So satellites aren't being forced downwards by gravity at the rate of 9.8 metres per second squared now?
No, are you being
forced downwards right now "at the rate of 9.8 metres per second squared now?"
Gravitation does not
force anything downwards.
In the much simpler non-relativistic view of gravitation the
Newtonian one gravitation can apply a force proportional to the mass of the object, so it is looked on as an
acceleration.
If you are sitting on a chair, the chair supplies the resisting force that stops you accelerating downwards.
With a satellite in orbit gravitation provides the force needed to supply the
centripetal acceleration to keep the satellite in a circular motion.
.
And 9.8 metres per second squared isn't an extremely rapid increase?
That "gravitational acceleration" does not cause any increase in speed if it is resisted by some force - your chair or the force to keep the satellite in a circular orbit.
Cos that's the definition of exponential I get.
No,
the definition of exponential in mathematical terms is not simply "an extremely rapid increase",
but an increase in the form of
(something) x e((time constant) x time).
A free-falling object has the position changing as
-(1/2) x acceleration x (time squared), quite different.
Or are you trying to say gravity does not exist?
As explained above, I am saying nothing of the sort.
Because it does, and it accelerates things downwards.
Not quite, it applies a force which can "accelerate things downwards" unless resisted by some other force.
And an accelerative force (gravity) will always overcome a fixed velocity (inertia).
The "fixed velocity" it at right angles to the
gravitation and an acceleration (the
centripetal acceleration) is needed to deflect this velocity into a circular motion.
Which is where the ballistics comes in.
Because it deals with this unalterable fact.
Or do you think ballistics doesn't take the effects of gravity into account?
Of course it does.
.
Here's a simple version for you to try and get your fried brain around:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/u3l2b.cfm
Sure, I have no problems with vectors or ballistics. Though the sums get a bit tricky when you have to include atmospheric drag.
But, if you can't understand orbital motion, you clearly don't understand them.
so you had better go a bit further with your
Physics Classroom studies and read up in
Physics Classroom, Circular Motion and Satellite MotionI am sure that they can explain it much better than I ever could.