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 Motion**I am sure that they can explain it much better than I ever could.