uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

You know full well my name is not Paul, but you know I know who you are. The asymmetry must be maddening.

And yes, space flight will become more commonplace. Does it hurt?

Lol you're sounding like a villain from a bad B-movie again...

Is this you?

You can call me a villain after I have been arrested as many times as you have.

But again, how was Falcon Heavy fake? Because you saw it fly "horizontally"?

Oh so the fake data provided by the fakers of the fake rockets themselves says they're not fake?

Sounds legit!

The rabbibot is beyond parody, as ever...

In other words, our local demented Voodoo Priest can't even understand simple perspective, figures!
Cast any spells that work lately? Or can't our local demented Voodoo Priest even spell any more?
Maybe you're really a our Totally Lacking Voodoo Priest now.

Bye bye local demented Voodoo Priest. Have a nice Voodoo ritual.

You can call me a villain after I have been arrested as many times as you have.

But again, how was Falcon Heavy fake? Because you saw it fly "horizontally"?

Did you just say NO U?

Lol I think you did.

Great argument,  Socrates...

The pos rokkit was fake because it defies every single law of physics and principle of Aerodynamics,...

But as you're not programmed to understand them you're destined to wallow in confusion forever.

Now say more mad weird shit for no reason whatsoever, like the rabbibot just did.

Quote from: rvlvr on February 06, 2018, 11:48:53 PM

You can call me a villain after I have been arrested as many times as you have.

But again, how was Falcon Heavy fake? Because you saw it fly "horizontally"?

Did you just say NO U?

Lol I think you did.

Great argument,  Socrates...

I have no idea what this means.

But sure, you keep your head in the dirt. The rest of the world won't weep after some piece of the tail falls of the Gaussian while we move forward.

Does your brother share your FE beliefs by any chance?

Quote from: rvlvr on February 06, 2018, 11:48:53 PM

You can call me a villain after I have been arrested as many times as you have.

But again, how was Falcon Heavy fake? Because you saw it fly "horizontally"?

Did you just say NO U?

Lol I think you did.

Great argument,  Socrates...

The pos rokkit was fake because it defies every single law of physics and principle of Aerodynamics,...

But as you're not programmed to understand them you're destined to wallow in confusion forever.

Now say more mad weird shit for no reason whatsoever, like the rabbibot just did.

So tell us what do you actually know about physics or aerodynamics that allows you to cry fake on Space X launch? Hell it was live streamed, the world saw it happen live! They got some things wrong big style, one booster crashed, and the roadster, launched into space, is heading off in the wrong direction. You being such an alleged expert on all this stuff, where did they go wrong. By the way how’s your version of orbital mechanics coming on? When will it hit the shelves?

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 12:00:40 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on February 06, 2018, 11:48:53 PM

You can call me a villain after I have been arrested as many times as you have.

But again, how was Falcon Heavy fake? Because you saw it fly "horizontally"?

Did you just say NO U?

Lol I think you did.

Great argument,  Socrates...

I have no idea what this means.

But sure, you keep your head in the dirt. The rest of the world won't weep after some piece of the tail falls of the Gaussian while we move forward.

Does your brother share your FE beliefs by any chance?

You seem very confused about everything today, Paul...

Here, you and lonegranger like expensive firework displays, maybe this will help bring you round:

Quote from: rvlvr on February 07, 2018, 12:21:05 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 12:00:40 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on February 06, 2018, 11:48:53 PM

You can call me a villain after I have been arrested as many times as you have.

But again, how was Falcon Heavy fake? Because you saw it fly "horizontally"?

Did you just say NO U?

Lol I think you did.

Great argument,  Socrates...

I have no idea what this means.

But sure, you keep your head in the dirt. The rest of the world won't weep after some piece of the tail falls of the Gaussian while we move forward.

Does your brother share your FE beliefs by any chance?

You seem very confused about everything today, Paul...

Here, you and lonegranger like expensive firework displays, maybe this will help bring you round:

Think you need to get your eyes tested.
What was expensive?
How’s your rewriting of orbital mechanics coming on taking out all the crazy bits?

Orbital mechanics is Pseudoscience.

Here's why:

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

The pos rokkit was fake because it defies every single law of physics and principle of Aerodynamics,...

Don't worry, Papa, we realise that you can't help it. They simply don't teach Rocket Science in Voodoo Ritual Training School.

You could learn a bit about it from, Rocket and Space Technology.
If you think that Robert A. Braeunig doesn't understand Rocket Science you are, to put it in professional psychological terms, stark, starin' bonkers!

But, we all knew you were stark, starin' bonkers right from the start, so nothing new!

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 12:00:40 AM

The pos rokkit was fake because it defies every single law of physics and principle of Aerodynamics,...

Don't worry, Papa, we realise that you can't help it. They simply don't teach Rocket Science in Voodoo Ritual Training School.

You could learn a bit about it from, Rocket and Space Technology.
If you think that Robert A. Braeunig doesn't understand Rocket Science you are, to put it in professional psychological terms, stark, starin' bonkers!

But, we all knew you were stark, starin' bonkers right from the start, so nothing new!

Braeunig is military industrial propaganda bullshit.

Everyone knows this.

Orbital mechanics is easily disproved...

I just did it in fact.

Making mad pompous statements will not change this fact.

Won't stop you trying though, will it?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2018, 01:04:03 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 12:00:40 AM

The pos rokkit was fake because it defies every single law of physics and principle of Aerodynamics,...

Don't worry, Papa, we realise that you can't help it. They simply don't teach Rocket Science in Voodoo Ritual Training School.

You could learn a bit about it from, Rocket and Space Technology.
If you think that Robert A. Braeunig doesn't understand Rocket Science you are, to put it in professional psychological terms, stark, starin' bonkers!

But, we all knew you were stark, starin' bonkers right from the start, so nothing new!

Braeunig is military industrial propaganda bullshit.

Everyone knows this.

Orbital mechanics is easily disproved...

I just did it in fact.

Making mad pompous statements will not change this fact.

Won't stop you trying though, will it?

You proved it wow, impressive, are we going to see your workings? Did your pet pink fairy who lives under you bed help.
What are your voices going to get you to prove next?

Jerry has tremendous difficulties keeping even his own books. I highly doubt he is able to provide us with anything that'd prove otherwise. A petty criminal is a fitting figurehead for the anti-space flight movement.

But here's hoping he can surprise us.

Orbital mechanics is Pseudoscience.

Here's why:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.
There are over 31 million seconds in a year.
And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.
So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...
I get it in the tens of billions.
This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

Of course your rubbishy Voodoo Fyzix is debatable.

Incorrect, you forgot about centripetal acceleration. Back to the drawing board!

It looks like you haven't studied Robert A. Braeunig's Rocket and Space Technology. So,  run off and do your homework.

Of course an ignorant Voodoo Priest might find the rocket science in Robert A. Braeunig's stuff a bit advanced,
so you could start with the kiddie stuff in THE PHYSICS CLASSROOM TUTORIAL. But, makes sure you read the parts on satellites.

You also forget about relativity.  Looks like Voodoo Priests don't learn any advanced physics.

   I do hope you appreciate all this effort I'm going to, just to advance your education.  

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 12:52:35 AM

Orbital mechanics is Pseudoscience.

Here's why:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.
There are over 31 million seconds in a year.
And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.
So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...
I get it in the tens of billions.
This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

Of course your rubbishy Voodoo Fyzix is debatable.

Incorrect, you forgot about centripetal acceleration. Back to the drawing board!

It looks like you haven't studied Robert A. Braeunig's Rocket and Space Technology. So,  run off and do your homework.

Of course an ignorant Voodoo Priest might find the rocket science in Robert A. Braeunig's stuff a bit advanced,
so you could start with the kiddie stuff in THE PHYSICS CLASSROOM TUTORIAL. But, makes sure you read the parts on satellites.

You also forget about relativity.  Looks like Voodoo Priests don't learn any advanced physics.

   I do hope you appreciate all this effort I'm going to, just to advance your education.  

There is no centripetal acceleration acting on your silly fake satellites.

Because they are neither tethered to a central axis of rotation nor capable of creating friction with the medium through which they move.

Btw, the increasingly creepy nature of your posts is hardly going to convince anyone you are honest.

Just a heads up.

Again, I do not claim to know much about physics, but doesn't the following explain the centripetal problem Jerry has?

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

"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."

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

There is no centripetal acceleration acting on your silly fake satellites.

Incorrect, you failed to read your homework assignment! Now go and stand in the corner and read this:
Circular Motion and Satellite Motion - Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion

Because they are neither tethered to a central axis of rotation nor capable of creating friction with the medium through which they move.

Incorrect!
The tether does not need to be a material fibre or rope. Some other "attractive force" can also be an effective tether. For example:

• The electrostatic forces between charges of opposite sign fall off as the inverse square and could provide the tether or
• The gravitational forces between the mass of the satellite and the earth also fall off as the inverse square and can provide the tether.

So, sorry Mr Voodoo Priest, it seems that you fail again.

Btw, the increasingly creepy nature of your posts is hardly going to convince anyone you are honest.

How could I "creep out" a trickster like Papa Legba and what would a Voodoo Priest like Papa Legba know about honesty?

Who is Papa Legba?
Papa Legba has his origins with the Fon people of Dahomey (Benin) Africa and is said to be the guardian and trickster of the crossroads and entrances. He is one of the most widely served African deities.

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Your calculation was derived from nowhere.
Gravity applies acceleration perpendicular to trajectory.
Velocity along trajectory (tangential) is not changed by perpendicular acceleration.
Inertia opposes gravitational acceleration by opposite acceleration.
That acceleration is also perpendicular to tangential velocity and does not increase or decrease it's intensity.
Acceleration caused by inertia cancels acceleration caused by gravitry.

And you expect anyone to believe that two canceled acceleration, both perpendicular to trajectory, with resultant to be zero, can increase (or decrease) tangential speed?
How stupid you hope the people are?
How stupid you expect them to be?

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 03:44:03 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Acceleration caused by inertia cancels acceleration caused by gravitry.

LMFAO!!!

Oh, and gravity is not a tether, rabbibot, nor is it falling off...

You really need either inertia to be a force or gravity to not accelerate things for your mad model to be true, don't you?

Sadly, neither of these is true.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 06, 2018, 08:29:28 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

The only thing you've proved is that you don't understand physics.  I've been accelerated by gravity for over 40 years.  How fast am I going?

The ISS has been accelerated by at a lower rate for less time than me.  What's the problem?

So you've been in free fall for over forty years?

Cool story, bro.

And if the markbot can't see what's wrong with the article it linked to, it's even dumber than I thought...

Clue in the word ACCELERATION though.

I didn't say free fall, dumbass.  Pay attention.  I've been accelerated by gravity for over 40 years.  Nothing in that statement says "free fall". 

You're right about ACCELERATION being the key, though.  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that acceleration means "speeding up".  It doesn't.  Acceleration refers to any change in velocity.  Velocity is directional, so any change in speed or direction results in acceleration. 

You're welcome.  You can now stop being such a dumbass.

And if the markbot can't see what's wrong with the article it linked to, it's even dumber than I thought...

Clue in the word ACCELERATION though.

But it's from the same reputable source that you used to claim that orbits aren't real.

Either Physics Classroom is lying to one of us, or one of us is lying about what Physics Classroom is saying.

BTW, another clue is the horizontal velocity vector component.

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 03:44:03 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Acceleration caused by inertia cancels acceleration caused by gravitry.

LMFAO!!!

Oh, and gravity is not a tether, rabbibot, nor is it falling off...

You really need either inertia to be a force or gravity to not accelerate things for your mad model to be true, don't you?

Sadly, neither of these is true.

Who said that "inertia IS a force"?
If my hand gives speed to a volley ball, you would say that my hand is speed?

Twisting words around doesn't change facts.
So much about your honesty.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 04:33:28 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 03:44:03 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Acceleration caused by inertia cancels acceleration caused by gravitry.

LMFAO!!!

Oh, and gravity is not a tether, rabbibot, nor is it falling off...

You really need either inertia to be a force or gravity to not accelerate things for your mad model to be true, don't you?

Sadly, neither of these is true.

So much about your honesty.

You're the one who said inertia is accelerating a satellite.

That's a lie, so we're done here now...

The rest of you can stop squawking too.

Toodle-pip LOSERS!

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 06:10:14 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 04:33:28 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 03:44:03 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Acceleration caused by inertia cancels acceleration caused by gravitry.

LMFAO!!!

Oh, and gravity is not a tether, rabbibot, nor is it falling off...

You really need either inertia to be a force or gravity to not accelerate things for your mad model to be true, don't you?

Sadly, neither of these is true.

So much about your honesty.

You're the one who said inertia is accelerating a satellite.

That's a lie, so we're done here now...

The rest of you can stop squawking too.

Toodle-pip LOSERS!

Gravity accelerates satellite, inertia inflicts counter-acceleration that opposes. Those two accelerations get balanced.
And then you "calculate increased speed" of the satellite with two accelerations balanced out.

And call it "proof". hehehe

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 06:42:35 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 06:10:14 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 04:33:28 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 03:51:42 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 03:44:03 AM

Quote from: Macarios on February 07, 2018, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 06, 2018, 01:05:33 PM

There's no such thing as a satellite orbit anyway.

I already proved it.

Look:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 05, 2018, 01:37:41 AM

Okay, so the silly fake ISS is being accelerated by gravity at nearly 20 mph every second it is in orbit.

There are over 31 million seconds in a year.

And the ISS was first put in orbit 20 years ago.

So, multiply 31 million by 20 by 20 and you'll have the number in miles per hour that gravity will have accelerated the silly fake ISS up to by now...

I get it in the tens of billions.

This is not debatable btw, which is why you've gone into mad AI shitpost frenzy mode trying to cover it up.

How can you call it "proof" when you have all vectors mixed up there ? ? ?
Calculating something you don't even know yourself.

Well in your mad model gravity is somehow supplying both vectors, so I went with that.

In reality, gravity is supplying the only force vector, which would be straight back down to Earth...

Which means it would crash long before reaching billions of mph.

But, if your model is correct then my velocity calculation is correct.

You can't have it both ways.

Acceleration caused by inertia cancels acceleration caused by gravitry.

LMFAO!!!

Oh, and gravity is not a tether, rabbibot, nor is it falling off...

You really need either inertia to be a force or gravity to not accelerate things for your mad model to be true, don't you?

Sadly, neither of these is true.

So much about your honesty.

You're the one who said inertia is accelerating a satellite.

That's a lie, so we're done here now...

The rest of you can stop squawking too.

Toodle-pip LOSERS!

Gravity accelerates satellite, inertia inflicts counter-acceleration that opposes.

Just making shit up...

Oh, and gravity is not a tether, rabbibot, nor is it falling off...

Incorrect, you failed to read your homework assignment! Now go and stand in the corner and read this:
Circular Motion and Satellite Motion - Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion

You really need either inertia to be a force

No, I don't "really need either inertia to be a force" and I doubt that a Voodoo priest would even know the connection between inertia and acceleration.
I seriously doubt that it is part of Voodoo Ritual Brainwashing 101 that seems to be your only education.

or gravity to not accelerate things for your mad model to be true, don't you?

Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.

Sadly, neither of these is true.

Sadly you have no idea what you are talking about, but that's nothing new.

By the way, even the highly intelligent^[1] staunch flat-earther, Sandokhan, knows more about rockets in a vacuum than the totally ignorant Papa Legba, look:

This was pretty standard stuff, even if its ISP was fairly poor, compared to almost any liquid chemical rocket fuels in use today; the ISP varied from about "220 seconds" in the atmosphere, to about "235 seconds" in a good vacuum (because, contrary to common misperception, rocket engines actually work best in a pure vacuum -- when the thrust exhaust isn't slowed down by the surrounding air!).

So you haven't a clue about rockets in a vacuum either.

Poor, poor Papa.

So back to reading all your homework.

[1] In the opinion of the smartest person on earth, Sandokhan!

Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.

Gravity not accelerating Physics Book.

Gravity not accelerating Papa Legba.

You are deliberately confusing the normal force and free fall...

A satellite is in free fall, as it is not sitting on a table or standing on the ground.

Therefore it will be accelerated downwards at the rate of 9.8m/s2.

You've pulled some sad shit in your time here, rabbibot, but this is a new low...

Good thing you're not human, as you would be beyond contempt if you were.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2018, 01:50:32 PM

Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.

Gravity not accelerating Physics Book.

Gravity not accelerating Papa Legba.

You are deliberately confusing the normal force and free fall...

A satellite is in free fall, as it is not sitting on a table or standing on the ground.

Therefore it will be accelerated downwards at the rate of 9.8m/s2.

You've pulled some sad shit in your time here, rabbibot, but this is a new low...

Good thing you're not human, as you would be beyond contempt if you were.

Your wrong and just making a fool of yourself’
Go look up Newton’s Canon you dimwit! What you’re  droning on about is a simple first year physics problem.  There needs to be no debate about it it’s fact. Satelites reach orbital velocity and gravity along with the satellites velocity does the rest holding it in orbit until it eventually decays unless the velocity is greater than the escape velocity whereupon it will shoot off in a hyperbolic trajectory or some such.