Earth satellites are impossible

The answer actually becomes, depending on how long you want to accelerate.  Because its already going faster than 9.8m/s^2 the instant it leaves the ground. 

Right, that is due to the thrust...   

ffs people use the right units, you look like a bunch of idiots.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 29, 2008, 10:34:50 PM

The answer actually becomes, depending on how long you want to accelerate.  Because its already going faster than 9.8m/s^2 the instant it leaves the ground. 

Right, that is due to the thrust...   

Okayyyyy....all I am saying is that it would take alot less fuel than I orginally thought to lauch a rocket 3000 miles straight up. In FET.

And now that I think about it even more it would take the exact same amount of fuel in RET as it would in FET

Only because you don't realize what you are saying.  You are saying that in order for a rocket to attain an acceleration of 10m/s^2, it would only have to produce an acceleration of 0.2m/s^2.  Since it is already going 9.8m/s^2 sitting on the ground.

Only because you don't realize what you are saying.  You are saying that in order for a rocket to attain an acceleration of 10m/s^2, it would only have to produce an acceleration of 0.2m/s^2.  Since it is already going 9.8m/s^2 sitting on the ground.

He asked how much fuel it would take to accelerate continuously faster than 9.8m/s^2.  If thats your argument then Im changing mine.  It doesnt have to to climb 3000 miles straight up.  Right?

whew boy.

So we all agree then.  It is feasible in FET to launch a rocket to 3000 miles straight up without the rocket having to be the size of New Hampshire.

He asked how much fuel it would take to accelerate continuously faster than 9.8m/s^2.  If thats your argument then Im changing mine.

Was that not the argument?

  It doesnt have to to climb 3000 miles straight up.  Right?

Wrong.   

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 29, 2008, 10:45:20 PM

He asked how much fuel it would take to accelerate continuously faster than 9.8m/s^2.  If thats your argument then Im changing mine.

Was that not the argument?

Quote

  It doesnt have to to climb 3000 miles straight up.  Right?

Wrong.   

Part one, thats what he said not me.  Well I kind of did at first but then i thought about it more.

Part two, why?

Part one, thats what he said not me.  Well I kind of did at first but then i thought about it more.

So you realize your argument was stupid?

Part two, why?

Because, you would have to go up...3,000 miles. 

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 29, 2008, 10:51:02 PM

Part one, thats what he said not me.  Well I kind of did at first but then i thought about it more.

So you realize your argument was stupid?

Quote

Part two, why?

Because, you would have to go up...3,000 miles. 

Dude your answers are so confusing you've lost the jist of the original debate.  Ski asked how much fuel it would take to launch a rocket 3000 miles straight up.  Originally I thought it take a huge amount.  After further review I've come to realize it would take the same amount in FET as it would in RET plain and simple.  Making it extremely feasible in either theory.

Except there is no escape velocity in FE.  So, no, it would not be the same.

I am afraid it would.  Can you not jump faster than the earth is accelerating?  Can you not shoot a bullet into the air and have it climb almost 1 mile before its stops and the earth starts to come up to meet it?  Cannot an aircraft climb in the vertical and still accelerate?  What magical barrier would prevent a rocket with the right thrust to weight ratio from climbing to 3000 miles straight up?

ack.

Can you not jump faster than the earth is accelerating?

Yes.

  Can you not shoot a bullet into the air and have it climb almost 1 mile before its stops and the earth starts to come up to meet it?

No.  It does not stop.

  Cannot an aircraft climb in the vertical and still accelerate?

Yes.

What magical barrier would prevent a rocket with the right thrust to weight ratio from climbing to 3000 miles straight up?

Fuel.  That is what this is about, remember?

Explain to me how you are posting on the internet if satelites dont exist.

Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing.  What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?

And if the force of gravity in RET is exactly the same as the force applied by an accelerating flat earth why wouldnt the fuel required be exactly the same between the two?

Explain to me how you are posting on the internet if satelites dont exist.

Explain to me how far away you think a geosynchronous orbit is, then consider the speed of light, then explain to me how you think you are using satellite internet right now and not noticing the delay.

Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing.  What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?

It travels up until the Earth constantly accelerates to meet it.

Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing.  What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?

It accelerates as the gas from the propellant expands.  Once it leaves the barrel, it stops accelerating (neglecting air resistance, because that will probably blow your mind).  It continues on at a constant speed until the FE catches up to it.

And if the force of gravity in RET is exactly the same as the force applied by an accelerating flat earth why wouldnt the fuel required be exactly the same between the two?

No matter how fast you go, you can never outrun the accelerating FE.

Light and all other forms of wave energy travel at a constant speed in a consistant direction and are only affected by the presence of gravity... if satelites do not exist, then what is up there relaying or at least reflecting those signals???

Light and all other forms of wave energy travel at a constant speed in a consistant direction and are only affected by the presence of gravity... if satelites do not exist, then what is up there relaying or at least reflecting those signals???

What the hell are you talking about?  And you didn't answer my question.

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.

Light and all other forms of wave energy travel at a constant speed in a consistant direction and are only affected by the presence of gravity... if satelites do not exist, then what is up there relaying or at least reflecting those signals???

Pseudolites and stratellites; as well as a combination of ground-based systems.

also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.

without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.

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.

Depends on your FoR.

also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.

without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.

The earth is not moving at 9.8m/s, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2.

also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.

without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.

The earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s.

Engy beat me.   

Depends on your FoR.

True...