uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 11, 2017, 10:30:55 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 11, 2017, 08:42:26 AM

Please read again:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Either the above is correct, or orbital mechanics is correct; but both cannot be correct, as they directly contradict one another.

So what would happen if I fired an object at an angle of 45 degrees to an altitude of 22,000 miles?  Could you calculate the ballistic arc it would trace?  How far will it travel before it lands again?

It is physically impossible to fire any solid object to the height of 22,000 miles, so your question is moot.

Lay off the sci-fi is my advice.

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"




hmmmmmm.........

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:07:17 AM

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"




hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 02:39:41 AM

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.
.

Quote from: Papa Legba

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.

Quote from: Papa Legba

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.

So they should obey the laws of ballistics and they should fall back to Earth pretty damn quick, shouldn't they?

But they don't.

Because they do not exist.

Let's consider it a thought experiment.  Imagine there was a way to fire a solid object to a height of 22,000 miles at the top of its parabola.  The initial angle of fire will be 45 degrees.  Can you calculate its ballistic arc?  How far will it go before it comes down?  If I fire it from, picking a spot at random, Florida, where will it land?  Again, let's just speak hypothetically for now.

Satellite obey the laws of ballistics perfectly. Fire an object with a ballistic arc that matches the curve of the planet then you have an orbit. Not difficult to grasp.

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 07:30:39 AM

So they should obey the laws of ballistics and they should fall back to Earth pretty damn quick, shouldn't they?

But they don't.

Because they do not exist.

Would you please be so kind as to do the math for our little thought experiment?

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 08:29:16 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 07:30:39 AM

So they should obey the laws of ballistics and they should fall back to Earth pretty damn quick, shouldn't they?

But they don't.

Because they do not exist.

Would you please be so kind as to do the math for our little thought experiment?

It's not 'our' thought experiment, it's yours.

And as it involves an event that is physically impossible to achieve, I see no point in wasting one single second on it.

So knock off the bullshit.

If you like thought experiments, try them here:

https://www.wired.com/2015/01/geeks-guide-sci-fi-workshop/

Or maybe you can help mainframes work out how Santa delivers all them presents in one night?

Seriously, you REtards have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 08:46:45 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 08:29:16 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 07:30:39 AM

So they should obey the laws of ballistics and they should fall back to Earth pretty damn quick, shouldn't they?

But they don't.

Because they do not exist.

Would you please be so kind as to do the math for our little thought experiment?

It's not 'our' thought experiment, it's yours.

And as it involves an event that is physically impossible to achieve, I see no point in wasting one single second on it.

So knock off the bullshit.

If you like thought experiments, try them here:

https://www.wired.com/2015/01/geeks-guide-sci-fi-workshop/

Or maybe you can help mainframes work out how Santa delivers all them presents in one night?

Seriously, you REtards have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Mine, ours, whatever, just do the math.  Unless you can't.  Let's imagine some hyper sophisticated society, maybe millions of years into the future, has developed some incredible propulsion technology that can fire a projectile to a height of 22,000 miles.  If they fire it off from Florida at a 45 degree angle, where would it land, and how many miles would it travel.  You've got that ballistics handbook, you should have no trouble calculating this.  Just plug in the numbers and go. 

You're not afraid to do a little math to prove yourself right are you?  Accurately calculating the landing point of that projectile will essentially prove that orbital mechanics are false.  Why wouldn't you want to demonstrate, in unarguable math, how you are right and everyone else is wrong?  What possible reason could you have for not seizing the opportunity to conclusively prove what you're saying?  All you have to do is plot out the ballistic arc I'm asking for.   

There is only ONE force acting on a fake satellite - gravity.

And this one force is an accelerative force.

So it will bring your silly fake satellite crashing back to Earth pdq.

Gravity is not a force

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 09:01:44 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 08:46:45 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 08:29:16 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 12, 2017, 07:30:39 AM

So they should obey the laws of ballistics and they should fall back to Earth pretty damn quick, shouldn't they?

But they don't.

Because they do not exist.

Would you please be so kind as to do the math for our little thought experiment?

It's not 'our' thought experiment, it's yours.

And as it involves an event that is physically impossible to achieve, I see no point in wasting one single second on it.

So knock off the bullshit.

If you like thought experiments, try them here:

https://www.wired.com/2015/01/geeks-guide-sci-fi-workshop/

Or maybe you can help mainframes work out how Santa delivers all them presents in one night?

Seriously, you REtards have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Mine, ours, whatever, just do the math.  Unless you can't.  Let's imagine some hyper sophisticated society, maybe millions of years into the future, has developed some incredible propulsion technology that can fire a projectile to a height of 22,000 miles.  If they fire it off from Florida at a 45 degree angle, where would it land, and how many miles would it travel.  You've got that ballistics handbook, you should have no trouble calculating this.  Just plug in the numbers and go. 

You're not afraid to do a little math to prove yourself right are you?  Accurately calculating the landing point of that projectile will essentially prove that orbital mechanics are false.  Why wouldn't you want to demonstrate, in unarguable math, how you are right and everyone else is wrong?  What possible reason could you have for not seizing the opportunity to conclusively prove what you're saying?  All you have to do is plot out the ballistic arc I'm asking for.   

You seem to think that doing the math on a physically impossible scenario would somehow make it feasible, markjo...

And that if I turn down your shitty b8 it somehow constitutes a mighty victory for your sperg-lord self.

Instead you all go for me.

Because you are a Borg hive-mind collective trained to attack specific people on specific topics.

You also belong on my ignore list, as you are a massively obvious markjo sockpuppet.

Gravity is not a force

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2017, 10:02:16 AM

Gravity is not a force

lol

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

Gravitation does not force anything downwards.

lol

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:46:44 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:07:17 AM

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"




hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Are you attempting to say something? It generally helps to actually say it rather than just hope others pick up on whatever line of thought one might be having. It's certainly an interesting project, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything here?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 05:49:00 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:46:44 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:07:17 AM

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/5277461725_34624f8a73_o.jpg
https://diffusive.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nasa-echo-project-via-binky-the-doormatel-2002-00476.jpg?w=1400

hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Are you attempting to say something? It generally helps to actually say it rather than just hope others pick up on whatever line of thought one might be having. It's certainly an interesting project, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything here?

those huge shiny NASA balloons might look like tiny lights in the sky overhead at night don't you think ?

its possible considering any actual photographical evidence of the traditional winged skip we all know and love are pretty thin on the ground,
in fact real images of winged skips are non existent.

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Dog was beaten and told gravity is not a force every day for years on end:

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 03:00:53 PM

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 05:49:00 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:46:44 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:07:17 AM

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/5277461725_34624f8a73_o.jpg
https://diffusive.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nasa-echo-project-via-binky-the-doormatel-2002-00476.jpg?w=1400

hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Are you attempting to say something? It generally helps to actually say it rather than just hope others pick up on whatever line of thought one might be having. It's certainly an interesting project, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything here?

those huge shiny NASA balloons might look like tiny lights in the sky overhead at night don't you think ?

its possible considering any actual photographical evidence of the traditional winged skip we all know and love are pretty thin on the ground,
in fact real images of winged skips are non existent.

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Sorry, do you think they're still up there? Neither object you've linked an image of is still up there. Project Echo was back in the 60's, and both of those balloons have since burned up in atmo. They WERE visible as bright points in the sky while they were up there according to information on them though.

Winged skips? I'm confused, not sure what you're talking about here.

Source on this claim? Quick search is turning up lots of photos, and plenty of guides like this one http://space.mindofamadman.com/2016/03/18/how-to-spot-satellites/ on how to find and see them yourself. Most of the photos though are of the lights of them in the sky unless it's a larger one like the ISS transit.

They don't avoid all of them, whatever gave you that idea?

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 03:00:53 PM

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

How many photographic images of bigfoot do you think there are? Can you back that up with any evidence?

Quote

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Zero. They haven't all avoided being hit by micrometeorites. What makes you think they have?

Next!

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 03:20:32 PM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 03:00:53 PM

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 05:49:00 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:46:44 AM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 04:07:17 AM

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/5277461725_34624f8a73_o.jpg
https://diffusive.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nasa-echo-project-via-binky-the-doormatel-2002-00476.jpg?w=1400

hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Are you attempting to say something? It generally helps to actually say it rather than just hope others pick up on whatever line of thought one might be having. It's certainly an interesting project, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything here?

those huge shiny NASA balloons might look like tiny lights in the sky overhead at night don't you think ?

its possible considering any actual photographical evidence of the traditional winged skip we all know and love are pretty thin on the ground,
in fact real images of winged skips are non existent.

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Sorry, do you think they're still up there? Neither object you've linked an image of is still up there. Project Echo was back in the 60's, and both of those balloons have since burned up in atmo. They WERE visible as bright points in the sky while they were up there according to information on them though.

do i think those specific balloons are still up there ? no. but its obviously possible further balloons were launched in the 70s 80s 90s etc.
this is obviously obvious.
interesting that the balloons are described as "bright points in the sky".

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on October 12, 2017, 03:30:16 PM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 03:00:53 PM

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

How many photographic images of bigfoot do you think there are? Can you back that up with any evidence?

Quote

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Zero. They haven't all avoided being hit by micrometeorites. What makes you think they have?

Next!

whether you believe or not the close up image of a female creature has being analysed closely and the muscle movement was way beyond technological techniques for suits at the time.
now its your turn.
a close up image of a satellite in space .....please.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on October 12, 2017, 03:30:16 PM

Quote from: feuk on October 12, 2017, 03:00:53 PM

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

How many photographic images of bigfoot do you think there are? Can you back that up with any evidence?

whether you believe or not the close up image of a female creature has being analysed closely and the muscle movement was way beyond technological techniques for suits at the time.

a close up image of a satellite in space .....please.

do i think those specific balloons are still up there ? no. but its obviously possible further balloons were launched in the 70s 80s 90s etc.
this is obviously obvious.
interesting that the balloons are described as "bright points in the sky".

Source on this claim? Quick search is turning up lots of photos, and plenty of guides like this one http://space.mindofamadman.com/2016/03/18/how-to-spot-satellites/ on how to find and see them yourself. Most of the photos though are of the lights of them in the sky unless it's a larger one like the ISS transit.

They don't avoid all of them, whatever gave you that idea?

First sentry penguins that murder you with laser eyes that live on the ice walls  Now people are using bigfoot as a debate point Huh? I thought this was a forum for flat earth theory ;/

First sentry penguins that murder you with laser eyes that live on the ice walls  Now people are using bigfoot as a debate point Huh? I thought this was a forum for flat earth theory ;/

In the spirit of general relativity we model the spacetime
geometry, i.e., the universe we live in (or at least the relevant
part for our model) using a pseudo-Riemannian metric tensor
g = gµνdxµdxν
on a four dimensional manifold M. The set {M, g} describes
the four-dimensional spacetime and local coordinates on M
are xµ , µ = 0, 1, 2, 3. We have an affine connection ∇, which
is fully defined by the Christoffel symbols ∇∂ν ∂µ = Γσµν∂σ .
On a pseudo-Riemannian manifold we can specialize ∇ to be
the Levi-Civita connection and we get Γσµν =(1/2)gσλ(∂νgµλ + ∂µgνλ − ∂λgµν).
Then, the geodesic equation that describes the motion of freely
falling particles reads d2xµ/ds2+ Γµνσ(x)dxν/ds dxσ/ds= 0
and gives as solution curves the geodesics xµ(s) of the
spacetime. The affine parameter s along such a geodesic
can be interpreted as proper time and is, thus, related
to the reading of a clock that is transported along the
geodesic. Now, we fix a certain (known) geodesic (Xµ(s)) =
(X0 (s), X1 (s), X2 (s), X3 (s)) and this curve will be called
the reference geodesic in the following. To consider a neighboring
geodesic xµ(s) in a given coordinate system we make the ansatz
xµ(s) = Xµ(s) + ηµ(s)
and define, thereupon, the deviation vector ηµ (s) that connects
both geodesics. We assume, as sketched in Fig. 1, the four
velocity of the reference geodesic and the deviation vector to
be always orthogonal to each other,
gµνηµ dXν/ds= 0 .
Inserting (16) into the geodesic equation (15) gives a second
order differential equation that is quadratic in the deviation
vector. When this deviation vector is assumed to be very
small, we can linearize with respect to the deviation vector
itself ηµ(s) and its derivative dηµ (s)/ds if we further assume
small relative velocities. Thus, we obtain the so called standard Jacobi equation
D2ηµ(s)/ds2= −Rµτ νσ(X) ην dXτ (s)/ds dXσ(s)/ds ,
where the covariant derivative D/ds and the curvature tensor components Rµτ νσ are given by
D ηµ(s)/ds=dηµ(s)/ds+ Γµνσ(X) ην dXσ/ds ,
Rµτ νσ(X) = ∂νΓµτσ − ∂τΓµνσ + ΓµνλΓλτσ − ΓµτλΓλνσ .
In (18) we can clearly see that the curvature of spacetime induces
a possible non-linear deviation between two neighboring
geodesics. We have seen in the Newtonian case before that
the same effect of non-linear deviation was caused by nonvanishing
second derivatives of the Newtonian gravitational
potential and we have, thus, an intuitive understanding of the
role of the curvature tensor; The Riemann curvature tensor
includes second derivatives of the metric as well. A somewhat
detailed discussion of the equation of geodesic deviation can
be found in standard textbooks on general relativity like [5]
and [6]. It should be mentioned that if we do not linearize w.r.
to the relative velocity dη(s)/ds a generalized version of the
Jacobi equation is obtained, see, e.g., [3], [10], [14], [15].