uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

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.

Standard for your kind.

Cursing what you can't understand, or refuse to.

Good luck.

If you all please watch the video and answer the following quesntions  AFTER READING THOSE QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF ''ORBITAL VELOCITY'' SPAM I HAVE READ MYSELF A THOUSEND TIMES

1 How were they able to reach the exact required velocity and maintain that velocity in the early rockets without onboard computers and advance technologies
2 How were they able to reach the exact required altitude
3 How did they determine the exact timeframe for deployment where altitude and velocity where spot on for the satelites prefered orbit ?

If you watch the video, i really like an explanation about HOW (1-3)  that could ever be possible even in the late fifties seeing how unstable rockets were ?

I know, right?

How did they learn ANYTHING without Google and YouTube???

The International Space Station with ATV-2 and Endeavour.

Why is the amount of curvature off by some margin ?
NASA does use contrast, color and other enhancement for newer renderings of the blue marble....don't they ?
WTF are they not correcting earth's curvature for ONCE !!!!!!!!!

Look this is a fake....pretending an eclips was taken form the ISS


See what they do with your mind ? You think you are able to discern reality from fakery, which you and i fail to do each and every time.
So PLEASSSSSSSSE stop using outerspace renderings as proof...

If dutchy can't understand something it must be fake.

If dutchy can't understand something it must be fake.

Can you tell why the upper image is real and the lower is not ?

If dutchy can't understand something it must be fake.

dutchy thinks that because something CAN be simulated, EVERYTHING must be simulated!

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

Is a comet increasing in acceleration when it approaches the Sun?

That is a simple yes or no question.

If the answer is yes, why?

It is because of gravity, according to all you RE-tards.

You see, according to all of you, orbits are simply things in a constant state of falling down.

No other force necessary,according to you RE-tards.

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites?

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

Is there a free body diagram?

Quote from: markjo on January 27, 2018, 01:29:03 PM

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

Is a comet increasing in acceleration when it approaches the Sun?

That is a simple yes or no question.

If the answer is yes, why?

It is because of gravity, according to all you RE-tards.

You see, according to all of you, orbits are simply things in a constant state of falling down.

No other force necessary,according to you RE-tards.

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites?

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

Is there a free body diagram?

Can I ask you how you come by your information on comets?

Quote from: rvlvr on January 28, 2018, 06:28:40 AM

If dutchy can't understand something it must be fake.

Can you tell why the upper image is real and the lower is not ?

I did not actually pay much attention to that post. And I care not a lot if something can be faked or is false, because, you know, it does not mean everything is fake and/or false.

Quote from: rvlvr on January 28, 2018, 06:28:40 AM

If dutchy can't understand something it must be fake.

dutchy thinks that because something CAN be simulated, EVERYTHING must be simulated!

No mr rock bottom, I claim that when you can't discern fakery from reality you should not prefer one over the other !!
Of course some pictures could be real,.....but how do we know ?
The ISS footage rabinoz presented has a false representation of earth's curvature...there the excuses begin....

Can I ask you how you come by your information on comets?

If my answer was NASA, would you run away and hide like you did in this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0
LMMFAO!!!

I'm kinda wondering how dutchy can make the determination that someone presented a false representation of Earths curvature?


Oh yeah... it doesn't LOOK right!

I'm kinda wondering how dutchy can make the determination that someone presented a false representation of Earths curvature?


Oh yeah... it doesn't LOOK right!

No simply inserting the correct numbers for the globe as claimed by the globelings,....but i will show you cartoons you might understand better 

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

Is a comet increasing in acceleration when it approaches the Sun? yes

That is a simple yes or no question. agreed

If the answer is yes, why? Kepler's law. Law of conservation of angular momentum. Elliptical orbit. When commet is closer to Sun,
product of angular speed and radius remains the same, but radius decreases, so angular speed must increase.

It is because of gravity, according to all you RE-tards. Yes. Gravity and kinematics.
You do understand things, but try to tell that to Papa Legba. LOL

You see, according to all of you, orbits are simply things in a constant state of falling down. Agree. Or do I ?
It surely can be one way to calculate it. But to describe it is not the very best way.

No other force necessary, according to you RE-tards. Other force could be friction,
but it would slow down orbiting object and reduce overall radius of orbit.

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites? Inertia. It creates inertial force that
tries to straighten the path of orbiting object. That prevents orbiting object from falling down.

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH? What force would speed them up, when all
gravitational acceleration acts prependicular to trajectory? Besides, speed of light (limit speed) is only 0.6706 billion mph

Is there a free body diagram? Maybe. Try THIS.

Naughty AI shillgorithm!

Forum slides and thread manipulation will not be tolerated.

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)?

No, of course I did not.

Because to do so I would firstly have to remove all the Earth's atmosphere in order to "neglect air resistance"...

Then I would have to find a way of firing a projectile at the velocity of 17,700 miles per hour whilst it is only 100 metres above the surface of my now atmosphere-free Earth.

Both these feats are physically impossible to achieve.

Why is the rabbibot proposing a ridiculous and physically impossible experiment as proof of its insane ravings?

Why is the rabbibot claiming that gravity both does and does not force things downwards?

This thread is an absolute disaster for it.

SOFTWARE UPGRADE FOR THE RABBIBOT, PLEASE!

Kepler's law. Law of conservation of angular momentum. Elliptical orbit. When commet is closer to Sun,
product of angular speed and radius remains the same, but radius decreases, so angular speed must increase.

Kepler applies to single bodies.

Since there is most assuredly more than one body present in the Solar System, Kepler is out the window...

Yes. Gravity and kinematics.
You do understand things, but try to tell that to Papa Legba. LOL

You want me to tell Papa kinematics is a force?

LMMFAO!

Kinematics is the study of these things and has nothing to do with "why..."

Agree. Or do I ?
It surely can be one way to calculate it. But to describe it is not the very best way.

Well give it your best shot...

No other force necessary, according to you RE-tards. Other force could be friction,
but it would slow down orbiting object and reduce overall radius of orbit.

Friction?

In a vacuum?

LMMFAO!!!

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites? Inertia. It creates inertial force that
tries to straighten the path of orbiting object. That prevents orbiting object from falling down.

INERTIA IS NOT A FORCE!!! IT IS A STATE OF BEING!!!

WTF IS WRONG YOU BOTS!!!

What force would speed them up, when all
gravitational acceleration

Gravity pulls things toward the center.

Orbits are simply things falling towards the center(or down)...

acts prependicular to trajectory?

With no other force other than gravity at play?

Besides, speed of light (limit speed) is only 0.6706 billion mph[/b]

So?

Maybe. Try THIS.

Nope...

You want me to tell Papa kinematics is a force?

Hiding behind twisting, eh?
LOL

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 08:19:10 AM

You want me to tell Papa kinematics is a force?

Hiding behind twisting, eh?
LOL

Twisting what...

The questions were:"Is a comet accelerating when it approaches the Sun? If the answer is yes, why?"

Your answer:

"Yes. Gravity and kinematics."

You just stated "kinematics," is causing the acceleration of comets, in addition to gravity.

Kinematics is not a force.

Kinematics is a field of study, more precisely: "Kinematics is a branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the mass of each or the forces that caused the motion." - Wikipedia

Cannot get rid of gravity as it is the primary force fundamental to orbits themselves.

Therefore, cannot get rid oneself of considering an object(s) mass ...

So, it seems even less topical BS has been posted on your part, and you would describe my post as "twisting?"

I do not think so cupcake...

Please try again...

Plus, free body diagram...chop chop...

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

Umm...  You do understand that acceleration is a change in velocity, but not necessarily a change in speed, don't you?

Is there a free body diagram?

Yes.

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.

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

Umm...  You do understand that acceleration is a change in velocity, but not necessarily a change in speed, don't you?

So?

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

Is there a free body diagram?

Yes.

Quote from: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram"Exclusions
There are some things that a free body diagram explicitly excludes. Although other sketches that include these things may be helpful in visualizing a problem, a proper free body diagram should not show:

Bodies other than the free body."

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 11:15:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

Umm...  You do understand that acceleration is a change in velocity, but not necessarily a change in speed, don't you?

So?

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 11:15:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

Is there a free body diagram?

Yes.

Quote from: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram"Exclusions
There are some things that a free body diagram explicitly excludes. Although other sketches that include these things may be helpful in visualizing a problem, a proper free body diagram should not show:

Bodies other than the free body."

*yawn*  If you can't beat 'em, play the semantics card.

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 11:27:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 11:15:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

Umm...  You do understand that acceleration is a change in velocity, but not necessarily a change in speed, don't you?

So?

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 11:15:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

Is there a free body diagram?

Yes.

Quote from: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram"Exclusions
There are some things that a free body diagram explicitly excludes. Although other sketches that include these things may be helpful in visualizing a problem, a proper free body diagram should not show:

Bodies other than the free body."

*yawn*  If you can't beat 'em, play the semantics card.

*yawn*

I did not play the semantics card.

I posted factual information evidencing you did not present a free body diagram.

C ya Opus! THE AI PENGUIN!!!

Science is tough for you isn't it? Did you figure out why objects in orbit don't accelerate to the speed of light?

Is a comet increasing in acceleration when it approaches the Sun?

That is a simple yes or no question.

Yes.

If the answer is yes, why?

It is because of gravity, according to all you RE-tards.

You see, according to all of you, orbits are simply things in a constant state of falling down.

No other force necessary,according to you RE-tards.

In Newtonian mechanics, yes, pretty much.

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites?

Their trajectories don't intersect with other bodies.

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away. Over the course of an orbit its average speed won't change.

Is there a free body diagram?

Science is tough for you isn't it? Did you figure out why objects in orbit don't accelerate to the speed of light?

Have you seen other acceleration vector, besides one perpendicular to local point of trajectory?
Perpendicular acceleration changes only direction of velocity vector, not the intensity?
(Absolute value of speed remains the same.)

Which acceleration would change (inctrease?) intensity of satellite velocity vector?

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

Velocity vector have two elements: intensity (speed) and direction.
Without external forces none of those change.
Not speed, not direction.

Lengthwise acceleration changes speed, perpendicular (crosswise) changes direction.
Inertia opposes both and causes inertial forces that counter external forces.

Science is tough for you isn't it? Did you figure out why objects in orbit don't accelerate to the speed of light?

When you post an adequate explanation of why the rope, with the bone, keeps coming untied from around your neck, I will address your nonsense...

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away.

But, if the orbiting body is only under the influence of gravity and inertia, then it would be incapable of "going away".

Because gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not a force at all:

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

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

This is not debatable, so please stop lying about it.

You lot really do need to come up with some brand new fake force to make this whole bullshit clockwork cosmos of yours work, dontcha?

This guy would probably be a big help, if he weren't rotting in hell for being a kiddy-fiddler:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

Is a comet increasing in acceleration when it approaches the Sun?

That is a simple yes or no question.

Yes.

Terrific!

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

If the answer is yes, why?

It is because of gravity, according to all you RE-tards.

You see, according to all of you, orbits are simply things in a constant state of falling down.

No other force necessary,according to you RE-tards.

In Newtonian mechanics, yes, pretty much.

So, constant falling down is because of GRAVITY...

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites?

Their trajectories don't intersect with other bodies.

= NO CHAIR NECESSARY (also contradicting Geoff the rabbibot)

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away. Over the course of an orbit its average speed won't change.

AH...

Here is the rub...

An artificial satellite is in a constant of "falling down..." NOT moving "towards..." or, "..."goes away..." You already agreed to this axiom.

Do you see your own free body diagram (which is inadequate by the way, but that is another subject).

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 28, 2018, 12:02:27 PM

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away. Over the course of an orbit its average speed won't change.

AH...

Here is the rub...

An artificial satellite is in a constant of "falling down..." NOT moving "towards..." or, "..."goes away..." You already agreed to this axiom.

Do you see your own free body diagram (which is inadequate by the way, but that is another subject).

Agreed, "falling down" is a misleading way of putting it. The point is that the body is in free fall, with one force acting on it.