object to, which means they're not pinned to the ceiling.
I was under the understanding that objects in space fall at the same rate.All objects in space don't necessarily "fall" at the same rate, they accelerate at the same rate[nb]If they are at the same distance from the center of the Earth, in this context.[/nb]. "Falling" at the same rate means they also have the same velocity, which isn't necessarily true in all cases. Objects in the same orbit do fall at the same rate at the same point in the orbit. Objects contained within another object in orbit do meet those conditions.
It is not obvious to me that that is true on the ISS because it looks like the spacecraft is actually falling faster than the objects inside and they never seem to catch up. I would expect to see them simply walking around normal.Wait... if the spacecraft were always falling faster than the objects inside, unattached objects inside would be pushed against the side opposite the direction of fall. Are you seeing this? Obviously not, since you're complaining that the pictures show astronauts floating around inside it. So, how, exactly, does it "look" like this is happening? If that were happening, you would see them walking around normally, on the ceiling. Can you clarify what it is you're trying to say here because this makes no sense.
The gravity is only about 10% less, so it can't be that. I don't see the astronauts falling slower than the ISS when they are outside tethered to the craft. They seem to be falling at the same rate or the tether would be tight. It always seem to be loose.The acceleration of gravity, regardless of what the exact value is, is the same for both because they are at the same distance from the Earth. In this case they are falling at the same rate, so there's no net velocity between them except when the astronaut outside accelerates to maneuver around. So what you see is exactly what would be expected. Why would you expect otherwise?
When I'm on an elevator and as it starts to go down I feel as if the floor drops out from underneath my feet, but as soon as my body catches up I don't feel it any longer.The elevator accelerates downward from a stop for a few moments, then moves downward at a constant speed. You feel the floor drop as it accelerates, then your weight returns to normal when the acceleration stops and the downward velocity becomes constant. This is high-school physics stuff. Consider you claim to have had a career in engineering (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65151.msg1740566;topicseen#msg1740566), this is pretty disturbing since it's really, really basic and very well understood.
I'm a very technical person. I've spent nearly my whole life working as an electrical engineer. I've even designed products that were supposedly used on satellites.
I would just expect the ISS to be the same way. I don't want anyone to get mad and start chunking more insults towards me, but this is the way I see it and I simply don't understand.Here are what I think are the possibilities. These aren't meant to be insults, just the possibilities based on what you say here:
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/circular-motion/revise-it/angular-acceleration-and-centripetal-force (http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/circular-motion/revise-it/angular-acceleration-and-centripetal-force)Videos show the folks and objects to be floating when they are not tied down or holding on. [/color]Ok, that is because I was only looking at the force of gravity, the main force in the situation. If gravity was the only force there would be no relative motion, when you include the astronaut pushing off from surfaces and the force from the air inside the station hitting his body you will have him moving relative to the station. I defined floating badly; I'll give a better one.
Floating="When there is no permanent force pushing you against a surface.”
I hope this definition makes more sense, on earth we don’t float because we have a force pushing us down, so we can’t float up, and the friction from being pushed to the ground stops us from floating forwards, backwards, left and right. Same on a plane, the plane is staying at a constant height, and you are still going downwards because of gravity, so you are pushed against a surface again.QuoteHere is the problem I have. NASA says the astronauts are floating in space because of free fall and they even demonstrate this with the vomit comet. They say the ISS or any satellite simply falls around the earth. and because of that the objects are weightless and they float around. You have to be smart enough to know that any object coming under the influence of so called gravity is going to fall to earth unless it has a way to defy gravity. Even if the ISS or an airplane is flying, gravity will bring it down if it has no lift to keep it defying gravity. I don't see the ISS having wings.Now I think you have said you understand orbits, you just don’t consider them as free falling because they don’t go down. On the vomit comet you float because both you and the plane are being affected by gravity and nothing else, this causes you to not be pushed against any surface of the plane. Now in the ISS isn’t falling as in moving downwards, but it is accelerating downwards, so it’s not “free falling”, more “free accelerating”. It’s the “free accelerating” that causes things to float, since it means objects within it will not be pushed to one surface. If you think you would be pushed towards one surface of the ISIS, which one, down, up, backwards, and why.
I hate to say it, but you have me a little confused here. It sounds like, again, you are saying gravity is not enough force to push them down. There is gravity, almost as much as on earth. Why would they float if they push off something?
I understand what they mean by orbit. I understand that forward motion is counteracting gravity and the object will travel around the earth. You say that the object is free accelerating towards the earth and that is causing things to float. What happened to the forward motion of the object trying to prevent that from happening. It would hit the atmosphere in only 38 seconds. If what you say is true, then they would have to constantly fire the rockets to overcome the gravity.
Alpha0mega likes to insult people in a roundabout way. This clown likes people to think he's intelligent. He's a classic internet info sniffer who regurgitates what he finds on any subject he's dealing with.
Most people are like this clown and then there are some genuine one's who get caught up in this clowns parroting and feel the need to follow because they don't want to be ridiculed.
Just another space fantasist.
I understand what they mean by orbit. I understand that forward motion is counteracting gravity and the object will travel around the earth.No, you obviously don't understand what they mean by orbit. Forward motion does not counteract gravity. Gravity is always pulling the ISS downwards. The forward speed simply ensures that the ISS misses the earth.
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/circular-motion/revise-it/angular-acceleration-and-centripetal-force (http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/circular-motion/revise-it/angular-acceleration-and-centripetal-force)Videos show the folks and objects to be floating when they are not tied down or holding on. [/color]Ok, that is because I was only looking at the force of gravity, the main force in the situation. If gravity was the only force there would be no relative motion, when you include the astronaut pushing off from surfaces and the force from the air inside the station hitting his body you will have him moving relative to the station. I defined floating badly; I'll give a better one.
Floating="When there is no permanent force pushing you against a surface.”
I hope this definition makes more sense, on earth we don’t float because we have a force pushing us down, so we can’t float up, and the friction from being pushed to the ground stops us from floating forwards, backwards, left and right. Same on a plane, the plane is staying at a constant height, and you are still going downwards because of gravity, so you are pushed against a surface again.QuoteHere is the problem I have. NASA says the astronauts are floating in space because of free fall and they even demonstrate this with the vomit comet. They say the ISS or any satellite simply falls around the earth. and because of that the objects are weightless and they float around. You have to be smart enough to know that any object coming under the influence of so called gravity is going to fall to earth unless it has a way to defy gravity. Even if the ISS or an airplane is flying, gravity will bring it down if it has no lift to keep it defying gravity. I don't see the ISS having wings.Now I think you have said you understand orbits, you just don’t consider them as free falling because they don’t go down. On the vomit comet you float because both you and the plane are being affected by gravity and nothing else, this causes you to not be pushed against any surface of the plane. Now in the ISS isn’t falling as in moving downwards, but it is accelerating downwards, so it’s not “free falling”, more “free accelerating”. It’s the “free accelerating” that causes things to float, since it means objects within it will not be pushed to one surface. If you think you would be pushed towards one surface of the ISIS, which one, down, up, backwards, and why.
I hate to say it, but you have me a little confused here. It sounds like, again, you are saying gravity is not enough force to push them down. There is gravity, almost as much as on earth. Why would they float if they push off something?
I understand what they mean by orbit. I understand that forward motion is counteracting gravity and the object will travel around the earth. You say that the object is free accelerating towards the earth and that is causing things to float. What happened to the forward motion of the object trying to prevent that from happening. It would hit the atmosphere in only 38 seconds. If what you say is true, then they would have to constantly fire the rockets to overcome the gravity.
You need to understand circular motion. Acceleration and velocity are different things, F=ma not F=mv, an object can be accelerating downwards and keep a parallel velocity, the velocity doesn't counteract acceleration, because it doesn't, they are different things. People never feel velocity, only accelation. Of cause you feel the air when you have velocity relative to the ground but that is not the same thing.
Learn how circular motion works before saying I'm wrong.
Okay, let's get back to basics. Your article talks about centripetal force and centrifugal force not being a real force. Actually, centrifugal force is what we should be talking about. I'll give you an example of centrifugal force used in everyday life, a washing machine spinning out. That is how the water in the cloths are removed. Now give me an example of centripetal force used in everyday life.The 'tub' of the washer, being a solid connection to the center of rotation, acting on the clothes to keep them following a circular path.
Okay, let's get back to basics. Your article talks about centripetal force and centrifugal force not being a real force. Actually, centrifugal force is what we should be talking about. I'll give you an example of centrifugal force used in everyday life, a washing machine spinning out. That is how the water in the cloths are removed. Now give me an example of centripetal force used in everyday life.The 'tub' of the washer, being a solid connection to the center of rotation, acting on the clothes to keep them following a circular path.
Learn how circular motion works, something can be accelerating inwards while moving in a perfect circle, basic physics. Acceleration and velocity are different things, you seem to think that inwards acceleration has to mean inwards velocity, it doesn’t.
I don't see the cloths center seeking.Indeed. Hence the use of centripetal force (courtesy of the wall of the tub) to make their path turn, thus following a circular path.
I see them outward seeking.They are trying to continue in a straight line, yes. Just as the water is able to do courtesy of the holes in the wall of the tub.
You never addressed any of those questions or points. Do you have any answers or comments?They are all floating around as if they are falling slower than the ISS is falling.Why do you think this? If they were falling slower than the ISS is falling, they'd all be pinned to the ceiling[nb]The "ceiling" in this case is the part farthest from earth.[/nb]. But they're floating around, which is what you object to, which means they're not pinned to the ceiling.QuoteI was under the understanding that objects in space fall at the same rate.All objects in space don't necessarily "fall" at the same rate, they accelerate at the same rate[nb]If they are at the same distance from the center of the Earth, in this context.[/nb]. "Falling" at the same rate means they also have the same velocity, which isn't necessarily true in all cases. Objects in the same orbit do fall at the same rate at the same point in the orbit. Objects contained within another object in orbit do meet those conditions.QuoteIt is not obvious to me that that is true on the ISS because it looks like the spacecraft is actually falling faster than the objects inside and they never seem to catch up. I would expect to see them simply walking around normal.Wait... if the spacecraft were always falling faster than the objects inside, unattached objects inside would be pushed against the side opposite the direction of fall. Are you seeing this? Obviously not, since you're complaining that the pictures show astronauts floating around inside it. So, how, exactly, does it "look" like this is happening? If that were happening, you would see them walking around normally, on the ceiling. Can you clarify what it is you're trying to say here because this makes no sense.QuoteThe gravity is only about 10% less, so it can't be that. I don't see the astronauts falling slower than the ISS when they are outside tethered to the craft. They seem to be falling at the same rate or the tether would be tight. It always seem to be loose.The acceleration of gravity, regardless of what the exact value is, is the same for both because they are at the same distance from the Earth. In this case they are falling at the same rate, so there's no net velocity between them except when the astronaut outside accelerates to maneuver around. So what you see is exactly what would be expected. Why would you expect otherwise?QuoteWhen I'm on an elevator and as it starts to go down I feel as if the floor drops out from underneath my feet, but as soon as my body catches up I don't feel it any longer.The elevator accelerates downward from a stop for a few moments, then moves downward at a constant speed. You feel the floor drop as it accelerates, then your weight returns to normal when the acceleration stops and the downward velocity becomes constant. This is high-school physics stuff. Consider you claim to have had a career in engineering (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65151.msg1740566;topicseen#msg1740566), this is pretty disturbing since it's really, really basic and very well understood.
Did I miss any? If not, which of these is correct? If it's 5) [I truly hope not!], it might look like 4) to you.QuoteI would just expect the ISS to be the same way. I don't want anyone to get mad and start chunking more insults towards me, but this is the way I see it and I simply don't understand.Here are what I think are the possibilities. These aren't meant to be insults, just the possibilities based on what you say here:
1) You're willing to play the foil, pretending to be ignorant, and encouraging people to present facts in a very easy to understand way. Well done! <imagine thumbs-up emoji here>
2) You just enjoy posting stuff to see what response you can elicit. Still <thumbs up>, because it elicited a lot of easy to understand explanations for anyone casually reading.
3) You really don't understand how this works, and are "exaggerating" that career in engineering. <thumbs down>, but see comment after 2), above.
4) You really don't understand how this works, but somehow managed to have a career in engineering anyway. (Yikes! :o )
5) You used to be a brilliant (or at least competent) engineer and used to understand how this works but don't any more. :'(
<The usual ad-hom attack, but no answers, no useful information.>
I don't see the cloths center seeking.Indeed. Hence the use of centripetal force (courtesy of the wall of the tub) to make their path turn, thus following a circular path.QuoteI see them outward seeking.They are trying to continue in a straight line, yes. Just as the water is able to do courtesy of the holes in the wall of the tub.
The "centrifugal force" is the felt 'pull' of the centripetal force.
It is still centrifugal force pushing the cloths outward.Will the clothes continue in a straight line if the tub wall were to suddenly disappear?
If the clothes were forced to the center, I'd say you are right.Is the tub forcing the clothes to turn from what would otherwise be a straight path?
centripetal force is the opposite of centrifugal force. Show me something that is forced to the center of curvature of the path.Are the clothes being forced to turn from their otherwise straight path?
Yendor
You plonker Rodney, I have explained to you all you really need to consider is Gravity Constant, Altitude and Orbital Velocity. All of of which are identical for the ISS and the astronauts.. That Equals Equilibrium.
The astronauts are in the same frame of reference.
The Orbital Velocity (orbital period of about 88 minutes) of the ISS and Its crew has to be quick enough (7.66 km/s) through the very Low density atmosphere that it is traveling forwards (7.66 km/s) and falling (Gravity's effect 9.8 m/s^2) at the same rate as the Earth Curves away from it. (0.20m/km.)
The chosen Altitude for the ISS orbit was 400km above Sea Level.
The Earth is 40,075.16 kilometers round the Equator.
Test the theory,
Show me your workings
Lets find out why you believe the ISS would crash.
Does this mean that we're making progress?I understand what they mean by orbit. I understand that forward motion is counteracting gravity and the object will travel around the earth.No, you obviously don't understand what they mean by orbit. Forward motion does not counteract gravity. Gravity is always pulling the ISS downwards. The forward speed simply ensures that the ISS misses the earth.
Okay
Does this mean that we're making progress?I understand what they mean by orbit. I understand that forward motion is counteracting gravity and the object will travel around the earth.No, you obviously don't understand what they mean by orbit. Forward motion does not counteract gravity. Gravity is always pulling the ISS downwards. The forward speed simply ensures that the ISS misses the earth.
Okay
It is still centrifugal force pushing the cloths outward.Will the clothes continue in a straight line if the tub wall were to suddenly disappear?QuoteIf the clothes were forced to the center, I'd say you are right.Is the tub forcing the clothes to turn from what would otherwise be a straight path?Quotecentripetal force is the opposite of centrifugal force. Show me something that is forced to the center of curvature of the path.Are the clothes being forced to turn from their otherwise straight path?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
I'm saying only that I linked a page describing centripetal force. Do try to avoid putting words in my mouth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
Are you are saying if I drive a car fast around a racetrack that the car will try to go towards the center of the track instead of towards the outside of the track? I've never seen that. I've only seen them being pushed towards the outside of the track.
Not on the last two. The clothes would simply continue in a straight path. They are being forced to turn inward, which you just agreed with, and you have stated centripetal force is the opposite of centrifugal.Is the tub forcing the clothes to turn from what would otherwise be a straight path?
Are the clothes being forced to turn from their otherwise straight path?
All yes and you just described centrifugal force.
Again, please show me something that is pulled to the center of curvature of the path.I did.
Since you have agreed they are being forced to turn inward, thus following a circle instead of continuing straight, then I guess I'm right, and now surely you must understand what centripetal force is. Yes or no?
The "centrifugal force" is the felt 'pull' of the centripetal force.
It is still centrifugal force pushing the cloths outward. If the clothes were forced to the center, I'd say you are right.
Not on the last two. The clothes would simply continue in a straight path. They are being forced to turn inward, which you just agreed with, and you have stated centripetal force is the opposite of centrifugal.Is the tub forcing the clothes to turn from what would otherwise be a straight path?
Are the clothes being forced to turn from their otherwise straight path?
All yes and you just described centrifugal force.QuoteAgain, please show me something that is pulled to the center of curvature of the path.I did.Since you have agreed they are being forced to turn inward, thus following a circle instead of continuing straight, then I guess I'm right, and now surely you must understand what centripetal force is. Yes or no?
The "centrifugal force" is the felt 'pull' of the centripetal force.
It is still centrifugal force pushing the cloths outward. If the clothes were forced to the center, I'd say you are right.
No, centripetal force is in all of those examples as the inwards acceleration that causes the object to turn. The centrifugal force only appears in the reference frame of the object, take an ant standing on the ball, it would fell an outwards centrifugal force.
The cloths are forced by the tub to turn inward the same as centrifugal.The force of the tub wall causing the clothes to turn inward is centripetal.
A ball on a string twirling over your head is centrifugal force pushing the outwards.Nothing is trying to push the ball outward, it's merely trying to travel in a straight path, which would be away from the center of it's circular path.
If i let out some more string the ball will take up the slack and move further out.As the centripetal force is lessened, yes the ball will move further out as it tries to go straight momentarily.
If when I let out more string the ball came closer to the center, that would be the opposite to centrifugal force, centripetal force.How would the ball come closer by letting out more string? The centripetal force is what is making the ball follow it's circular path. Pulling the string in would make the ball come closer to center.
Show me something that works like that.A ball on a string. Centripetal force makes it turn instead of going straight.
The cloths are forced by the tub to turn inward the same as centrifugal.The force of the tub wall causing the clothes to turn inward is centripetal.QuoteA ball on a string twirling over your head is centrifugal force pushing the outwards.Nothing is trying to push the ball outward, it's merely trying to travel in a straight path, which would be away from the center of it's circular path.QuoteIf i let out some more string the ball will take up the slack and move further out.As the centripetal force is lessened, yes the ball will move further out as it tries to go straight momentarily.QuoteIf when I let out more string the ball came closer to the center, that would be the opposite to centrifugal force, centripetal force.How would the ball come closer by letting out more string? The centripetal force is what is making the ball follow it's circular path. Pulling the string in would make the ball come closer to center.QuoteShow me something that works like that.A ball on a string. Centripetal force makes it turn instead of going straight.
Or, do you want to see something that, when centripetal force is lessened or removed, curves inward even more instead of straightening out?
So the reason why astronauts float in space is due to centripetal/centrifugal? force or falling around the Earth at super speed?
Would this be right and if so, what else can make astronauts float in space?
Maybe you can tell me why the Apollo astronauts were floating inside their craft when out of Earth's so called orbit?So the reason why astronauts float in space is due to centripetal/centrifugal? force or falling around the Earth at super speed?
Basically, yes. They have no net motion relative to nearby objects because they're all traveling and accelerating in the same direction at the same rate.QuoteWould this be right and if so, what else can make astronauts float in space?
Witches! ;) [nb]I'm including the little winky symbol so I can be sure you know I'm kidding here. I don't really believe witches can make astronauts float in space. It's a joke.[/nb]
Apollo was in orbit around the earth. The trans lunar injection pushed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that intersects the moon.Well let's see if we can clear a few things up.
Apollo was in orbit around the earth. The trans lunar injection pushed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that intersects the moon.Well let's see if we can clear a few things up.
I recall Gene Cernan mention that they orbited the Earth about one and a half times, then off on a trajectory towards the moon.
Ok, I can accept this bit for the sake of it.
How fast was the orbit around the Earth for that one and a half times?...any idea?
So what speed would you guess at? 17,000 mph for the orbit and a half before heading to the moon?Apollo was in orbit around the earth. The trans lunar injection pushed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that intersects the moon.Well let's see if we can clear a few things up.
I recall Gene Cernan mention that they orbited the Earth about one and a half times, then off on a trajectory towards the moon.
Ok, I can accept this bit for the sake of it.
How fast was the orbit around the Earth for that one and a half times?...any idea?
It was a couple of hours if I recall correctly.
So what speed would you guess at? 17,000 mph for the orbit and a half before heading to the moon?Apollo was in orbit around the earth. The trans lunar injection pushed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that intersects the moon.Well let's see if we can clear a few things up.
I recall Gene Cernan mention that they orbited the Earth about one and a half times, then off on a trajectory towards the moon.
Ok, I can accept this bit for the sake of it.
How fast was the orbit around the Earth for that one and a half times?...any idea?
It was a couple of hours if I recall correctly.
When "out of Earth's orbit" they were in orbit around the Moon. Same deal.Maybe you can tell me why the Apollo astronauts were floating inside their craft when out of Earth's so called orbit?So the reason why astronauts float in space is due to centripetal/centrifugal? force or falling around the Earth at super speed?
Basically, yes. They have no net motion relative to nearby objects because they're all traveling and accelerating in the same direction at the same rate.QuoteWould this be right and if so, what else can make astronauts float in space?
<joke!>
Also as an added extra, how did the so called Apollo craft actually fly to the so called moon when it wasn't orbiting Earth and was on a supposed straight trajectory towards the so called moon, meaning it had no means to float and can't have used propulsion.Who says they weren't in orbit around the Earth while en route to the Moon between trans-lunar injection and lunar orbit insertion? And it wasn't a straight trajectory; the trans-lunar injection burn put them in a highly-elliptical orbit, still with the Earth at one focus, but its apogee beyond the Moon's orbit. They used propulsion (the third stage engine was restarted) to change from the nearly circular low-earth orbit into the highly-elliptical trans-lunar one. During the "burn" (which supplies the force necessary to change the state of motion), they weren't floating. See Buzz Aldrin's quote (although not so designated) in Yendor's post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65151.msg1746685#msg1746685) above.
Now before you go into this, " an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an opposite force"I think you mean:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.Nothing about "opposite" in that. You must be conflating Newton's First Law of Motion with the Third.
you have to tell meI don't have to tell you anything. I will answer in the remote hope that you'll learn something useful, and for anyone else who is interested.
how this craft floated, bearing in mind that there is no up/down/side to side in so called space and is a so called vacuum or nothingness.What's to tell? It's following an elliptical trajectory that is designed so the craft will arrive in the vicinity of the Moon a little "ahead" of the Moon in its orbit. What do human perceptions of "up", "down", etc. have to do with this? As far as I know, they were navigating using ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) coordinates, and didn't use those terms.
Let's see what you can come back with before I proceed.Well?
17,000 mi/hr sounds about right, why?So what speed would you guess at? 17,000 mph for the orbit and a half before heading to the moon?Apollo was in orbit around the earth. The trans lunar injection pushed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that intersects the moon.Well let's see if we can clear a few things up.
I recall Gene Cernan mention that they orbited the Earth about one and a half times, then off on a trajectory towards the moon.
Ok, I can accept this bit for the sake of it.
How fast was the orbit around the Earth for that one and a half times?...any idea?
It was a couple of hours if I recall correctly.
Ok thanks, Yendor.
So basically the craft was travelling at 25,000 mph in 1969. Hmmmm.
I wonder if anyone can tell me how they managed to slingshot the craft out to take a trajectory to the moon?
I was always under the impression that a person on Earth, or a plane or helicopter when they jump up, fly or hover, will still be carried by Earth's spin.
So given that thought, it stands to reason that a rocket craft separation that has just went into a 25,000 mph orbit is going to stay in that orbit unless it hits something that can change it's trajectory.
What that something is I'd like to know.
Obviously it cannot use brakes to slow down and then about turn to go on a moon course, can it?
I honestly can't see how it manages this, let alone manages to go 25,000 mph in 1969 but I'm not too bothered about the speed, just the miraculous trans lunar injection thing, whatever that really is.
Anyway, brakes or slingshot or whatever? Tell me, anyone.
Ok thanks, Yendor.They used one of these:
So basically the craft was travelling at 25,000 mph in 1969. Hmmmm.
I wonder if anyone can tell me how they managed to slingshot the craft out to take a trajectory to the moon?
I was always under the impression that a person on Earth, or a plane or helicopter when they jump up, fly or hover, will still be carried by Earth's spin.I'm glad you understand that now!
So given that thought, it stands to reason that a rocket craft separation that has just went into a 25,000 mph orbit is going to stay in that orbit unless it hits something that can change it's trajectory.That's also correct, but bear in mind that the speed decreases as the distance from earth increases, as it must for a Keplerian orbit. In the case of Apollo, the things that could change its trajectory were the gravitational field of the Moon and the rocket motors it carried.
What that something is I'd like to know.
Obviously it cannot use brakes to slow down and then about turn to go on a moon course, can it?Why "slow down and then about turn"? That costs energy. They accelerated from the trajectory they were already in to a new one with the desired properties.
I honestly can't see how it manages this, let alone manages to go 25,000 mph in 1969The Saturn-V third stage contained a really powerful rocket engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_J-2). They could build those in 1969 despite your incredulity.
but I'm not too bothered about the speed, just the miraculous trans lunar injection thing, whatever that really is.Since you think they had to stop and turn around to make that happen, it's no wonder it looks like a miracle to you. Fortunately, they had people who knew how to do this.
Anyway, brakes or slingshot or whatever? Tell me, anyone.Neither. Acceleration using a rocket. The concept isn't difficult, as Mainframes already explained.
You people are not explaining anything like logical reality. Your making up fantasy for a very good reason. The trajectory to the so called moon from Earth at 25,000 mph is nonsensical given the crap that was told to us about this centripetal force or the magical string pulling the craft to Earth.
I'll tell you what. In the simplest terms possible, any one of you explain how the astronauts managed to snap this imaginary centripetal string to catapult towards the moon and bearing in mind that if you use a swing ball analogy of a fast ball around a pole and snapping on Earth, it takes a straight line trajectory.
Tell me how you snap your imaginary line to do the same thing.
U
You people are not explaining anything like logical reality. Your making up fantasy for a very good reason. The trajectory to the so called moon from Earth at 25,000 mph is nonsensical given the crap that was told to us about this centripetal force or the magical string pulling the craft to Earth.
I'll tell you what. In the simplest terms possible, any one of you explain how the astronauts managed to snap this imaginary centripetal string to catapult towards the moon and bearing in mind that if you use a swing ball analogy of a fast ball around a pole and snapping on Earth, it takes a straight line trajectory.
Tell me how you snap your imaginary line to do the same thing.
U
Trying to understand orbital mechanics is going to be a stretch.You cannot understand a thing that does not exist.
He likes to play games on internet forums instead. *shrug*You people are not explaining anything like logical reality. Your making up fantasy for a very good reason. The trajectory to the so called moon from Earth at 25,000 mph is nonsensical given the crap that was told to us about this centripetal force or the magical string pulling the craft to Earth.
I'll tell you what. In the simplest terms possible, any one of you explain how the astronauts managed to snap this imaginary centripetal string to catapult towards the moon and bearing in mind that if you use a swing ball analogy of a fast ball around a pole and snapping on Earth, it takes a straight line trajectory.
Tell me how you snap your imaginary line to do the same thing.
U
Why not just visit a library and read up by yourself?
Crabby 10 words has spoken.He likes to play games on internet forums instead. *shrug*You people are not explaining anything like logical reality. Your making up fantasy for a very good reason. The trajectory to the so called moon from Earth at 25,000 mph is nonsensical given the crap that was told to us about this centripetal force or the magical string pulling the craft to Earth.
I'll tell you what. In the simplest terms possible, any one of you explain how the astronauts managed to snap this imaginary centripetal string to catapult towards the moon and bearing in mind that if you use a swing ball analogy of a fast ball around a pole and snapping on Earth, it takes a straight line trajectory.
Tell me how you snap your imaginary line to do the same thing.
U
Why not just visit a library and read up by yourself?
Lastly; just look at this 'spayzze-shipp', floating around magically suspended by absolutely nothing:
(http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6760459.jpg)
In other words, none of you can answer scepti's question.
Now; how's things in the old mountain top chalet, Heidi?
Yodelling practice going well?
Are the goat & the yeti enjoying your 'sav blanc & good cheese' fondue?
Clamped to the gantry by WHAT, Walter Mitty?Lastly; just look at this 'spayzze-shipp', floating around magically suspended by absolutely nothing:
(http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6760459.jpg)
Suspended by nothing - other than the gantry that it is clamped to...?
Trip to the optician perhaps in order?
Not really, no-one cares anymore.Yet again, a creepy Clown mirrors my vocabulary.
Mainframes, is telling me you've gone blind, I told him you've always had trouble seeing and understanding things.You were both wrong, Laurel & Hardy.
The goat is missing you, and wants you to come back for another visit. It was blushing when I asked why...Lulz!!!
I'll have your yeti next, mountain top fantasist Heidi...
Ok you free thinking sensible people out there; as you can see, my queries cannot be rationally answered about this moon trajectory, because, as Rayzor mentioned; they just don't care to answer due to lack of interest.
That's fair enough for me. In other words, if I don't allow them to explain it all in their ridiculous space language then they won't play.
This mean they can't play, because to explain it in simple terms would to explain it in simple terms, which means that they make themselves look less than convincing in trying to show the magic of this amazing space rocket trajectory change.
Let me give you all a helping hand into what I'm talking about so you get the real insight.
When we argue about their spinning ball Earth and tell them that helicopters hovering above Earth's floor, do not notice any Earth rotation under them.
We get told that the reason for this is that the helicopter ios rotating at the same speed as the Earth and when it hovers, the atmosphere still carries it with the Earth at the same speed so we notice nothing.
Of course we know that's preposterous but they have a silly argument for that by telling you that you can jump up in a plane or train whilst it's moving and you don't go flying off. Crazy I know but there you go.
Ok let them have that.
What about their rocket in orbit as Gene Cernan mentioned. It orbited about one and a half times around the Earth at 25,000 mph and then sling shots out towards the moon.
The problem is, I'm told it's not a sling shot or a snapped centripetal imaginary string or a braking system to deflect it towards the moon.
The trouble is they won't actually tell me in simple terms just what it is.
You see, this rocket is apparently spinning around the Earth in space. Like a super fast supposed satellite.
How does the rocket go to the moon?
An object in motion (rocket) will stay in motion until acted upon by an external force. It could also be deflected by an external force but stay in motion. You know, like a space snooker white ball hitting a colour.
That could deflect the space rocket to the moon, eh?...maybe not because deflecting is a bad idea for destroying stuff as we seen in the film, gravity.
So what's to be done to get to this moon?
Apparently what happens (if they explained to me correctly) is that the rocket actually keeps orbiting the Earth and gets wider and wider with this orbit. A sort of - imagine drawing a ball and drawing a circle around it, then spiral outward so you have lot's and lot's of rings around the ball until you reach another ball (moon) and then spiral around that but only a singular circle as you orbit this.
Imagine doing this all the way to the moon at supposedly 240,000 miles away, just orbiting wider and wider and yet never falling back to Earth but always managing to spiral outward and then slowing down when you reach the moon, somehow.
Maybe that's not exactly how it works. I can't be certain if this is what the space scientists proposed happened because there doesn't seem to be any on here that can explain it by using a very simple analogy for how it happened.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1746834;topic=65151.180# (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1746834;topic=65151.180#)
Can anyone remember seeing the NASA Earth/moon trajectory PENIS diagram that Papa Legba put up.
It was really funny at the time but it showed how they supposedly went to the moon.
What it didn't show was what was explained to me.
It showed an orbit and then a straight trajectory to the moon and around the moon , then back in a straight trajectory to Earth.
If anyone can find this diagram I'd appreciate it, because this diagram indicates a sling shot to the moon and the experts on here have already told us that it wasn't a sling shot.
Confusing isn't it?
Obviously it's not confusing to the experts on here who will no doubt call me a retard and what not, as if that actually answers the questions. ;D
Sceptimatic - the swing ball is an analogy. Learn what that means. There is no literal string.It makes no sense except to fellow magic circle card holders.
The string represents the force of gravity ( or acceleration due to gravity if we want to be exact). If there are any other forces acting on the spacecraft then the net force will determine the acceleration and in what direction. Simple case of of vector mathematics.
So when the rocket engine is fired an additional force is imparted on the rocket (in addition to gravity). This additional force in the case of TLI was used to accelerate the orbital speed creating an elliptical orbit that had its apogee intersecting the moons orbit.
As I said, nobody cares, I've tried, any number of people I've see try and you still just don't get it, not even the simplest logic.You reap what you sow you silly Billy.
Papa Legba, is a moron, and a clown, he pretends not to understand, but if he were to admit it, he would have to stop trolling, so he is trapped in an endless loop.
He trolls everyone with insults like spazefanatasist, and hypnotoad, just to get a reaction... if that doesn't work he makes some stupid claim as trolling bait.
It's fun for a while. Just don't take it seriously.. He's a fruitcake.
I got caught lying about visiting CERN & am very butthurt indeed. I copied my forum signature off Legba because I am obsessed with him & I am being cuckolded by a goat...No.
HELP ME!
As I said, nobody cares, I've tried, any number of people I've see try and you still just don't get it, not even the simplest logic.You reap what you sow you silly Billy.
Papa Legba, is a moron, and a clown, he pretends not to understand, but if he were to admit it, he would have to stop trolling, so he is trapped in an endless loop.
He trolls everyone with insults like spazefanatasist, and hypnotoad, just to get a reaction... if that doesn't work he makes some stupid claim as trolling bait.
It's fun for a while. Just don't take it seriously.. He's a fruitcake.
I got caught lying about visiting CERN & am very butthurt indeed. I copied my forum signature off Legba because I am obsessed with him & I am being cuckolded by a goat...
HELP ME!
Lastly; just look at this 'spayzze-shipp', floating around magically suspended by absolutely nothing:
(http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6760459.jpg)
Suspended by nothing - other than the gantry that it is clamped to...?
Trip to the optician perhaps in order?
LOL!!!That rocket isn't clamped. There's no way in hell they would mess about with something like this if it was a real supposed space rocket part. Frigging mental lol.
Rayzor calls me a troll, but his last 5 posts on this thread are zero-content derailing.
Now; mainframes says this rocket is clamped to a gantry.
I see no evidence of this.
Who is right?Lastly; just look at this 'spayzze-shipp', floating around magically suspended by absolutely nothing:
(http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6760459.jpg)
Suspended by nothing - other than the gantry that it is clamped to...?
Trip to the optician perhaps in order?
Come on, shpayze-tards; point out them 'clamps' to me!
Sceptimatic - the swing ball is an analogy. Learn what that means. There is no literal string.How about you explain how they managed to do this.
The string represents the force of gravity ( or acceleration due to gravity if we want to be exact). If there are any other forces acting on the spacecraft then the net force will determine the acceleration and in what direction. Simple case of of vector mathematics.
So when the rocket engine is fired an additional force is imparted on the rocket (in addition to gravity). This additional force in the case of TLI was used to accelerate the orbital speed creating an elliptical orbit that had its apogee intersecting the moons orbit.
Rayzor calls me a troll, but his last 5 posts on this thread are zero-content derailing.
LOL!!!
Rayzor calls me a troll, but his last 5 posts on this thread are zero-content derailing.
Now; mainframes says this rocket is clamped to a gantry.
I see no evidence of this.
Who is right?Lastly; just look at this 'spayzze-shipp', floating around magically suspended by absolutely nothing:
(http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6760459.jpg)
Suspended by nothing - other than the gantry that it is clamped to...?
Trip to the optician perhaps in order?
Come on, shpayze-tards; point out them 'clamps' to me!
I'd still like to know how the moon astronauts floated inside their space ship on the way to the moon. How did they float and for what reason?
Pretty dam fast, but the whole "object in motion remains in motion" thing means that you don't feel velocity, only acceleration.Apollo was in orbit around the earth. The trans lunar injection pushed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that intersects the moon.Well let's see if we can clear a few things up.
I recall Gene Cernan mention that they orbited the Earth about one and a half times, then off on a trajectory towards the moon.
Ok, I can accept this bit for the sake of it.
How fast was the orbit around the Earth for that one and a half times?...any idea?
Yeah; that's a 'clamp'?LOL!!!
Rayzor calls me a troll, but his last 5 posts on this thread are zero-content derailing.
Now; mainframes says this rocket is clamped to a gantry.
I see no evidence of this.
Who is right?Lastly; just look at this 'spayzze-shipp', floating around magically suspended by absolutely nothing:
(http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6760459.jpg)
Suspended by nothing - other than the gantry that it is clamped to...?
Trip to the optician perhaps in order?
Come on, shpayze-tards; point out them 'clamps' to me!
The massive yellow cone shaped one at the top for instance?
Have you never seen a gantry crane before? They are used for lifting and moving things... Can you see it now?Oh, so it's a gantry-CRANE now?
How about you explain how they managed to do this.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
A mod or admin needs to delete the above post for derailing and low content.For some reason they like papa spamming the shit out of every thread - I put him on ignore, but he still clutters everything up with his endless crap.
Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Well at least you're waking up.Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
They didn't ;)
All the evidence of a moon landing/mission is obviously CGI.
Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
They didn't ;)
All the evidence of a moon landing/mission is obviously CGI.
Well at least you're waking up.Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
They didn't ;)
All the evidence of a moon landing/mission is obviously CGI.
So you keep going around the Earth wider and wider. Is this what you're saying because this diagram does not show this.Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
I don't see a slingshot anywhere.
Get into low earth orbit and the alter that orbit to a highly elliptical orbit by firing the engine again.
The explanation for the bullshit of how they got to the moon because people still believe they went, even if you have woken up but are believing that your sarcasm is gaining you brownie points among your like - minded globalists. :PWell at least you're waking up.Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
They didn't ;)
All the evidence of a moon landing/mission is obviously CGI.
Ok, so now we have cleared this up, what is next on the list?
Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work.Why not recommend playing Halo to prove we live on a disc?
]Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
They didn'tLOL!!!
I don't see a slingshot anywhere.Teh lulz!
Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
They didn't ;)
All the evidence of a moon landing/mission is obviously CGI.
CGI in 1969? Pfffft.
How about you explain how they managed to do this.*Sigh*
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
How about you explain how they managed to do this.
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Maybe one of you space cowboys can answer it for me. NASA say,"Once in Earth orbit, the last stage of the Saturn rocket fires, boosting the Apollo spacecraft and its three-man crew into its flight trajectory to the moon." Okay they fire the last stage of a big rocket to put them into flight trajectory to the moon. My question is, how come when they leave the moon's orbit they don't need to fire a big rocket to put them into flight trajectory to the earth. NASA says,"Upon return to Earth, the command and service modules separate, leaving the command module to plunge into the Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 25,000 mph." I've looked at the command and service module and I don't see anything that looks like the last stage of a Saturn rocket. Wouldn't they need the same power to get to earth as it does to get to the moon? Another thing, Look a the command module, how does that thing enter the earth's atmosphere perfectly with the shield pointing down and not tumbling every which way and not burning up?
The part of any space fight that takes the most energy is getting into low earth orbit, getting back to earth is controlled falling.
The amount of fuel needed increases exponentially with distance, the simple reason is that as you add more fuel, the rocket get heavier so you get less distance out of the fuel. So halfing the distance reduces the fuel needed by a lot more than a half.
So when your returning from the moon, the rocket weights a lot less, and when returning to earth you have gravity on your side, so you don't need a very large engine.
And someone mentioned Kerbal Space Program, a lot things aren't realistic (it is a game) but it is correct on how orbits work.
I you want to know how space ships get to the moon, download the demo. It uses the patched conic approximation if anyone wants to know how it works.
Video showing how you get to the mun in the game.
(http://)
The explanation for the bullshit of how they got to the moon because people still believe they went, even if you have woken up but are believing that your sarcasm is gaining you brownie points among your like - minded globalists. :PWell at least you're waking up.Although its a game I think some flat Earthers would benefit from playing kerbal space program to understand how orbital mechanics work. They have applied they same physics that earth has on the fake planet Kerbin such as gravity, different levels of atmosphere, lift vs drag, ect. Its a great learning experience and funny while you learn.Explain how the Apollo crew managed to do this with their craft. This appears to look like a sling shot. Tell me how this was managed.
They didn't ;)
All the evidence of a moon landing/mission is obviously CGI.
Ok, so now we have cleared this up, what is next on the list?
Not all 'round earthers' believe in the moon landing, isn't it like 1 in 6 Americans doubt a moon landing ever took place?
Incorrect.
You just copy-pasted nonsense.
Try again, Buffalo Bill.
Explain this:
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Look a bit closer, eh?
We know we can't explain it to you because your too stupid, but to those who aren't, here is the answer.Those are my own words.
Once the rocket is in a circular orbit of the earth, it burns prograde to make it's orbit path elliptical and intersect with the moons orbit, when the rocket gets near the moon it is captured by the moons gravity, the rocket then burns retrograde so that is slows down so it goes into a circular orbit of the moon.
Does a prograde burn not make a circular orbit more elliptical.
Definitions
Prograde-the direction the rocket is currently moving
Retrograde-the opposite direction to prograde.
Burns (direction)- fires the engine to accelerate (direction)
Those are my own words.Great.
An admin needs to ban you.
For being a self-confessed sock-puppet & sending me abusive PMs.
Now; explain what this represents IN YOUR OWN WORDS:
(http://s23.postimg.org/pcx79n3nf/download_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
We know we can't explain it to you because your too stupid, but to those who aren't, here is the answer.Those are my own words.
Once the rocket is in a circular orbit of the earth, it burns prograde to make it's orbit path elliptical and intersect with the moons orbit, when the rocket gets near the moon it is captured by the moons gravity, the rocket then burns retrograde so that is slows down so it goes into a circular orbit of the moon.
Does a prograde burn not make a circular orbit more elliptical.
Definitions
Prograde-the direction the rocket is currently moving
Retrograde-the opposite direction to prograde.
Burns (direction)- fires the engine to accelerate (direction)
Why hasn't he been banned?Says the self-confessed sock-puppet who sends me abusive PMs!
He's a troll.No; I'm a troll-destroyer.
Why hasn't he been banned?
It's quite amusing to imagine him shouting into the void.Oh, but I'm not 'shouting into the void', am I?
I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Maybe one of you space cowboys can answer it for me. NASA say,"Once in Earth orbit, the last stage of the Saturn rocket fires, boosting the Apollo spacecraft and its three-man crew into its flight trajectory to the moon." Okay they fire the last stage of a big rocket to put them into flight trajectory to the moon. My question is, how come when they leave the moon's orbit they don't need to fire a big rocket to put them into flight trajectory to the earth.They do need a big rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Service_Propulsion_System), just not nearly as big as the one that got them there.
NASA says,"Upon return to Earth, the command and service modules separate, leaving the command module to plunge into the Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 25,000 mph." I've looked at the command and service module and I don't see anything that looks like the last stage of a Saturn rocket.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg/605px-Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
Wouldn't they need the same power to get to earth as it does to get to the moon?Nope. See above.
Another thing, Look a the command module, how does that thing enter the earth's atmosphere perfectly with the shield pointing down and not tumbling every which way and not burning up?Careful design, planning, and execution. They had very good rocket scientists and aerospace engineers working on it, and a well-trained crew aboard.
Your just saying I'm wrong with no justification. I gave an answer.You gave an answer that explains nothing. It does not fit that diagram at all. What you see is a sling shot. It's a sling shot.
I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Maybe one of you space cowboys can answer it for me. NASA say,"Once in Earth orbit, the last stage of the Saturn rocket fires, boosting the Apollo spacecraft and its three-man crew into its flight trajectory to the moon." Okay they fire the last stage of a big rocket to put them into flight trajectory to the moon. My question is, how come when they leave the moon's orbit they don't need to fire a big rocket to put them into flight trajectory to the earth.They do need a big rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Service_Propulsion_System), just not nearly as big as the one that got them there.
It doesn't have to be as big for two reasons:
1. It takes less thrust to accelerate a given mass away from the Moon than from the Earth because the Moon is much less massive.
2. The CSM's engine doesn't have to accelerate nearly as much mass as the S-IVB had to. At TLI, the S-IVB's J-2 engine had to lift the Command Module with three astronauts and provisions for more than a week, the fully-fueled Service Module, and the fully-fueled LM with its tools, fuel, and supplies and the S-IVB stage itself with a partial fuel load. When leaving lunar orbit, the Service Propulsion System (the CSM's AJ-10 engine) had to lift the Command Module with three astronauts and provisions for three days plus a few hundred pounds of samples, and the Service Module with its partially-depleted fuel supply (probably about half at the start of the insertion burn, but that's a guess). Everything else was left behind or consumed.QuoteNASA says,"Upon return to Earth, the command and service modules separate, leaving the command module to plunge into the Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 25,000 mph." I've looked at the command and service module and I don't see anything that looks like the last stage of a Saturn rocket.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg/605px-Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
It may be small compared to a J-2, but that's still a pretty honkin' big rocket compared to the size of the craft it's bolted to.QuoteWouldn't they need the same power to get to earth as it does to get to the moon?Nope. See above.
According to Wikipedia, the SM's AJ10-137 engine has about 9% as much thrust as the S-IVB's J-2 engine (91 kN vs 1001 kN).QuoteAnother thing, Look a the command module, how does that thing enter the earth's atmosphere perfectly with the shield pointing down and not tumbling every which way and not burning up?Careful design, planning, and execution. They had very good rocket scientists and aerospace engineers working on it, and a well-trained crew aboard.
[Edit] Oops.. forgot the S-IVB in the list of things the S-IVB had to move but the SPS didn't.
I can draw a picture that shows a car working by having a small person inside turning the wheels, that doesn't mean that's how cars work.How about, in nice simple easy for a child to understand, words, you explain how this prograde acceleration works to sling shot/alter/manoeuvre this spacecraft so that it takes a virtual straight trajectory to the moon like in that penis and balls diagram that NASA are literally taking the piss with.
No scientists will say that rockets get to the moon by sling shot. Once the ship is in low earth orbit, it accelerates prograde, this changes the orbit path to an ellipse, which intersects with the orbit of the moon.
When did I call you names, your the one resorting to profanity.So what you're saying is, the spaceship slingshot's outwards upon acceleration but in doing so it's like a baseball pitcher throwing a sort of curve ball towards the bat?
In the picture that path isn't a straight line, its an elliptical curve.
Conics curves are circles, ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas. The path of an orbit will always be one of these curves, with a focus if the curve being the position of the planet. The prove of this is to complex for me to put here, if you want to argue this point look up the maths behind it and try and find something wrong with it.
When the ship is going in a circle path, it accelerates in the direction it is going, this causes the orbit path to change from a circle to an ellipse, the ship has to accelerate at the right time and amount so that the ellipse orbit will go past the moon. When the ship gets to the moon, it slows down relative to the moon, so that it starts orbiting it.
The circle around the earth is a circular orbit, the path between the earth and moon is a section of an elliptical curve around the earth, untill near the moon, when the rocket changes it's trajectory to a elliptic orbit around the moon, which is then stabilized to a circular orbit around the moon.
The circle around the earth is a circular orbit, the path between the earth and moon is a section of an elliptical curve around the earth, untill near the moon, when the rocket changes it's trajectory to a elliptic orbit around the moon, which is then stabilized to a circular orbit around the moon.Forget around the moon. I want to know about the slight bend in the penis before we even reach the balls.
;D Yep, that's exactly what's happening. It's frigging hard to get a simple explanation out of these people.The circle around the earth is a circular orbit, the path between the earth and moon is a section of an elliptical curve around the earth, untill near the moon, when the rocket changes it's trajectory to a elliptic orbit around the moon, which is then stabilized to a circular orbit around the moon.
You think you're 'explaining' things, but you're just stringing words together.
It's pretty sad.
You may as well say: 'Santa accelerates to every house in his Sleigh, stops via a retrograde reindeer-burn, climbs down the chimney, eats milk & cookies & leaves presents, depending on who's been Naughty or Nice, then re-climbs the chimney, accelerates his sleigh again via a booster reindeer burn, and repeats the process until all presents are delivered'.
Toodle-pip, Chris Cringle!
Im sorry but physics isn't simple, I know you want to be special and be the only person knowing real physics, so you create your made up simple physics. But thats no how the real world works. Again, I sorry.That is how the real world works. The world works in simple ways. It's just made into gobbledegook so people cannot fathom just how simple it is.
I knowyouI want to be special and be the only person knowing real physics, soyouI createyourmy made upsimplebullshit physics.
This is the insides of the service module. I don't see much in the line of fuel.They don't need a lot. The SPS engine only burns for a few minutes.
So, you are saying that once it leaves the moon the inertia will carry it 238,900 mi. to earthEssentially, yes. The engine doesn't need to fire continuously to keep moving. In fact, it speeds up as it approaches closer and closer to earth. It's falling toward earth, remember?
and how do they steer this thing towards earth?If they start out in the correct trajectory, they will arrive at the desired point. This is accomplished by burning the SPS for the correct amount of time in the correct direction at the proper place in the orbit around the Moon. Errors in the initial trajectory are adjusted by making midcourse corrections along the way - generally short burns in a calculated direction at a calculated spot.
It doesn't show any rockets to steer it by.Yeah it does. Each RCS Quad has four small rockets (hence "quad"), and there are four of these quads [IIRC] spaced evenly around the outside of the SM that are used to orient the craft in space by firing in specific directions in combinations.
(http://i.imgur.com/47L5Hqk.jpg)
Careful design, planning, and execution. They had very good rocket scientists and aerospace engineers working on it, and a well-trained crew aboard.There's a whole branch of aerodynamics called "blunt body dynamics" that has the answers to this question. Apparently a body shaped like this will tend to remain oriented flat side first, but this is far from my field of expertise. You're the aerospace guy. Look it up and you tell us.
But what keeps it from wobbling when it enters earth's atmosphere. It stays at the perfect angle as it is coming in
and the shield is hot enough to melt butter and then it deploys parachutes for a soft landing in the water and then it deploys a tubular life raft around the thing to keep it from sinking. Like this picture shows.Presumably behind the heat shield which, IIRC, is jettisoned after the parachutes open. You're good at Google. I'm sure you can find it.
(http://i.imgur.com/ChoV3Ex.jpg)
My question is, where do they keep this inflatable raft so it doesn't get burned up? You can see it is attached right at the part that is going to get pretty darn hot.
No, physics being complicated means you are too stupid to understand it, so you have to make up your own simple version so that you can pretend to have smarts.Im sorry but physics isn't simple, I know you want to be special and be the only person knowing real physics, so you create your made up simple physics. But thats no how the real world works. Again, I sorry.That is how the real world works. The world works in simple ways. It's just made into gobbledegook so people cannot fathom just how simple it is.
The bullshit is what keeps the elites from the downtrodden. The tricksters who ask you which cup the ball is in and show you how easy it is to pick, until you pick the empty cup.
Manipulation and sleight of hand.
Stand back and take your time to decipher the bullshit then the sleight of hand and you start to see the pattern.
If you want 1+1 to equal 2 then have a reason for it to do that. If you find that 1+1 does not equal 2 according to a physics professor, then ask yourself if there's a physical end product to that calculation. If you find there is only a theory as an end product, then discard it and stick to the reality which can be physically calculated.
If your going to edit posts, make them make sense, "I know want to be special".I knowyouI want to be special and be the only person knowing real physics, soyouI createyourmy made upsimplebullshit physics.
Fixed.
tl;dr.
No-one believes that shit any more.
tl;dr.Such wisdom. You are truly a beacon of intelligence.
No-one believes that shit any more.
and the shield is hot enough to melt butter and then it deploys parachutes for a soft landing in the water and then it deploys a tubular life raft around the thing to keep it from sinking. Like this picture shows.Yendor comments "and the shield is hot enough to melt butter", well he could have looked up a little info himself!
(http://i.imgur.com/ChoV3Ex.jpg)
My question is, where do they keep this inflatable raft so it doesn't get burned up? You can see it is attached right at the part that is going to get pretty darn hot.
it would readily melt aluminium
"I don't understand it, so it must be a fake!".
So your saying you can't understand FET then."I don't understand it, so it must be a fake!".You can't 'understand' pseudo-science.
Its bull shit and you know it is.
I won't attempt to add to Alpha2Omega's comment, but just on what seems to be the understatement of the year!and the shield is hot enough to melt butter and then it deploys parachutes for a soft landing in the water and then it deploys a tubular life raft around the thing to keep it from sinking. Like this picture shows.Yendor comments "and the shield is hot enough to melt butter", well he could have looked up a little info himself!
(http://i.imgur.com/ChoV3Ex.jpg)
My question is, where do they keep this inflatable raft so it doesn't get burned up? You can see it is attached right at the part that is going to get pretty darn hot.
It would not just melt butter, it would readily melt aluminium and probably melt brass! The heat shield gets bright red hot!
But this whole line of questioning here comes down again to the implication "I don't understand it, so it must be a fake!". For heavens sake do a little work and get to understand this stuff.
The circle around the earth is a circular orbit, the path between the earth and moon is a section of an elliptical curve around the earth, untill near the moon, when the rocket changes it's trajectory to a elliptic orbit around the moon, which is then stabilized to a circular orbit around the moon.Forget around the moon.
I want to know about the slight bend in the penis before we even reach the balls.
I need to know how the rocket does a one and a half turn around the bell end to then bend along the shaft on the penis to the moon balls.
Are you retarded?
Have you never heard of, 'Being Facetious'.
Of course I know how hot the damn thing gets. I thought everyone one here knew, I guess some don't.
Not a bad attempt at swerving the issue but the questions are still there to be answered. If you can't do it then that's fine. If no one else can, then that's fine again because it means there's a good reason. It means the so called science behind it all, is bullshit.The circle around the earth is a circular orbit, the path between the earth and moon is a section of an elliptical curve around the earth, untill near the moon, when the rocket changes it's trajectory to a elliptic orbit around the moon, which is then stabilized to a circular orbit around the moon.Forget around the moon.
You can't. It's where they're going, remember?QuoteI want to know about the slight bend in the penis before we even reach the balls.
I need to know how the rocket does a one and a half turn around the bell end to then bend along the shaft on the penis to the moon balls.
I knew we'd end up with the juvenile description sooner or later. Thanks, sceptimatic; you seldom disappoint! Are you really in junior high, middle school, or whatever it is they call the grades attended by tweens and early adolescents where you live? Or did you just never mature past that stage of life?
Wait... didn't you ask us to forget about the m-word?
The other side probably can't use Google.I didn't think you'd even heard of it considering the questions you ask and how easily the answers are found on it.
I'd prefer any one of them to explain it to me as if I was a child and at least by doing that we can determine how it all worked.Why? Every time we've explained things to you at a 'child's level', you still basically say "I still don't get it."
Every time I ask. nobody explains anything. They go into copy/paste mode. There's a good reason for that. It's because 99% of you people cannot think for yourselves.The other side probably can't use Google.I didn't think you'd even heard of it considering the questions you ask and how easily the answers are found on it.I'd prefer any one of them to explain it to me as if I was a child and at least by doing that we can determine how it all worked.Why? Every time we've explained things to you at a 'child's level', you still basically say "I still don't get it."
there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.
Maybe you missed the earlier answer (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65151.msg1746894#msg1746894). Here's the "good part", in case you don't recognize it:Not a bad attempt at swerving the issue but the questions are still there to be answered.The circle around the earth is a circular orbit, the path between the earth and moon is a section of an elliptical curve around the earth, untill near the moon, when the rocket changes it's trajectory to a elliptic orbit around the moon, which is then stabilized to a circular orbit around the moon.Forget around the moon.
You can't. It's where they're going, remember?QuoteI want to know about the slight bend in the penis before we even reach the balls.
I need to know how the rocket does a one and a half turn around the bell end to then bend along the shaft on the penis to the moon balls.
I knew we'd end up with the juvenile description sooner or later. Thanks, sceptimatic; you seldom disappoint! Are you really in junior high, middle school, or whatever it is they call the grades attended by tweens and early adolescents where you live? Or did you just never mature past that stage of life?
Wait... didn't you ask us to forget about the m-word?
The TLI burn of the S-IVB put the craft in an elliptical orbit that intersects the Moon's orbit (lower left part of your diagram). As it nears the Moon, this orbit is perturbed by the Moon's gravityNow, you may think the word "perturbed" is worth a giggle - who knows - but it has a specific meaning that refers to orbits being affected by the presence of other objects, and has nothing to do with genitalia or sex[nb]Sorry![/nb].
If you can't do it then that's fine. If no one else can, then that's fine again because it means there's a good reason. It means the so called science behind it all, is bullshit.Perhaps, or, more likely, you simply don't, or refuse to, understand he answers you get. Not being able to help you understand may be inadequate explanations, or it may be your problem. There's nothing anybody
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By3xuzrccYkqalpLTjRlczZXQ0U/view
The red path is the orbit before the burn, the orange path is afterwards. That orange path is an ellipical orbit.
Scepti, the most basic concepts are generally easy enough for a child to understand, however real world applications are often far beyond a child's level of understanding. Again, there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.There's also a reason why basic logic outweighs basic bullshit. There's a reason why simplistic reasoning far outweighs nonsensical fantasy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By3xuzrccYkqalpLTjRlczZXQ0U/view
The red path is the orbit before the burn, the orange path is afterwards. That orange path is an ellipical orbit.
Wow. What utter hogwash. The reason that many thing are made so complicated to understand is because the closer you look, the more complicated they are. For example, in principle, starting a car's engine is very simple - turn the key and it starts. But what's happening when you turn the key? Well, turning the key turns activates a whole sequence of events that need to happen in order to start the engine. If you look deeper, each of those events requires more things to happen and so on. Most people don't really care what happens when they turn the key so long as the engine starts. Does that mean that they're slaves to the auto industry masters?Scepti, the most basic concepts are generally easy enough for a child to understand, however real world applications are often far beyond a child's level of understanding. Again, there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.There's also a reason why basic logic outweighs basic bullshit. There's a reason why simplistic reasoning far outweighs nonsensical fantasy.
The only reason why many things are made so complicated to understand for people is because the populace has to be separated into classes so the slaves can be repetitive in serving the masters and are bred to DO - not to think.
You get a large 10,000 piece jigsaw. You see a picture on the front of the box. It looks a nice picture. It's a picture of a Porsche.Wow. What utter hogwash. The reason that many thing are made so complicated to understand is because the closer you look, the more complicated they are. For example, in principle, starting a car's engine is very simple - turn the key and it starts. But what's happening when you turn the key? Well, turning the key turns activates a whole sequence of events that need to happen in order to start the engine. If you look deeper, each of those events requires more things to happen and so on. Most people don't really care what happens when they turn the key so long as the engine starts. Does that mean that they're slaves to the auto industry masters?Scepti, the most basic concepts are generally easy enough for a child to understand, however real world applications are often far beyond a child's level of understanding. Again, there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.There's also a reason why basic logic outweighs basic bullshit. There's a reason why simplistic reasoning far outweighs nonsensical fantasy.
The only reason why many things are made so complicated to understand for people is because the populace has to be separated into classes so the slaves can be repetitive in serving the masters and are bred to DO - not to think.
Same thing with floating in orbit. The principle is fairly simple, but the closer you look, the more complexity you run into.
You get a large 10,000 piece jigsaw. You see a picture on the front of the box. It looks a nice picture. It's a picture of a Porsche.Wow. What utter hogwash. The reason that many thing are made so complicated to understand is because the closer you look, the more complicated they are. For example, in principle, starting a car's engine is very simple - turn the key and it starts. But what's happening when you turn the key? Well, turning the key turns activates a whole sequence of events that need to happen in order to start the engine. If you look deeper, each of those events requires more things to happen and so on. Most people don't really care what happens when they turn the key so long as the engine starts. Does that mean that they're slaves to the auto industry masters?Scepti, the most basic concepts are generally easy enough for a child to understand, however real world applications are often far beyond a child's level of understanding. Again, there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.There's also a reason why basic logic outweighs basic bullshit. There's a reason why simplistic reasoning far outweighs nonsensical fantasy.
The only reason why many things are made so complicated to understand for people is because the populace has to be separated into classes so the slaves can be repetitive in serving the masters and are bred to DO - not to think.
Same thing with floating in orbit. The principle is fairly simple, but the closer you look, the more complexity you run into.
You open the box to see thousands of little jigsaw pieces.
It now looks daunting. Too many pieces to put together.
You decide to find the 4 corners and all the straight edge borders. Then you look for the most stand out colours.
Before long you have built the jigsaw from bottom up.
Do that with science and things start to look more simple and can be explained in a simple way that can re-start the logic of the most stubborn indoctrinated/ignorant mind.
You get a large 10,000 piece jigsaw. You see a picture on the front of the box. It looks a nice picture. It's a picture of a Porsche.Wow. What utter hogwash. The reason that many thing are made so complicated to understand is because the closer you look, the more complicated they are. For example, in principle, starting a car's engine is very simple - turn the key and it starts. But what's happening when you turn the key? Well, turning the key turns activates a whole sequence of events that need to happen in order to start the engine. If you look deeper, each of those events requires more things to happen and so on. Most people don't really care what happens when they turn the key so long as the engine starts. Does that mean that they're slaves to the auto industry masters?Scepti, the most basic concepts are generally easy enough for a child to understand, however real world applications are often far beyond a child's level of understanding. Again, there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.There's also a reason why basic logic outweighs basic bullshit. There's a reason why simplistic reasoning far outweighs nonsensical fantasy.
The only reason why many things are made so complicated to understand for people is because the populace has to be separated into classes so the slaves can be repetitive in serving the masters and are bred to DO - not to think.
Same thing with floating in orbit. The principle is fairly simple, but the closer you look, the more complexity you run into.
You open the box to see thousands of little jigsaw pieces.
It now looks daunting. Too many pieces to put together.
You decide to find the 4 corners and all the straight edge borders. Then you look for the most stand out colours.
Before long you have built the jigsaw from bottom up.
Do that with science and things start to look more simple and can be explained in a simple way that can re-start the logic of the most stubborn indoctrinated/ignorant mind.
Already have. It works. It allows your mind to see past the bullshit.You get a large 10,000 piece jigsaw. You see a picture on the front of the box. It looks a nice picture. It's a picture of a Porsche.Wow. What utter hogwash. The reason that many thing are made so complicated to understand is because the closer you look, the more complicated they are. For example, in principle, starting a car's engine is very simple - turn the key and it starts. But what's happening when you turn the key? Well, turning the key turns activates a whole sequence of events that need to happen in order to start the engine. If you look deeper, each of those events requires more things to happen and so on. Most people don't really care what happens when they turn the key so long as the engine starts. Does that mean that they're slaves to the auto industry masters?Scepti, the most basic concepts are generally easy enough for a child to understand, however real world applications are often far beyond a child's level of understanding. Again, there's a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe something very difficult to understand.There's also a reason why basic logic outweighs basic bullshit. There's a reason why simplistic reasoning far outweighs nonsensical fantasy.
The only reason why many things are made so complicated to understand for people is because the populace has to be separated into classes so the slaves can be repetitive in serving the masters and are bred to DO - not to think.
Same thing with floating in orbit. The principle is fairly simple, but the closer you look, the more complexity you run into.
You open the box to see thousands of little jigsaw pieces.
It now looks daunting. Too many pieces to put together.
You decide to find the 4 corners and all the straight edge borders. Then you look for the most stand out colours.
Before long you have built the jigsaw from bottom up.
Do that with science and things start to look more simple and can be explained in a simple way that can re-start the logic of the most stubborn indoctrinated/ignorant mind.
Perhaps you ought to try that then.
You get a large 10,000 piece jigsaw. You see a picture on the front of the box. It looks a nice picture. It's a picture of a Porsche.A jigsaw puzzle is just one level of complexity. Many things that science deals with have several levels of complexity.
You open the box to see thousands of little jigsaw pieces.
It now looks daunting. Too many pieces to put together.
You decide to find the 4 corners and all the straight edge borders. Then you look for the most stand out colours.
Before long you have built the jigsaw from bottom up.
Do that with science and things start to look more simple and can be explained in a simple way that can re-start the logic of the most stubborn indoctrinated/ignorant mind.
Of course. If you read between the lines, it's exactly what I'm saying and it's down to breaking everything right down to the bare bones and realising that there is a simplicity about all of it. The major issue is when that simplicity is shrouded in secrecy and mystery.You get a large 10,000 piece jigsaw. You see a picture on the front of the box. It looks a nice picture. It's a picture of a Porsche.A jigsaw puzzle is just one level of complexity. Many things that science deals with have several levels of complexity.
You open the box to see thousands of little jigsaw pieces.
It now looks daunting. Too many pieces to put together.
You decide to find the 4 corners and all the straight edge borders. Then you look for the most stand out colours.
Before long you have built the jigsaw from bottom up.
Do that with science and things start to look more simple and can be explained in a simple way that can re-start the logic of the most stubborn indoctrinated/ignorant mind.
Take a car, for example.
At first glance you have a car that you can get in and drive just fine.
Then you look under the hood and see the engine, transmission, suspension and other major components.
Look at the engine and you will see that the engine has cylinders, pistons, fuel injectors, and so on.
Look at a piston and you will see that it is made of a special alloy of metals that has been precision machined to optimize performance.
See, layers of complexity.
Take the shuttle bi-pod bolt. You wonder how a bolt can be so strong to hold this mammoth machine to a tank and wonder what metal it's made of.
Apparently it's unobtanium.[citation needed]
They might as well tell us it's made of rocking horse shit.