Earth satellites are impossible

Ok let me run some numbers and get back with you tomorrow.  I got to hit the rack.  4 mile run tomorrow.  See ya then.

I will be waiting with baited breath.

This thread wins

I dunno, it's failed to progress to greener pastures for a bit now.
In other news, RE'ers finally have a unifying theory. Not one of Newtonian and Quantum mechanics, but the great A = V = D. This should simplify the calculus in many physics equations.

Bullet physics 101:

The bullet, as it is traveling down the barrel, is being accelerated upwards by the barrel, since the barrel, stock and rifleman are being accelerated by the earth.  Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it is no longer being accelerated and travels upwards at a constant velocity.  It has a horizontal velocity that is of no importance here.  The earth, still accelerating, must gain a velocity higher than that of the bullet in order to catch it.  The time it will take can be found via:

t = sqrt(2*height/(9.8m/s^2))

All right man, I'm back.  I'll give this website one thing.  I've learned alot about why things work the way they do.  My bullet analogy doesn't prove either theory.  So lets try something with actual horizontal acceleration.  Like a bottle rocket you shoot on the 4th.  Why in FET does a rocket under power remain airborne, with no lift, until the rocket motor dies?  Wouldn't the earth catch up to it like the does with the bullet?

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 30, 2008, 12:13:29 AM

Bullet physics 101:

The bullet, as it is traveling down the barrel, is being accelerated upwards by the barrel, since the barrel, stock and rifleman are being accelerated by the earth.  Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it is no longer being accelerated and travels upwards at a constant velocity.  It has a horizontal velocity that is of no importance here.  The earth, still accelerating, must gain a velocity higher than that of the bullet in order to catch it.  The time it will take can be found via:

t = sqrt(2*height/(9.8m/s^2))

All right man, I'm back.  I'll give this website one thing.  I've learned alot about why things work the way they do.  My bullet analogy doesn't prove either theory.  So lets try something with actual horizontal acceleration.  Like a bottle rocket you shoot on the 4th.  Why in FET does a rocket under power remain airborne, with no lift, until the rocket motor dies?  Wouldn't the earth catch up to it like the does with the bullet?

What? 

What? 

Don't worry, the question is not for you.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2008, 05:36:00 PM

What? 

Don't worry, the question is not for you.

Good, because I can't imagine that the earth doesn't catch up with the rocket.  If the acceleration is purely horizontal of course the earth will accelerate up to it.

If this does happen as you say it does though doesn't it kind of disprove gravity?

No I am saying with the proper thrust to weight ratio the rocket can remain airborne with out producing any lift ( IE like wings on an airplane) which would never work in FET.

Sorry buddy, but that won't work in RET either.

If you do it in a vacuum, it will drop the same rate as a rock.  So will a feather, incidentally.

Lift is weird.  Think about how an airplane can fly upside down, even though most people think lift is just the "bernoulli effect" (which should be pulling the plane down when it is upside down)

Sorry buddy, but that won't work in RET either.

If you do it in a vacuum, it will drop the same rate as a rock.  So will a feather, incidentally.

Lift is weird.  Think about how an airplane can fly upside down, even though most people think lift is just the "bernoulli effect" (which should be pulling the plane down when it is upside down)

Lift is not weird.  Pilots counter act that by pointing the nose of the jet slightly up while inverted.

No I am saying with the proper thrust to weight ratio the rocket can remain airborne with out producing any lift ( IE like wings on an airplane) which would never work in FET.

What you're describing is physically impossible.  To an observer on earth a rocket always travels in a parabola due to the earth's gravitational pull (in either model).  Sooner or later the rocket is going to meet the earth.

Lift is wierd.  A rocket in air will stay aloft much longer than it would in a vacuum.

Lift is wierd.  A rocket in air will stay aloft much longer than it would in a vacuum.

Hmm...that would be an interesting test.

A classic demonstration for first time physics students:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/ClassMechanics/MonkeyHunter/MonkeyHunter.html

All objects acclerate downward at the same rate, whether they are moving or not.

All right man, I'm back.  I'll give this website one thing.  I've learned alot about why things work the way they do.  My bullet analogy doesn't prove either theory.  So lets try something with actual horizontal acceleration.  Like a bottle rocket you shoot on the 4th.  Why in FET does a rocket under power remain airborne, with no lift, until the rocket motor dies?  Wouldn't the earth catch up to it like the does with the bullet?

So, how is that any different than the bullet?

Because the bottle rocket is accelerating until the rocket motors dies.  Where as a bullet stops accelerating when it leaves the barrel.

So again, how is that any different?  They would hit the ground at the same time.

Well?

So again, how is that any different?  They would hit the ground at the same time.

only after the motor dies.  IE the motor dieing = the bullet leaving the barrel.  Then your correct it would be the exact same amount of time.

But if you will notice while the motor is burning the bottle rocket doesnt descend.  The reason I didnt answer this is because because hes right without being in a an absolute vacuum I cannot say for certain that this theory is correct.

While we are on the subject of lift....

If it would take a rocket the size of New Hampshire to get up to 3000 miles because of the continually accelerating earth.  Then how much lift do my wings need to generate to overcome the earth coming to meet me.  With the earth constantly accelerating wouldn't I exponentially have to increase the lift my wings produce the longer I was in the air?

You're not really helping here.

Nobody asked you.....but why do you say that.

FET think:
The frame of reference is accelerating upwards.
Thus:
Everything within that frame of reference acts as if were experiencing gravity, which is handy really because it makes it indistinguishable from RET.

I keep coming back to this rocket fuel required to get to 3000 miles thing....

If a rocket can produce enough thrust to overcome earths acceleration then why do I need this HUGE amount of fuel to get it to 3000 miles.  As the rocket climbs 2 things are happening 1. it is encountering less drag and 2. the fuel is burning off so the rocket is getting lighter.  Both of which increase the thrust to weight ratio thereby causing the rocket to accelerate exponentially.  I think i'm back to thinking the same amount of fuel would be required in FET and it would in RET.

I think i'm back to thinking the same amount of fuel would be required in FET and it would in RET.

And that would be because in any practical sense, in this respect the effects of FET and RET are indistinguishable.
And that is because UA, the fudge they had to come up with to make it so, makes the effects the same, otherwise there would be another huge whole in FET.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2008, 09:40:27 AM

I think i'm back to thinking the same amount of fuel would be required in FET and it would in RET.

And that would be because in any practical sense, in this respect the effects of FET and RET are indistinguishable.
And that is because UA, the fudge they had to come up with to make it so, makes the effects the same, otherwise there would be another huge whole in FET.

Well now wait.  They have been saying that you cant achieve escape velocity in FET which there is in RET.  So it can't be the same.  If you want go back a couple of pages and see what they have been saying.

Just as the earth is trying to catch up to you, you have to catch the sun and moon accelerating away from you at 9.8m/s^2, so to get 3000 miles above the accelerating earth, you have to travel rather farther than 3000 miles.

No it wouldnt.  My frame of reference never changes.  The moon is always 3000 miles above me.  That is until I climb in my rocket and start ascending toward it.

You are correct.

RET think:
There earth generates "gravity" equal to 9.8m/s/s/ acceleration.

Thus:
Everything on it acts as if were experiencing acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, which is handy really because it makes it indistinguishable from FET.

There you go...