And didnt you agree that any object that managed to reach escape velocity would escape gravity forever? It is perfectly possible to do so while in the atmosphere
Nonsense.
A quick look at the alleged exhaust velocities of NASA's fraud-rockets & an understanding of Newton 3 are all it takes to kill the idea of any of them achieving 'escape velocity' off completely.
'Equal & Opposite', remember?
I didnt say "any current vehicle", and in fact, I dont know. Its irrelevant to my point. 40,270 km/h is the escape velocity of Earth. Of course, one doesnt need to go that fast to reach orbit, or even travel to another planet in a brachystochrone fashion. We are just considering this specific point of astrophysics, and then we will move on.
When I jump, Im beating the force of gravity.
No, you're not beating the force of gravity. The only way gravity would be beaten is by anti-gravity. That is theoretical and has not been invented.
When I jump, I produce a force. This force is equivalent to an acceleration. Since this acceleration is higher than gravity's, I lift off. If i push the floor with less than 9.8N/kg I wont lift off. Of course, since Im now midair, I cannot continue this force, since I dont have thrusters or wings, so gravity takes over the instant I stop having impulse (wikipedia is your friend), and starts accelerating me downwards, eventually making me stop my trajectory, and falling downwards. The moment I will stop is dependent on the initial speed given by the jumping impulse, and indeed, if I had muscles able to make me jump faster than 40,270 km/h, it is possible (if I manage to get to the end of the atmosphere so I am at at least that speed), Earth's gravitatorial attraction wont ever manage to accelerate me back to Earth. Im on a special type of orbit called a escape orbit, or hyperbolic orbit, using the conics model used for most 2-body orbits.
If I had a way to continuosly jump even mid air, I would escape the atmosphere easily.
No, you would reach the Karman "line", lack any possibility to move around in space and simply fall back to Earth due to gravity.
Sorry, I wasnt clear enough. I meant that if I had a way to generate a force by jumping whether Im on the floor, or in space, or in air. I understand that I didnt word this clear enough, and I apologize.
Gravity, indeed, is one of the weakest forces in the universe.
Ever heard of a black hole?
The amount of mass required to create a black hole is absudly high. Compare the strengths of diferent forces at nanoscopic scale (protons and newtons), relative to the electromagnetic force.
Gravitation 10
−36Weak force 10
−7Electromagnetic 1
Strong force 20
Of all of them, only the electromagnetic is rangeless just as gravitation, which is why they are the two main forces of interaction in macroscopic physics.
The reason it is so important in astrophysics is simple, its range is infinite, and the effect of massive objects.
This is not even the start of an explanation. These are just words, telling nothing.
Here are the ranges of the four fundamental interactions
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html.
As you can see, gravity is 6x10
-39 times the strength of the strong force.
And didnt you agree that any object that managed to reach escape velocity would escape gravity forever?
No, I didn't agree because it's complete bullshit. "Escape gravity forever"?? Whole galaxies are caught up in gravity but your average flimsy Death Star is somehow stronger than nature. Right.
Again, I apologise, I think my wording wasnt quite exact there. When I said "escape gravity forever", I would rather say "the gravitational pull of earth will never manage to deccelerate me to a stop, and back. The proof is simple, mathematical, and Newton understood it quite well, and explained such concepts of orbits and escape trajectories with his mental Newton's cannonball experiments.
Im also curious on what do you think about man made objects in space such as satellites or the ISS.
There are no man-made objects in space and there will never be. See the OP of this very topic.
Then what is it we observe when we point directional antennae to specific moving points in the sky to receive a signal, or send it?
That's one of many examples of satellite connections we can easily prove.
And, yeah, a deceleration is technically an acceleration whose vector is opposite to the velocity vector. Its still an acceleration, since acceleration is defined as dv/dt (how does velocity changes in a infinitelly small amount of time)
Then you're changing your perspective and suddenly look in the opposite direction.
Deceleration in vector direction x is simply - dvx/dt
You move your goalpost, suddenly take x as negative and call the dv/dt positive.
Acceleration is not a scalar, but a vector. Vectors can't have negative magnitude. We call deceleration to a special kind of acceleration whose vector happens to point opposite to the velocity vector. None of them are negative.