uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

Back to this:

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Now, this statement is so obviously false that it beggars belief.

Read:

https://physics.info/newton-first/

I could dig up hundreds more citations if necessary, or simply drop an object from a height and watch as GRAVITY FORCES  IT DOWNWARDS every single time, without fail.

Yet, not ONE of the allegedly hundreds of Independent members of this site has disagreed with the rabbibot on this subject, or agreed with me, even though I am absolutely, beyond any shred of doubt, correct...

This is only feasible if the members of this site are an organised hive mind collective.

And such a hive mind collective is only technically feasible through the use of sockpuppets and bots.

There is no other alternative.

This forum is run by bots - PROVEN FACT.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

Toodle-pip, botty boys!

Back to this:

Quote from: rabinoz on October 12, 2017, 04:20:02 AM

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Now, this statement is so obviously false that it beggars belief.

Read:

https://physics.info/newton-first/

I could dig up hundreds more citations if necessary, or simply drop an object from a height and watch as GRAVITY FORCES  IT DOWNWARDS every single time, without fail.

Yet, not ONE of the allegedly hundreds of Independent members of this site has disagreed with the rabbibot on this subject, or agreed with me, even though I am absolutely, beyond any shred of doubt, correct...

This is only feasible if the members of this site are an organised hive mind collective.

And such a hive mind collective is only technically feasible through the use of sockpuppets and bots.

There is no other alternative.

This forum is run by bots - PROVEN FACT.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

Toodle-pip, botty boys!

I could agree with you.
I just didn't see it before.

Gravitation DOES force everything with mass "downwards".
It pulls every object in near vicinity towards center of the Earth.
That's how we defined our "down".
Stationary objects will fall.

Forcing everything down doesn't mean everything will go down.
It only means that gravity inflicts force on "everything".

There are other forces that can counter the forces of gravity.
For example, air lift on wings of planes, birds, insects, on blades of propellers and so on.
Cold air heavier than hot air balloons (or helium or hidrogen balloons) will fall below them and push them up harder than gravity is pulling them.
In orbit centrifugal force on curved trajectory will at high enough speed counter gravity too.

ANY curved trajectory has acceleration perpendicular to the local directional vector.
ANY acceleration will inflict force on object with mass.

Curved path acceleration times satellite mass will balance gravity acceleration times (same) staellite mass, and satellite will continue along the orbit.
If we divide both sides with satellite mass (providing that satellite mass is higher than zero), it means curved path acceleration will ballance gravity acceleration.

The very definition of inertia describes deviation from straight trajectory as acceleration.

Incorrect.

There is no centripetal/centrfugal force acting on a silly fake satellite as it is neither physically attached to a central axis of rotation nor capable of creating friction with the medium via which it moves.

Only gravity and inertia are acting on any ballistic object.

Gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not even a force at all.

Gravity will therefore always overcome inertia ergo a silly fake satellite is incapable of staying aloft for any extended period of time.

But thanks for admitting the rabbibot is a spamming LIAR.

Should be banned I reckon.

Oh and you're still all bots; I just made it so obvious that you were forced to break ranks...

It's always lose/lose when you mess with Legba, botty boys - and don't you ever forget that!

Satellites do try to fall back to earth, but their lateral velocity makes them miss. Glad we agree.

Incorrect.

There is no centripetal/centrfugal force acting on a silly fake satellite as it is neither physically attached to a central axis of rotation nor capable of creating friction with the medium via which it moves.

Only gravity and inertia are acting on any ballistic object.

So, is there perpendicular acceleration on any object at curved trajectory?
(I believe that quastion is simple enough.)

If there is, could we multiply it with the mass of the object to calculate force?
Or product of mass and acceleration is something else? ( F = m * a )

Is that force pulling the object "outwards", with tendency to straighten the trajectory?
(Anywhere else trajectory would just become more curved.)

Is "outwards" actually "away from the center of the local trajectory arc"?

Now translate "away from center".

Please tell me, was your translation "centrifugal" ?

Now please tell us why would you need any friction for that?

There is no outward force on an unpowered object on a ballistic trajectory.

Because inertia is not a force.

Gravity is, and as you already agreed, it forces things downward.

Look:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Just stop making shit up eh, botty boy?

Incorrect.

There is no centripetal/centrfugal force acting on a silly fake satellite as it is neither physically attached to a central axis of rotation nor capable of creating friction with the medium via which it moves.

Only gravity and inertia are acting on any ballistic object.

Gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not even a force at all.

How does gravity accelerate an object with no physical tether or friction?

There is no outward force on an unpowered object on a ballistic trajectory.

Because inertia is not a force.

Gravity is, and as you already agreed, it forces things downward.

Look:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Just stop making shit up eh, botty boy?

Agreed.  The satellite was given the velocity from the rocket. And because of inertia, it won't slow down on it's own.

Glad we agree.

There is no outward force on an unpowered object on a ballistic trajectory.

Because inertia is not a force.

Gravity is, and as you already agreed, it forces things downward.

Look:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Just stop making shit up eh, botty boy?

On your link air resistance slows down object on balistic trajectory.
Up there there's no air, and falling trajectory isn't parabolic, it is circular.
When speed and altitude are high enough, the object will miss the entire planet.

If "there's no outward force" then what is pulling curving object back to straight path?

With "inertia is not a force" I could agree.
But inertia on curved trajectories causes perpendicular acceleration.
And acceleration times mass of the object IS force.
So, inertia is not a force, inertia is CAUSE of the force.

Ever heard of the term "inertial forces" ?
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/force_inertial.htm#.WmzxC3E0_cg

And when he says "velocity of the object" it is complete velocity vector, with intensity and direction.

Could anyone explain what the margins/bandwith are for a satelite ?
The ratio between velocity received during deployment and distance towards earth.......how much error untill the satelite starts falling back to earth ?
How precise should this velocity/altitude ratio have to be ?

Could anyone explain what the margins/bandwith are for a satelite ?
The ratio between velocity received during deployment and distance towards earth.......how much error untill the satelite starts falling back to earth ?
How precise should this velocity/altitude ratio have to be ?

I can try:

General rule is for satellites to have some amount of fuel for occasional trajectory corrections.
Quantity of that fuel is calculated to cover projected life of the satellite.
After that, satellite can be used a bit more, untill it falls and burns in the atmosphere.

Fire and Ice: Satellite Burns Up in Earth's Atmosphere to End Polar Mission. A NASA satellite that spent seven years studying Earth's polar regions ended its successful mission Monday by plunging back to Earth on purpose to burn up in the atmosphere.Aug 31, 2010

For satellites in geostationary orbit they say last bits of fuel are used to move unusable satellite to "disposal orbit".
Disposal orbit is a bit higher, and it is not geostationary.
(Angular velocity of the satellite there is not the same as angular velocity of the Earth.)

About orbital allocation and orbital stability of geostationary satellites see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit.

For lower orbits satellites don't need to match Earth's angular velocity.
They simply adjust speed to maintain required altitude (and course).

Geostationary orbit at 22 236 miles has just few molecules of any gas, and it takes years to slow satellite down.
They have "few drops" of fuel to compensate every now and then for years to come.
At lower orbits there is few more molecules of gas and life of low orbit satellites is shorter, otherwise they would carry much more fuel.
But cost of deploying to lower orbit is lower and they can be sent up there more often.
Their requirements dictate simpler construction, which also reduces overall price.

ISS is exception. They want it to last long, and still stay in lower orbit.
At altitude of 260 miles it requires occasional correction of speed and altitude, using fuel from regular supply.
Recently they increased altitude a bit, to find better balance.
Higher altitude reduces consumption of correctional fuel, but increases fuel consumption of supply vehicles.

Quote from: dutchy on January 27, 2018, 01:42:14 PM

Could anyone explain what the margins/bandwith are for a satelite ?
The ratio between velocity received during deployment and distance towards earth.......how much error untill the satelite starts falling back to earth ?
How precise should this velocity/altitude ratio have to be ?

I can try:

General rule is for satellites to have some amount of fuel for occasional trajectory corrections.
Quantity of that fuel is calculated to cover projected life of the satellite.
After that, satellite can be used a bit more, untill it falls and burns in the atmosphere.

Quote

Fire and Ice: Satellite Burns Up in Earth's Atmosphere to End Polar Mission. A NASA satellite that spent seven years studying Earth's polar regions ended its successful mission Monday by plunging back to Earth on purpose to burn up in the atmosphere.Aug 31, 2010

For satellites in geostationary orbit they say last bits of fuel are used to move unusable satellite to "disposal orbit".
Disposal orbit is a bit higher, and it is not geostationary.
(Angular velocity of the satellite there is not the same as angular velocity of the Earth.)

About orbital allocation and orbital stability of geostationary satellites see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit.

For lower orbits satellites don't need to match Earth's angular velocity.
They simply adjust speed to maintain required altitude (and course).

Geostationary orbit at 22 236 miles has just few molecules of any gas, and it takes years to slow satellite down.
They have "few drops" of fuel to compensate every now and then for years to come.
At lower orbits there is few more molecules of gas and life of low orbit satellites is shorter, otherwise they would carry much more fuel.
But cost of deploying to lower orbit is lower and they can be sent up there more often.
Their requirements dictate simpler construction, which also reduces overall price.

ISS is exception. They want it to last long, and still stay in lower orbit.
At altitude of 260 miles it requires occasional correction of speed and altitude, using fuel from regular supply.
Recently they increased altitude a bit, to find better balance.
Higher altitude reduces consumption of correctional fuel, but increases fuel consumption of supply vehicles.

Thank you, but it is what i understand,....so let me rephrase....

How were they able to launch an early sixties rocket into space, deploy a satelite......and somehow magically find to exact sweet spot ?
Or is there a much larger bandwidth in the altitude/speed ratio,....and ''roughly'' will do ?
I would like the exact needed parameters and how they were capable to determine the exact altitude and precise velocity in the sixties after deployment of a satelite.

Thank you, but it is what i understand,....so let me rephrase....

How were they able to launch an early sixties rocket into space, deploy a satelite......and somehow magically find to exact sweet spot ?
Or is there a much larger bandwidth in the altitude/speed ratio,....and ''roughly'' will do ?
I would like the exact needed parameters and how they were capable to determine the exact altitude and precise velocity in the sixties after deployment of a satelite.

Sorry, my bad.

For geostationary orbits you have to be precise.
For other orbits you just have to match speed to keep the altitude.
Yes, you have to be precise too, but less.

Using Newton's and Kepler's laws they can calculate elliptical, and near-circular orbits pretty accurately.
But even then satellites can't stay up there forever.

There was old game for MS-DOS, called "Gravity".
You could experiment with orbital mechanics and practice orbital corrections.
Give slight impulse to speed up one side of orbit, and get elliptical expansion of the other side.
Then at that opposite side increase speed by another impulse and fist side gets expanded.
Expand one by one side and reach Escape Velocity to leave Earth.
Or if you activate slowing impulse on one end, another side of orbit gets shrunk...

I've heard there's "Gravity Simulator" online, but haven't tried it.

For example, Sputnik 1, launched by Soviets in 1957, completed just 1440 orbits.
It was up there three months, but gave experience for better planning in the future.
It wasn't in synchronization with Earth's surface, it was revolving at own pace.

The satellite travelled at about 29,000 kilometres per hour (18,000 mph; 8,100 m/s), taking 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit. It transmitted on 20.005 and 40.002 MHz, which were monitored by radio operators throughout the world. The signals continued for 21 days until the transmitter batteries ran out on 26 October 1957. Sputnik burned up on 4 January 1958 while reentering Earth's atmosphere, after three months, 1440 completed orbits of the Earth,[1] and a distance travelled of about 70 million km (43 million mi).

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1)

Sorry if I missed the point again.

It's always lose/lose when you mess with Legba, botty boys - and don't you ever forget that!

Just not for the reason you think.

How were they able to launch an early sixties rocket into space, deploy a satelite......and somehow magically find to exact sweet spot ?

They did the math.

Then again, I really wouldn't expect you to understand the importance of having a workable mathematical model.

How were they able to launch an early sixties rocket into space, deploy a satelite......and somehow magically find to exact sweet spot ?
Or is there a much larger bandwidth in the altitude/speed ratio,....and ''roughly'' will do ?

The only "exact sweet spot" needed is if precise orbital parameters are required.
A satellite in a circular orbit doesn't "fall out of the sky" if the the velocity is reduced a little. It simply takes up an elliptical orbit.

There is a very nice "orbital calculator" at Delta V calculator for LEO/MEO/GEO orbit injection.
As the name implies it is intended for calculating the "Delta V", or change in velocity needed, to change a satellite's orbit from the initial LEO to a geostationary orbit.

But it works for other orbits as well. For example if a Soyuz Spacecraft is orbiting with the ISS at 400 km it can calculate what change in velocity is needed to bring the low point, the perigee, down to 150 km, where atmospheric drag will start to slow it further.
So in a 400 km circular orbit, the velocity is 7668.55 m/s. 
If this is reduced by 72.38 m/s,  the perigee will come down to 150 km.
An increase in velocity of 73.06 m/s to 7814.00 m/s would put the Soyuz into a circular orbit at 150 km   , though this would rapidly decay.

I would like the exact needed parameters and how they were capable to determine the exact altitude and precise velocity in the sixties after deployment of a satelite.

The short answer is that in the late fifties they did not get the "exact needed parameters", so the earliet satellites were often in more elliptical orbits than planned.
Calculations for even the earliest Mercury and Gemini flights had to be done by hand with just calculator assistance
Though the main reasons for the errors were much less precise control of the rocket direction and velocity.

The first satellite of the United States, Explorer 1, ended up with the altitude of the perigee of 358 km and the apogee 2,550 km.
This looks very elliptical, but the radii from the earth's centre are not quite so different.
An orbital velocity of 7692.41 m/s could have put it into a circular orbit at 358 km but at 8213 m/s it ended up in the elliptical orbit.
(I won't guarantee this last number).

But, the bottom line is that an error in velocity puts the satellite into the wrong orbit and early launches were often not very accurate.
This is why satellites needing close orbital location (eg geostationary TV and weather satellites) always have orbital control thrusters, either cold gas or ion thrusters.
 

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 01:25:31 PM

There is no outward force on an unpowered object on a ballistic trajectory.

Because inertia is not a force.

Gravity is, and as you already agreed, it forces things downward.

Look:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Just stop making shit up eh, botty boy?

On your link air resistance slows down object on balistic trajectory.
Up there there's no air, and falling trajectory isn't parabolic, it is circular.
When speed and altitude are high enough, the object will miss the entire planet.

If "there's no outward force" then what is pulling curving object back to straight path?

With "inertia is not a force" I could agree.
But inertia on curved trajectories causes perpendicular acceleration.
And acceleration times mass of the object IS force.
So, inertia is not a force, inertia is CAUSE of the force.

Ever heard of the term "inertial forces" ?
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/force_inertial.htm#.WmzxC3E0_cg

And when he says "velocity of the object" it is complete velocity vector, with intensity and direction.

LMFAO!!!

Inertia causes acceleration, does it?

These new laws of physics you are pulling out your ass are fascinating!

And a circular trajectory is only possible if an object is physically tethered to a central axis of rotation.

Gravity is not a physical tether (remember gravity?).

Gravity forces things downwards.

And it does so at the accelerative rate of 9.8m/s2..

So it will always overcome inertia, which is neither accelerative as you claim, nor a force.

And the absence of air resistance makes no difference to this FACT, so knock off the strawmen, eh?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

Generally though, when you have to invent new laws of physics to support your silly sci-fi fantasies, as both you and the rabbibot have done, you're finished in a debate...

But you won't give up, will you?

Programmed not to.

LMFAO!!!

Inertia causes acceleration, does it?

You missed it again.

Inertia causes reaction to external forces that change direction and speed.
(Without external forces speed and direction wouldn't change.)

Every reaction to force is also force, equal in intensity and opposite in direction.
Force that curves trajectory (centripetal) is action, and reaction is resisting force pulling in opposite direction (centrifugal).
Force that curves satellite trajectory is gravitational force, and resisting force is caused by inertia, trying to straighten that trajectory.

Or you disagree again?
Could reaction to force be something else besides also force?

BTW, at high altitudes is not 9.8 m/s² any more.
Parroting that number won't make it constant.
As altitude grows, g drops.

------------------------------------------

Your ballistic trajectory is shaped like that because of two factors acting together:
- air drag that constantly reduces horizontal component of speeed,
- gravitational force that constantly increases vertical component of speed downwards.
Without those two factors projectile would continue forever at constant speed along straight line.

Up there at satellite altitudes air is much thinner.
Gravitational force still keeps curving satellite's path.
Air drag is many times lower and for the sake of short-time consideration can be neglected.
But when people calculate projected lifetime of satellite it is also taken into account.

------------------------------------------

Who is programmed here?
You, who repeats same stuff over and over again?
Or me, who tries to describe real nature of things you try to "explain"?

-------------------------------------------

But you won't give up, will you?

Programmed not to.

Are you here to clear things up, or to "win" some unknown battle, imaginary or not?
Asking me to give up suggests latter.
Your desire to "win" is stronger than desire to know.
And looks like your only way to "win" is to make "opponents" give up, one way or another.

Unfortunately, that way we will just have opinions of more aggressive (or elloquent) people emerging, instead of "facts and figures".

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:36:11 AM

LMFAO!!!

Inertia causes acceleration, does it?

You missed it again.

Inertia causes reaction to external forces that change direction and speed.
(Without external forces speed and direction wouldn't change.)

Every reaction to force is also force, equal in intensity and opposite in direction.
Force that curves trajectory (centripetal) is action, and reaction is resisting force pulling in opposite direction (centrifugal).
Force that curves satellite trajectory is gravitational force, and resisting force is caused by inertia, trying to straighten that trajectory.

Or you disagree again?
Could reaction to force be something else besides also force?

BTW, at high altitudes is not 9.8 m/s² any more.
Parroting that number won't make it constant.
As altitude grows, g drops.

------------------------------------------

Your ballistic trajectory is shaped like that because of two factors acting together:
- air drag that constantly reduces horizontal component of speeed,
- gravitational force that constantly increases vertical component of speed downwards.
Without those two factors projectile would continue forever at constant speed along straight line.

Up there at satellite altitudes air is much thinner.
Gravitational force still keeps curving satellite's path.
Air drag is many times lower and for the sake of short-time consideration can be neglected.
But when people calculate projected lifetime of satellite it is also taken into account.

------------------------------------------

Who is programmed here?
You, who repeats same stuff over and over again?
Or me, who tries to describe real nature of things you try to "explain"?

-------------------------------------------

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:36:11 AM

But you won't give up, will you?

Programmed not to.

Are you here to clear things up, or to "win" some unknown battle, imaginary or not?
Asking me to give up suggests latter.
Your desire to "win" is stronger than desire to know.
And looks like your only way to "win" is to make "opponents" give up, one way or another.

Unfortunately, that way we will just have opinions of more aggressive (or elloquent) people emerging, instead of "facts and figures".

Your bot generated gibberish still seems to be implying that Inertia is somehow a force.

It is not:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/reviews/Newtons-Laws/Newtons-Laws-Review-Answers-1

And the diagram I posted shows trajectories in a vacuum, without any air drag.

Look:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

And it proves that gravity still overcomes inertia very quickly despite lack of air drag.

And it accelerates the projectile downwards at the rate of 9.8m/s2 whilst doing so.

This means that, for every second an object, like a satellite, is in free fall, its velocity will increase by 9.8m/s in the direction of Earth.

So, even if your imaginary "force of inertia" were capable of keeping it aloft, after twenty years its velocity would exceed ten billion miles per hour...

This is not debatable.

So stop trying...

Because, if you are not even going to look at the links I post, and are forced to invent new laws of physics to keep your argument alive, it is clear you have lost the debate.

But you won't give up, will you?

Because you are not programmed to.

Back to this:

Quote from: rabinoz on October 12, 2017, 04:20:02 AM

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Now, this statement is so obviously false that it beggars belief.

Incorrect!

Read:
https://physics.info/newton-first/

I did, Mr Voodoo Priest And nowhere did it say "Gravity forces things downwards."
It does say "gravity pulls them down" and that's not quite the same thing.

I could dig up hundreds more citations if necessary, or simply drop an object from a height and watch as GRAVITY FORCES  IT DOWNWARDS every single time, without fail.

Sure you can "simply drop an object from a height and watch as" causes it to fall "every single time".
But you had to drop it first! Gravity did not force it to fall while you were holding it.
So as I have been saying all along "Gravitation does not force anything downwards."

I can show you an uncountable number of things the GRAVITY DOES NOT FORCE DOWNWARDS because gravity is being counteracted by another force.
That force might be provided by your chair, a table, a piece of rope or the road that stops ovet a billion cars being forced down by gravity.
So you could say that gravity applies a downward force to an object (unless you want to get all fancy and drag in curved spacetime).

So run off back to Haiti you useless Voodoo Priest!

Meanwhile we know satellites are used by millions for broadcast, navigation and timing.

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 11:12:37 AM

Back to this:

Quote from: rabinoz on October 12, 2017, 04:20:02 AM

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Now, this statement is so obviously false that it beggars belief.

Incorrect!

Quote from: Papa Legba

Read:
https://physics.info/newton-first/

I did, Mr Voodoo Priest And nowhere did it say "Gravity forces things downwards."
It does say "gravity pulls them down" and that's not quite the same thing.

Quote from: Papa Legba

I could dig up hundreds more citations if necessary, or simply drop an object from a height and watch as GRAVITY FORCES  IT DOWNWARDS every single time, without fail.

Sure you can "simply drop an object from a height and watch as" causes it to fall "every single time".
But you had to drop it first! Gravity did not force it to fall while you were holding it.
So as I have been saying all along "Gravitation does not force anything downwards."

I can show you an uncountable number of things the GRAVITY DOES NOT FORCE DOWNWARDS because gravity is being counteracted by another force.
That force might be provided by your chair, a table, a piece of rope or the road that stops ovet a billion cars being forced down by gravity.
So you could say that gravity applies a downward force to an object (unless you want to get all fancy and drag in curved spacetime).

So run off back to Haiti you useless Voodoo Priest!

We already know that the rabbibot is not programmed to comprehend the difference between the normal force due to gravity and free fall acceleration due to gravity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force#Equations

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Introduction

Seems the only way the rabbibot can keep its silly fake satellites impossibly aloft for years on end is to have them resting on an imaginary table...

Or something?

It long ago left empirically observable laws of physics behind in this thread...

Maybe it'll return to its moon fairies next?

Oh, and check out the times of the last three posts...

It is impossible for humans to shitpost that fast, so yet more proof this forum is run by bots...

Which the entire rest of the internet already knows btw.

EDIT TO INCLUDE - AFTER POINTING THE ABOVE OUT ONE OF THE POSTS WAS HURRIEDLY DELETED.

Top, top, TOP kek!

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 02:10:26 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 11:12:37 AM

Back to this:

Quote from: rabinoz on October 12, 2017, 04:20:02 AM

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Now, this statement is so obviously false that it beggars belief.

Incorrect!

Quote from: Papa Legba

Read:
https://physics.info/newton-first/

I did, Mr Voodoo Priest And nowhere did it say "Gravity forces things downwards."
It does say "gravity pulls them down" and that's not quite the same thing.

Quote from: Papa Legba

I could dig up hundreds more citations if necessary, or simply drop an object from a height and watch as GRAVITY FORCES  IT DOWNWARDS every single time, without fail.

Sure you can "simply drop an object from a height and watch as" causes it to fall "every single time".
But you had to drop it first! Gravity did not force it to fall while you were holding it.
So as I have been saying all along "Gravitation does not force anything downwards."

I can show you an uncountable number of things the GRAVITY DOES NOT FORCE DOWNWARDS because gravity is being counteracted by another force.
That force might be provided by your chair, a table, a piece of rope or the road that stops ovet a billion cars being forced down by gravity.
So you could say that gravity applies a downward force to an object (unless you want to get all fancy and drag in curved spacetime).

So run off back to Haiti you useless Voodoo Priest!

We already know that the rabbibot is not programmed to comprehend the difference between the normal force due to gravity and free fall acceleration due to gravity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force#Equations

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Introduction

Seems the only way the rabbibot can keep its silly fake satellites impossibly aloft for years on end is to have them resting on an imaginary table...

Or something?

It long ago left empirically observable laws of physics behind in this thread...

Maybe it'll return to its moon fairies next?

Oh, and check out the times of the last three posts...

It is impossible for humans to shitpost that fast, so yet more proof this forum is run by bots...

Which the entire rest of the internet already knows btw.

kek

You obviously don’t get out much, still going on about fake satellites, does that include the ones we can see? What about the latest one that everybody can see that’s  been nicknamed Humanity star, are you saying that’s fake?
http://www.thehumanitystar.com/

The truth must really hurt sometime, how do you deal with it?

And a circular trajectory is only possible if an object is physically tethered to a central axis of rotation.

Incorrect, the "tether" does not need to be physical. If could be from an electrostatic or gravitational field.

Gravity is not a physical tether (remember gravity)?

No, but, as stated before, a physical tether is not needed. Where did you drag that rubbish from?

Gravity forces things downwards.

Incorrect, gravitation causes a downward force, not the same thing.

And it does so at the accelerative rate of 9.8m/s2..

Incorrect, the object only accelerates at 9.8m/s² if there is no other force applied.

So it will always overcome inertia, which is neither accelerative as you claim, nor a force.

Incorrect, see previous answer!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

Sure, if you choose to ignore the curve of the earth and you claimed that the earth was a Sphere.
Now we are told that the curve of the earth is about 8 cm in one kilometre.
So launch your projectile horizontally 100 m above the earth's surface at 7905.29 m/s.
Neglecting air resistance, see how far that projectile has fallen after 1 km.

Generally though, when you have to invent new laws of physics to support your silly sci-fi fantasies, as both you and the rabbibot have done, you're finished in a debate...

Yup, when you have to ignore existing laws of physics to support your silly fantasies, you continue to do, you're finished in a debate...

But you won't give up, will you?

Not when we are correct and you spout Voodoo Priest rubbish!

Quote from: Macarios on January 28, 2018, 12:54:18 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:36:11 AM

LMFAO!!!

Inertia causes acceleration, does it?

You missed it again.

Inertia causes reaction to external forces that change direction and speed.
(Without external forces speed and direction wouldn't change.)

Every reaction to force is also force, equal in intensity and opposite in direction.
Force that curves trajectory (centripetal) is action, and reaction is resisting force pulling in opposite direction (centrifugal).
Force that curves satellite trajectory is gravitational force, and resisting force is caused by inertia, trying to straighten that trajectory.

Or you disagree again?
Could reaction to force be something else besides also force?

BTW, at high altitudes is not 9.8 m/s² any more.
Parroting that number won't make it constant.
As altitude grows, g drops.

------------------------------------------

Your ballistic trajectory is shaped like that because of two factors acting together:
- air drag that constantly reduces horizontal component of speeed,
- gravitational force that constantly increases vertical component of speed downwards.
Without those two factors projectile would continue forever at constant speed along straight line.

Up there at satellite altitudes air is much thinner.
Gravitational force still keeps curving satellite's path.
Air drag is many times lower and for the sake of short-time consideration can be neglected.
But when people calculate projected lifetime of satellite it is also taken into account.

------------------------------------------

Who is programmed here?
You, who repeats same stuff over and over again?
Or me, who tries to describe real nature of things you try to "explain"?

-------------------------------------------

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:36:11 AM

But you won't give up, will you?

Programmed not to.

Are you here to clear things up, or to "win" some unknown battle, imaginary or not?
Asking me to give up suggests latter.
Your desire to "win" is stronger than desire to know.
And looks like your only way to "win" is to make "opponents" give up, one way or another.

Unfortunately, that way we will just have opinions of more aggressive (or elloquent) people emerging, instead of "facts and figures".

Your bot generated gibberish still seems to be implying that Inertia is somehow a force.

It is not:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/reviews/Newtons-Laws/Newtons-Laws-Review-Answers-1

And the diagram I posted shows trajectories in a vacuum, without any air drag.

Look:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

And it proves that gravity still overcomes inertia very quickly despite lack of air drag.

And it accelerates the projectile downwards at the rate of 9.8m/s2 whilst doing so.

This means that, for every second an object, like a satellite, is in free fall, its velocity will increase by 9.8m/s in the direction of Earth.

So, even if your imaginary "force of inertia" were capable of keeping it aloft, after twenty years its velocity would exceed ten billion miles per hour...

This is not debatable.

So stop trying...

Because, if you are not even going to look at the links I post, and are forced to invent new laws of physics to keep your argument alive, it is clear you have lost the debate.

But you won't give up, will you?

Because you are not programmed to.

From this post you appear to be confused about so many things. If you want to know how satelites stay in orbit go look it up, it’s no secret. The rule of thumb is the lower the orbit the faster the satelite needs to travel, though lower orbit satelites will eventually crash back to earth.  I just wonder where your need to distort facts and make stuff up comes from? I’m beginning to think your an AI that’s gone all wrong.
I’m still wondering do bots have botties?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 02:10:26 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 11:12:37 AM

Back to this:

Quote from: rabinoz on October 12, 2017, 04:20:02 AM

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Now, this statement is so obviously false that it beggars belief.

Incorrect!

Quote from: Papa Legba

Read:
https://physics.info/newton-first/

I did, Mr Voodoo Priest And nowhere did it say "Gravity forces things downwards."
It does say "gravity pulls them down" and that's not quite the same thing.

Quote from: Papa Legba

I could dig up hundreds more citations if necessary, or simply drop an object from a height and watch as GRAVITY FORCES  IT DOWNWARDS every single time, without fail.

Sure you can "simply drop an object from a height and watch as" causes it to fall "every single time".
But you had to drop it first! Gravity did not force it to fall while you were holding it.
So as I have been saying all along "Gravitation does not force anything downwards."

I can show you an uncountable number of things the GRAVITY DOES NOT FORCE DOWNWARDS because gravity is being counteracted by another force.
That force might be provided by your chair, a table, a piece of rope or the road that stops ovet a billion cars being forced down by gravity.
So you could say that gravity applies a downward force to an object (unless you want to get all fancy and drag in curved spacetime).

So run off back to Haiti you useless Voodoo Priest!

<< Voodoo priest idiocy deleted >>

Try again. Here read this bit of elementary stuff and learn something: Ort Braude College, Projectile and Satellite Orbits.
It has some pretty pictures that might appeal to someone of your limited understanding.

And here's another pretty picture:

Here we go with the AI onslaught of "I know you are but what am I?", deranged copy pasta Pseudoscience and prissy bitchslapping...

Seems the rabbibot now states that even though gravity causes a downwards force it is not forcing things downwards...

So he's both right and wrong at the same time?

LMFAO!!!

I could not make this shit up if I tried.

As for the silly fake humanity star, it's one of these:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object

There's tens of thousands of em up there, most with highly erratic orbits...

So, when one shows up for a few months, just pretend it's a silly fake satellite, it's not like the sci-fi loving brainwashed Trekkies will notice.

This is just embarrassing.

Seems the rabbibot now states that even though gravity causes a downwards force it is not forcing things downwards...

That's right, Mr Voodoo Priest, that is what I said!

So he's both right and wrong at the same time?

No, simply right!
Look Mr Voodoo Priest, are you or are you not the real Papa Legba? See here

Papa Legba
Papa Legba is a loa in Haitian Vodou, who serves as the intermediary between the loa and humanity. He stands at a spiritual crossroads and gives (or denies) permission to speak with the spirits of Guinee, and is believed to speak all human languages. In Haiti, he is the great elocutioner. Legba facilitates communication, speech, and understanding.

But you're a fake! You don't appear to even understand even plain English, so at least you don't understand all human languages.

Gravitation can be said to apply a downward force to an object, but that is not the same as forcing that object downwards.

If I say that I apply a force to a huge rock, it will not move if the force is not large enough.
But if I say that I force a huge rock to move I am saying that I am applying a force large enough to move the rock.
There is a big difference, so Mr Voodoo Priest run away and learn the English language.

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 02:49:49 AM

Seems the rabbibot now states that even though gravity causes a downwards force it is not forcing things downwards...

That's right, Mr Voodoo Priest, that is what I said!

Cool.

In that case you're blatantly contradicting yourself.

And, as you're not programmed to understand the difference between the normal force and free fall, you will continue to contradict your mad AI shillgorithm self forever, looking like the biggest fool in the world in the process...

Can someone not have a word with the rabbibots programmers?

Update his software or something?

I know it's not human, but this still seems a little bit cruel of them.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 03:17:12 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 02:49:49 AM

Seems the rabbibot now states that even though gravity causes a downwards force it is not forcing things downwards...

That's right, Mr Voodoo Priest, that is what I said!

<< ravings of demented Voodoo Priest deleted >>

Did you try this, "launch your projectile horizontally 100 m above the earth's surface at 7905.29 m/s" (neglecting air resistance, of course)?

Looks like you forgot to read this bit! Or are the words too long? Here have another go:

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:36:11 AM

Gravity forces things downwards.

Incorrect, gravitation causes a downward force, not the same thing.

Quote from: Papa Legba

And it does so at the accelerative rate of 9.8m/s2..

Incorrect, the object only accelerates at 9.8m/s² if there is no other force applied.

Quote from: Papa Legba

So it will always overcome inertia, which is neither accelerative as you claim, nor a force.

Incorrect, see previous answer!

Quote from: Papa Legba

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

Sure, if you choose to ignore the curve of the earth and you claimed that the earth was a Sphere.
Now we are told that the curve of the earth is about 8 cm in one kilometre.
So launch your projectile horizontally 100 m above the earth's surface at 7905.29 m/s.
Neglecting air resistance, see how far that projectile has fallen after 1 km.

Quote from: Papa Legba

Generally though, when you have to invent new laws of physics to support your silly sci-fi fantasies, as both you and the rabbibot have done, you're finished in a debate...

Yup, when you have to ignore existing laws of physics to support your silly fantasies, you continue to do, you're finished in a debate...

Quote from: Papa Legba

But you won't give up, will you?

Not when we are correct and you spout Voodoo Priest rubbish!

And this bit too!

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 02:49:49 AM

Seems the rabbibot now states that even though gravity causes a downwards force it is not forcing things downwards...

That's right, Mr Voodoo Priest, that is what I said!

Quote from: Papa Legba

So he's both right and wrong at the same time?

No, simply right!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gravitation can be said to apply a downward force to an object, but that is not the same as forcing that object downwards.

If I say that I apply a force to a huge rock, it will not move if the force is not large enough.
But if I say that I force a huge rock to move I am saying that I am applying a force large enough to move the rock.
There is a big difference, so run away and learn the English language.