Why do astronauts on board ISS float around

Quote from: sokarul on December 19, 2015, 02:25:26 PM

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.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about.

1&2. The velocity for satellites are well know. A good estimate is velocity=sqrt(Gm_e/r)
3&4. They are in close to freefall, as in, no force is acting on them other than the slight atmosphere present.
5. We understand orbit.
6. As stated, freefall is the absence of a force.
7. No, it's the actual speed needed.  You can see satellites yourself.

Back to you again alpha,
I enjoy this debate, but I do want to keep it civil. Let's not get into a pissing contest over this matter.

So do I, and I agree. I'm sorry if you thought I was being mean to you.

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.

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.

[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.

Now, please go to the below NASA website and read what it says about satellites.
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 

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.

My thoughts are this, If these two forces, gravity and inertia

Inertia 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.
 

Yendor, the airplane stays in the air because it has engines to provide thrust and wings to provide lift. If you shut down the engines and remove the wings from the plane, the passengers will enter free fall and start to float. The reason the plane falls back to the ground but the satellite doesn't is because of their speed and altitude.

Just for fun, we can calculate the required speed for a circular orbit at any given altitude. We can use the formula a = v²/r where a is acceleration in m/s², v is speed in m/s, and r is distance from the center of the Earth in m. Gravitation acceleration is given by the formula GM/r² where G is the gravitational constant (6.674 x 10^-11, M is the mass of the Earth (5.972 x 10²⁴ kg, and r is the distance to the center of the Earth. The radius of the Earth is 6.371 X 10⁶ m, so we need to add that to our altitude to find the distance to the center.

Let's try with a typical airplane. A typical airplane flies at about 10,000 meters above the ground. Add that to the radius of the Earth, and we get 6,381,000 m. That gives us a gravitational acceleration of 9.79 m/s². Plug that into our circular motion equation and we get 9.79 = v²/6381000. Solve for v and we get 7903.3 m/s, several times faster than any airplane has ever flown. We can see that a conventional aircraft is simply incapable of achieving a circular orbit at typical altitudes. Before you say "what about non-circular orbits", the speed required for an elliptical orbit would actually be greater than a circular orbit, assuming you want the lowest point in the orbit to be above the ground.

Quote from: Yendor on December 19, 2015, 10:05:45 AM

Back to you again alpha,
I enjoy this debate, but I do want to keep it civil. Let's not get into a pissing contest over this matter.

So do I, and I agree. I'm sorry if you thought I was being mean to you.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

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.

[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.

Quote

Now, please go to the below NASA website and read what it says about satellites.
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 

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.

Quote

My thoughts are this, If these two forces, gravity and inertia

Inertia isn't a force.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

1. No hard feelings...

2. The notion an object will fall around the Earth if enough velocity is placed upon it was conceive by Newton during one of his thought experiments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is correct. Alpha, you are correct, I shouldn't say it is ridiculous, I should say it sounds ridiculous to me. I do understand the concept, it simply seem impossible to me that you can have an object flying around the Earth at 17,000 mph or so and it will follow a nice smooth path and never enter the Earth's atmosphere. They call this free falling around the Earth.

3. We can forget about whether inertia is a force or not or why a satellite has to be flying so fast or that I don't know how airplanes work. All that stuff is irrelevant.  I simply used the analogy between a satellite and an airplane to try and show that I believe a satellite could only fly in space the same way an airplane flies in the atmosphere. There should be little difference between them except for the obvious reasons an airplane can't fly without air for the engines. You see, I don't believe what we are told is true. We are told that a satellite is launched into space by a rocket, simply released from the rockets grips and then it will free fall back to Earth. However, it does not crash into Earth mind you, it simply floats around the Earth in a nice smooth curved path going 17,000 mph or so. It will continue doing this for ever and ever, or until they decide to allow it to enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up. Or they can send it to a place far far away where it can live happily ever after. To me, all this sounds untrue. I don't believe it can be this way. 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 know what everyone is thinking. I should know better and how in the world would I think this way. Let me tell you what I believe. I believe that if there are crafts flying around the Earth, then they are flying inside the Earth's atmosphere. I don't believe they are traveling 17,000 mph and free falling back to Earth. I believe they would be flying like airplanes fly or other types of air vehicles. People say they can see satellites. I'm not going to argue if they can or not, but how do you know they are outside the atmosphere? I can go on with reasons why I believe this way and it may be fun doing so. But, if no one is interested than I can certainly understand. Thanks to those that participated.

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'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. 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. Watch how the hair moves on the women. That can't be real. Their hair would not behave that way. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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?

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

You made a lot of excellent point that I never thought about before. I guess this website is more political than I realized and there is an agenda to be followed. I have often wondered why the women playing their parts on board the ISS movie didn't cut their hair short instead of using hair spray to keep it pointing up all the time. It would have made it look more real if they had. But no, they keep it long and it looks simply silly sticking up like it does. If I was the director I'd insist they cut it short to make it look more realistic. I hadn't thought about women's menstrual cycle before, that's much worse. They show a lot of videos of them playing with water. I know what water does inside a piece of electronic equipment. No big deal, right? Oh well, maybe it is just us wrong.

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

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

You have to admit, a lot of them have long hair. Look at the laptop computers that are not closed. They don't look waterproof to me.

Scepti and Yendor manage to bore everyone else out of the debate....

Scepti and Yendor manage to bore everyone else out of the debate....

I'm sorry if we bore you. You haven't participated in this thread up to now...and now you come in  just to say that. You may be wrong, others may come in to offer their thoughts. After all, this is just for pleasure anyway. We aren't going to solve anything here. If no one bothers to participate, that's fine. It can die now.

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. 

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 08:32:41 AM

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?

Quote from: Yendor on December 20, 2015, 10:16:07 AM

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.

Of course, don't you know. If not I will explain.
An airplane is usually a long slender tube like vehicle with an engine of some sort and wings. To keep it simple, an engine provides the necessary inertia to keep it flying. The wings provide the means to defy gravity and give it movability. I know what you are getting at. You are trying to understand why I compare an airplane to a satellite. Let me simply say that I have seen many many airplanes flying around in the sky, taking off from the ground and landing on the ground. Infact, My last real job was the engineering manager in a company that designed and built UAVs. Most people call them drones, to us they were UAVs, Unmanned Air Vehicles. In fact the company was bought out by L3 communication. There site is below.
http://www.l-3com.com/

Now, I've told you what I've seen pertaining at airplanes, tell me how many satellites you've seen flying in space. I'm not talking about lights you've seen, I'm talking about real honest to goodness satellites. Sure there are some photo on the web, but are they real can you show me a real picture of an actual satellite in space? Your answer is probably none and that does not mean they don't exist. You would be correct saying that. But, how do you actually know they are free falling around the Earth in space and not simply circling the Earth because gravity is trying to pull them down but inertia is keeping that from happening like this below article says.
 http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-what-causes-an-orbit.html] [url]http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-what-causes-an-orbit.html [/url]
If you can imagine this is what is happening. Why can't it happen inside the Earth's atmosphere. We have gravity inside the atmosphere pulling down and inertia can be provided by engines on board a satellite and how do you really know that the satellite don't have control surfaces or wings. So my point is this. If this is all possible why can't a satellite be a flying device like an airplane that is simply flying around the Earth? I realize this notion goes against your grain, it did mine until I joined this website. Now, I don't really know what is real. I simply try and see the other side of things and if they could be real or not.

Papa is a troll.

Listen to the Voice of Butthurt...

Just because you do not understand basic Newtonian principles & I laugh at you for it, it does not follow that I am a Troll.

But that's enough derailing Yendor's thread; when your butt finally heals, come get some on my thread, loser...

I'll be waiting.

Tooooooooooooooooodle-pip!

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)

Quote from: Yendor on December 21, 2015, 12:28:28 PM

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)

Attached to the wings are the elevators that give the airplane pitch. Pitch is when the nose of the plane goes up or down. When gravity tries to bring the plane down the elevators on the wing will cause the nose of the plane to lift. This is what I mean when I say wings defies gravity. does that agree with you?

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?

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?

Quite simply the purpose of the wing is to divert the air. The velocity of the diverted air depends on the speed of the wing and its angle of attack to the air. The amount of lift the wing provides depends on how much air it diverts and the speed of the wing. Any airplane besides a glider needs power to provide lift. Is this what you are looking for?

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?


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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 21, 2015, 12:28:28 PM

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.

Quote

The 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 kind of engineer I am is electrical.

Maybe it is because I falsely assumed some on here know a lot and I don't have to spell everything out for them. Maybe I'm wrong.

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 about suddenly pushing the airplane violently because that would change velocity.

Without a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?

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?

Quote from: Yendor on December 23, 2015, 11:21:10 AM

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.

Quote

I'm not talking about suddenly pushing the airplane violently because that would change velocity.

Without a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?

Quote

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?

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.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 23, 2015, 11:49:44 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 23, 2015, 11:21:10 AM

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.

Quote

I'm not talking about suddenly pushing the airplane violently because that would change velocity.

Without a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?

Quote

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?

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.

I've followed the entire thread, however that doesn't change the fact that you are using terms like "inertia" when you mean thrust. 

You're like a little child, you start with the "cheap shot" yourself:

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.

Quote from: Yendor on December 23, 2015, 12:12:23 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 23, 2015, 11:49:44 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 23, 2015, 11:21:10 AM

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.

Quote

I'm not talking about suddenly pushing the airplane violently because that would change velocity.

Without a change in velocity, how would the plane go anywhere?

Quote

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?

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.

I've followed the entire thread, however that doesn't change the fact that you are using terms like "inertia" when you mean thrust. 

You're like a little child, you start with the "cheap shot" yourself:

Quote

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.

As a rule, I don't throw cheap shots at people only when someone throws them at me. For example you did this first, "For someone who was apparently some kind of engineer, you do seem to get awfully confused about the basics." I'd call that a cheap shot, and you used it against me first. Then yes, I did come back at you in a mild marrer sort of way. I have never done that to someone on here that hasn't done that to me first. I wouldn't call it whining when I simply ask people to try and be civil. I'm not mentioning names, but a lot of people on both sides try and bully others and that usually leads to name calling and a lot then get discouraged and are never heard from again. I don't like to see that happen. I enjoy expressing my opinion to you, alpha, 29silhouette and all the others that participate on this thread and I wouldn't want that to change. Enough said about this.

Jimmy,  I was referring to this website:
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-what-causes-an-orbit.html 
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. 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. 

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.

Yendor, do you at least understand now why astronauts on board the ISS 'float' around?

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."

As I think you might have noted, "inertia" is not a "force".  That statement could have been better worded as "The centrifugal force and gravity have to be perfectly balanced for an orbit to happen."  Still a bit inexact.

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.

There is really only one reason why  a satellite has to be in space.  The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird had a service ceiling of 85,000'.  Even at its maximum speed of 2,200+ mph there were massive problems with heating from atmospheric friction.  At this altitude a satellite would have to travel at about 17600 mph to stay in orbit, ie for centrifugal force to match gravity.
There would be two insurmountable problems arising from this:
1) The massive atmospheric drag would rapidly slow the satellite down, and
2) This drag would heat the satellite to well over red heat!
The satellite has to be high enough to keep the atmospheric drag to acceptable levels.  Even the ISS at 200 miles or so has to be boosted back to a higher orbit periodically - using fuel that has to be resupplied.
 

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. 

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.

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!
In addition to this the provision of GPS services would require the location of the aircraft known to metre accuracy, and how would that be done without GPS?
Tropospheric scattering cannot explain satellite TV at a fixed location high over the equator.

True, most communications is via undersea fibreoptic cables, but satellite services are needed to mobile locations, eg ships at sea, travellers in remote areas (outback Australia, Sahara etc) etc.
(Have to go, hope there are not too many errors!)

Quote from: Yendor on December 16, 2015, 01:05:18 PM

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:

Velocity, Acceleration and Force Vectors

The 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:


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.

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.
 

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

If 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.

Quote

In this case, the only real difference between a satellite and an airplane is how high each fly.

Nope. They are completely different.

Quote

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.

Quote

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!

Quote

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.

--> An example of an airplane in free fall is the "Vomit Comet", whose passengers do float around inside the airplane

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Perfect Reasoning and good science!

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.

You are wrong.
We have proved how a satellite wold be in free fall by moving fast enough to fall around the globe, the speeds required for the altitude are given.

There are plenty of sources giving its exact position in real time.
The ISS can be observed from the ground. Its position predictable with math.
You can see it through practically any telescope.
I stress, there are many apps and websites available that detail its position at any time.
watch it pass over with your eyes.
There are videos from on board showing what life wold look like there is no gravity. 

ISS exists, and you can prove it for yourself.