Gravity is real, get over it

If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core. Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center, instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun. In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.

If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core. Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center, instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun. In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.

You actually are being pulled by the Sun, but you don't notice because the Earth is being pulled at the exact same rate.  Gravity effects everything, including the Earth and you, and your mass doesn't effect how fast things fall which you can easily test yourself.  Because gravity reduces with distance the close up but comparatively light Earth is pulling you harder then the distant massive Sun, and this gravity is what keeps the Earth in orbit.

We find ourselves on a planet the perfect distance from the Sun simply because if it weren't the perfect distance then we wouldn't find ourselves here in the first place, so it's really no surprise.

Here is a great gravity simulator you can play with that's a lot better then the basic one I made: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html
Hopefully this will help you understand orbits a bit better

Now that we got that out of the way, how much sense does the flat earth sun and moon orbit make? What keeps them in their path?

Now that we got that out of the way, how much sense does the flat earth sun and moon orbit make? What keeps them in their path?

Could it be some sort of Quantum Levitation?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Could it be some sort of Quantum Levitation?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Last I checked the Sun wasn't super cold.

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school. 

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school.

Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated?      You are aware of General Relativity are you not?

In any event what school teaches General Relativity?   Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.   
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations.   ( At least that bit I remember )  The rest is a bit fuzzy.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:25:22 PM

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school.

Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated?      You are aware of General Relativity are you not?

In any event what school teaches General Relativity?   Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.   
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations.   ( At least that bit I remember )  The rest is a bit fuzzy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated.  Are you calling him a liar?  Maybe you think you are smarter than him? 

If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core.

What's your speed relative to the center of the Earth? Is it fast enough to remain in free-fall continuously?

Here's a nice summary of what's needed.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:25:22 PM

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school. 

Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center

What do you mean "doesn't try"?

instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun.

It's the velocity with respect to each other and distance between them that causes that to happen.

In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.

Nope. In both cases gravity pulls things toward the center of an object. In fact, in all cases this happens. If another object's velocity is low enough, which depends on the masses of the attracting bodies and the distance between them they'll orbit each other. If the velocity is too high, they'll escape from each other; too low and either is of non-zero size, they'll physically interact and no longer orbit.

Do you care to define "comfort"?

Quote from: Rayzor on August 28, 2015, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:25:22 PM

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school.

Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated?      You are aware of General Relativity are you not?

In any event what school teaches General Relativity?   Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.   
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations.   ( At least that bit I remember )  The rest is a bit fuzzy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated.  Are you calling him a liar?  Maybe you think you are smarter than him?

In this case I suspect you misunderstood what he said,   the precession of Mercury's orbit is a well known example of where relativistic corrections are required,  it is used often as a good proof of the accuracy of Einstein's GR  You can google  "Calculation of the orbit of Mercury"  for yourself and read a few of the papers.
 

Quote from: Rayzor on August 28, 2015, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:25:22 PM

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school.

Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated?      You are aware of General Relativity are you not?

In any event what school teaches General Relativity?   Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.   
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations.   ( At least that bit I remember )  The rest is a bit fuzzy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated.  Are you calling him a liar?  Maybe you think you are smarter than him?

I'm not going to call anyone a liar based solely on what you say they said.

The chances that you misunderstood or are intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said are quite high. Can you provide an accurate transcript of exactly what he said, in context? Or did he really say "obit", in which case you're probably right in this case.

Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 28, 2015, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:25:22 PM

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school.

Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated?      You are aware of General Relativity are you not?

In any event what school teaches General Relativity?   Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.   
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations.   ( At least that bit I remember )  The rest is a bit fuzzy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated.  Are you calling him a liar?  Maybe you think you are smarter than him?

I'm not going to call anyone a liar based solely on what you say they said.

The chances that you misunderstood or are intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said are quite high. Can you provide an accurate transcript of exactly what he said, in context? Or did he really say "obit", in which case you're probably right in this case.

Thanks.

I am at work right now, but I can look up the exact name and episode I was watching on Netflix when I get home.  It was one of those shows where he treats the viewer like they are all idiots and do not even know what a star is.  He was probably just trying to explain gravity in his usual condescending tone when he said it, but I can assure you that he said what I paraphrased. 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on August 28, 2015, 09:07:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 28, 2015, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 08:25:22 PM

Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun.  lol.  They actually teach this stuff at school.

Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated?      You are aware of General Relativity are you not?

In any event what school teaches General Relativity?   Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.   
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations.   ( At least that bit I remember )  The rest is a bit fuzzy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated.  Are you calling him a liar?  Maybe you think you are smarter than him?

I'm not going to call anyone a liar based solely on what you say they said.

The chances that you misunderstood or are intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said are quite high. Can you provide an accurate transcript of exactly what he said, in context? Or did he really say "obit", in which case you're probably right in this case.

Thanks.

I am at work right now, but I can look up the exact name and episode I was watching on Netflix when I get home.  It was one of those shows where he treats the viewer like they are all idiots and do not even know what a star is.  He was probably just trying to explain gravity in his usual condescending tone when he said it, but I can assure you that he said what I paraphrased.

Don't bother,  you can watch this instead.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

He confirms what I posted earlier.    Sorry,   jroa  you must have misheard.

If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core. Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center, instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun. In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.

No. The planets are going too fast to be sucked in. You can do the experiment with marbles and a sink. If you push the marbles fast enough, instead of plummeting straight into the sink, they will spiral down into it. Of course, they eventually get sucked into the sink, but that's because it's not a perfect experiment, as we can't perfectly simulate the gravitational  attraction of the sun and the vacuum of space using a sink.

As I understand it, the current theory of how planets are in orbit around the sun is that they are being sucked toward the sun constantly, however they are supposed to be traveling so fast that their speed counteracts this effect. If this is to be true, then each planet must be traveling faster then the one before it to escape being pulled closer to the sun. Now what about satellites and space probes? These are way smaller than any planet and yet seem to be immune to being pulled towards the sun. How am I to believe that the sun is locked in a constant tug of war struggle with a planet the size and distance of Jupiter, meanwhile we can send a couple (minuscule in comparison) space probes to mercury with no worries they will be pulled away and into the sun. It just doesn't add up. 

As I understand it, the current theory of how planets are in orbit around the sun is that they are being sucked toward the sun constantly, however they are supposed to be traveling so fast that their speed counteracts this effect. If this is to be true, then each planet must be traveling faster then the one before it to escape being pulled closer to the sun. Now what about satellites and space probes? These are way smaller than any planet and yet seem to be immune to being pulled towards the sun. How am I to believe that the sun is locked in a constant tug of war struggle with a planet the size and distance of Jupiter, meanwhile we can send a couple (minuscule in comparison) space probes to mercury with no worries they will be pulled away and into the sun. It just doesn't add up.

Space Probes and Satellites are not pulled by the sun because, I think, they are already moving at the same velocity the planets do.

Mercury travels at about  112,000 mph. Are you claiming the probes that explored that planet traveled at that speed?

Mercury travels at about  112,000 mph. Are you claiming the probes that explored that planet traveled at that speed?

They did not go from 0 to 112.000mph as you think.
112.000mph is 50km/s.
The orbital velocity of earth is 30km/s so they were already moving at that speed.
The deltaV would be 50-30=20km/s in change of velocity of the probe.
That 20km/s can be achieved with the rocket dV(change in velocity) and a gravitational slingshot on a body such as earth.
Although, It could be less if you have a calculated a trajectory that makes costs less speed to reach there.

As I understand it, the current theory of how planets are in orbit around the sun is that they are being sucked toward the sun constantly, however they are supposed to be traveling so fast that their speed counteracts this effect. If this is to be true, then each planet must be traveling faster then the one before it to escape being pulled closer to the sun. Now what about satellites and space probes? These are way smaller than any planet and yet seem to be immune to being pulled towards the sun. How am I to believe that the sun is locked in a constant tug of war struggle with a planet the size and distance of Jupiter, meanwhile we can send a couple (minuscule in comparison) space probes to mercury with no worries they will be pulled away and into the sun. It just doesn't add up.

Keep your mind open and working like that, you're doing a very good job.

  New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
    38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.   

  New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
    38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.   

Maybe you need to play this to better understand how orbits work: http://store.steampowered.com/app/343090/?l=dutch
Or you can watch this video about orbital mechanics: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Oh and about the mercury thing, we are not in a race with it. Probes and the like are usually ahead of it and as soon as it catches up with the probes we try to create and orbit. Once in orbit, the probes are indeed going at 112.000 mph relative to the sun.

  New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
    38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.   

You are very ill informed. Not only is Voyager 1 NOT the fastest space probe (the Helios 2 holds that title, that reached a top speed of 157,000mph), but a brief google search reveals that MESSENGER, which orbited Mercury, reached a top speed of more than 140,000mph. Voyager 1 is probably mentioned often because it reached the fastest speed while ascending in its orbit, rather than descending.

The easiest way to learn about orbital mechanics is to play the game Kerbal Space Program. It's fun, educative, and the basic principles of orbital mechanics are quite accurate, even though the solar system isn't to scale, to make the gameplay easier.

 I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?

  New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
    38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.   

That depends on what you measure your velocity relative to.  There is no preferred frame of reference so there is no absolute measure of speed.

Quote from: Serulian on August 29, 2015, 08:22:27 AM

  New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
    38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.   

That depends on what you measure your velocity relative to.  There is no preferred frame of reference so there is no absolute measure of speed.

I think that 112.00 mph he talks about is relative to the sun. And as i said earlier, you need the planet to catch up with you, not the other way around.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 29, 2015, 12:07:07 PM

Quote from: Serulian on August 29, 2015, 08:22:27 AM

  New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
    38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.   

That depends on what you measure your velocity relative to.  There is no preferred frame of reference so there is no absolute measure of speed.

I think that 112.00 mph he talks about is relative to the sun. And as i said earlier, you need the planet to catch up with you, not the other way around.

There was a probe that visited Mercury, and if you are right then it is in fact the fastest probe.  I thing the measured it's velocity relative to Mercury.

Technically you are going nearly the speed of light relative to solar particles, so "the fastest space probe" is not really a very noteworthy title.

For arguments sake, lets say the probe reaches the orbital path of Mercury, puts on its brakes, and just waits for the planet to catch up to it.

All measures of speed aside, how are these probes able to avoid falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun? 

For arguments sake, lets say the probe reaches the orbital path of Mercury, puts on its brakes, and just waits for the planet to catch up to it.

All measures of speed aside, how are these probes able to avoid falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun?

Well space probes don't do that.  Space breaks (that don't use a ton of fuel fuel) are not a real thing and they violate countless laws of physics.  A space craft approaching mercury does it by putting it's self in a curse that intersects Mercury's orbit and it's timed so Mercury and the space craft meet there at the same time.

The space probe avoids falling into the Sun because of it's velocity, it is in orbit like the planets which in layman's terms means it has enough speed that the centripetal force of it going around the Sun cancels out gravity.

For arguments sake, lets say the probe reaches the orbital path of Mercury, puts on its brakes, and just waits for the planet to catch up to it.

All measures of speed aside, how are these probes able to avoid falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun?

Brakes are not needed. It just needs to wait for mercury to catch up with it.
And they already falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun. Because it has an orbit around the sun so it can get to mercury in the first place.

I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?

How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth?