uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

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

And you're deliberately ignoring the horizontal velocity vector component.

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.

Yes, but the horizontal velocity is causing the satellite to move in a path tangent to the earth.  Gravity pulls that horizontal path towards the earth.  When the horizontal velocity and gravitational attraction are properly balanced, orbit is achieved.

The concept is not as complicated as you want it to be.

The horizontal vector component is inertia.

And Inertia is not a force.

The only force acting on your fake satellites would be gravity.

And gravity accelerates objects downwards at 9.8m/s2.

So they would crash back to Earth pdq.

You are the one attempting to complicate matters.

You are also manipulating the thread, as you always do.
 
Were you human, I would say you are completely without honour...

But you are just a shit AI algorithm going through the motions.

So meh.

Wat?

The horizontal vector component is velocity. A force accelerated the object. The object at one time felt a force. Inertia is why it keeps its horizontal velocity.

You are now reduced to claiming that inertia is a force.

Debate over, you lose.

Quite the opposite. There is no force to change the horizontal velocity, so it won't.

I object !

Noted.

As i have clearly proved is that within the leadership of the US military the Explorer 1 in orbit was a tranquilizer to satisfy the American public.

"Proved"? maybe you think you have.

They were so afraid now Russia could orbit earth, that their atomic arsenal could easily reach any part in the USA and the world.... the USA needed to be on the same military level.
Explorer 1 reached that goal.

Now i have to believe that ground control had to wait a considerable amount of time to varify if the satellite had indeed reached orbit !!!

What is real and what you believe are not necessarily related.

What you and other basically claim is :
1 A rocket went to space to deliver an unique package
2 They set certain onboard parameters in advance
3 They couldn't remote control the rocket during flight

These seem to be a reasonable synopsis.

4 The rocket was able to reach the exact height and velocity and deployed a satelite the way it was uhhhh 'programmed' to do...

Can you clarify what you mean by "exact". Launches operate within envelopes of performance. No less than some value and no greater than another are considered "nominal" and meet mission requirements. Even if a launch was outside the specified bounds, it could often meet some of the goals. In the case of the earliest orbital launches, "nominal" had more latitude than later missions with more exacting requirements, but correspondingly more sophisticated hardware, including, but not limited to, "remote control".

Despite what you may want to believe, being somewhat off in speed or trajectory doesn't necessarily mean a satellite will immediately crash to the ground. All it means is that a specific orbit isn't achieved. For Explorer I, just getting into orbit would have been "good enough" in many ways, and there was a fair amount of latitude in the launch parameters that would achieve that.

5 some anxious moment to finally confirm the satellite was indeed in earth's orbit.

Probably. So? There is a lot of rocket science, talented engineering, quality manufacturing, and competent fabrication between launch and nominal orbit. Even today, there are still anxious moments (minutes, actually), between launch and much more precise nominal orbit because a lot of things can go wrong.

Superb !!!! Now you have to explain in your own words how this Hollywood production worked !!
Take it easy with me, because i have a tendency to scream :"it looks fake as part of a cheap propaganda scam"

You do have a tendency to scream that. It gets a little tedious, too, but that's the price of enjoying participation in The Flat Earth Society.

I do hope you and others will finally give some details that made this magic work !

It isn't magic. It's science and engineering.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 - Arthur C. Clarke

Just because a technology seems magical to you doesn't mean it isn't just technology.

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.

All I said is "Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved."
And "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."
And even a Deranged Voodoo Priest could not legitimately argue against that!

The rest of my post was simply diagrams from your favourite source of information on physics.
Go and read this bit and get yourself eddykatid! The Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion.
If the Deranged Voodoo Priest doesn't understand that go back to you Voodoo Training School and see if they have a Kiddie's Fyzix Course.

But, don't come bitching to me if you don't understand how satellites stay in orbit, go and complain to The Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial.

You might have more success at Practice That Feels Like Play, Preschool
with a bit of effort a Deranged Voodoo Priest might just scrape through at that level.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 02:14:59 PM

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.

All I said is "Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved."
And "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."
And even a Deranged Voodoo Priest could not legitimately argue against that!

The rest of my post was simply diagrams from your favourite source of information on physics.
Go and read this bit and get yourself eddykatid! The Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion.
If the Deranged Voodoo Priest doesn't understand that go back to you Voodoo Training School and see if they have a Kiddie's Fyzix Course.

But, don't come bitching to me if you don't understand how satellites stay in orbit, go and complain to The Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial.

You might have more success at Practice That Feels Like Play, Preschool
with a bit of effort a Deranged Voodoo Priest might just scrape through at that level.

Shillinoz is triggered and just spamming insults, lol.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2018, 06:08:54 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 07, 2018, 02:14:59 PM

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.

All I said is "Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved."
And "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."
And even a Deranged Voodoo Priest could not legitimately argue against that!

The rest of my post was simply diagrams from your favourite source of information on physics.
Go and read this bit and get yourself eddykatid! The Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion.
If the Deranged Voodoo Priest doesn't understand that go back to you Voodoo Training School and see if they have a Kiddie's Fyzix Course.

But, don't come bitching to me if you don't understand how satellites stay in orbit, go and complain to The Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial.

You might have more success at Practice That Feels Like Play, Preschool
with a bit of effort a Deranged Voodoo Priest might just scrape through at that level.

Shillinoz is triggered and just spamming insults, lol.

Nice one hoppy, almost though not quite a coherent sentence, though more than your usual one word offerings.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 - Arthur C. Clarke

This Arthur C Clarke?

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

Yeah, I bet he said that to all the little boys...

You really like Clarke, don't you? Again: what has he got to do with, for example, SpaceX?

Even if NASA had faked earlier things, we now have SpaceX which dealt quite a liver shot to your flat Earth.

I don't think the Earth is flat, Paul.

Do I have to tell you this in every post now?

As for Musk, the only liver shot he delivered lately is to his own investors:

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-earnings-20180207-story.html

Ponzi scheme detected!

So tell us how Clarke is connected to space flight, Jerry?

Oh, and with your mad financial skillz, I'd be hesitant to judge others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke

Same guy:

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

But you knew all this already didn't you Paul?

Now lie and shitpost some more...

Yes, he was a science fiction writer (and he liked young boys). Asimov wrote science fiction, too. And there are many others.

What has that to do with space flight?

Try to imagine someone outside this forum sees this exchange. What do they think?

They'll think the man who came up with the idea of satellites was a paedo and that Elon Musk is a fraudster.

And that you are a shitposting liar trying to defend paedos and fraudsters.

Any conclusions they draw from those facts are up to them.

Pray tell how I was defending Clarke's crimes?

You are unable to make any meaningful connection between Clarke and space flight. And to call Musk a fraud is neither here or there. I do not know how he runs his business, but he is surely far more successful and intelligent than you. And space flight does not rest on his shoulders, you dumb fuck.

You really are a sad simpleton.

Why don't you go and get arrested some more?

EDIT: Oh yes, what lie did I tell?

As predicted, shitposting and lies...

Good job, Paul!

Jerry, your schtick turned sour a long time ago. Let it go.

Not once have you provided anything that would make any sense, especially when you try to claim space flight is an impossibility. Your defense is a lowered intellect, which can work for you in court, but here it is of no help.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-find-a-link-between-low-intelligence-and-acceptance-of-pseudo-profound-bulls-a6757731.html

Shitposting intensifies...

You are now reduced to claiming that inertia is a force.

Debate over, you lose.

Same distraction again?
Someone mentiones inertial forces and you twist it into "inertia IS a force".

You talk about inertia and deny inertia in trajectory curvature.

Here is one simple question for you:
If something curves trajectory of an object, will inertia resist the curve or not? (Or at least try?)

So tell us how Clarke is connected to space flight, Jerry?

Okay!





https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=150s&v=wxH-PHyQ0rY

Ah, I see. So Clarke (damn his paedophile soul!) wanted to see more things up there. Satellites, too.

So, in a sense, he started the whole NASA conspiracy? Or what is it you try to state? How does what Clarke envisioned nullify space flight? Did he fake build the rockets or fake calculate trajectories and/or fuel consumption?

EDIT: Here I do need to thank you for answering a question. Now I can at least try to understand a bit how you think, though the connection is still more than hazy.

Ah, I see.

Incorrect.

Here you have maybe the most easy question to answer. One does not need understanding of physics or math or engineering.

What does Clarke have to do with space flight?

So far you have provided us proof he has talked about it, and satellites. And yes, he has written about them as well. What you fail to provide us is the answer to how does this factor in with space flight itself. Was he an instrumental piece in what exact capacity? More exact: how does him talking and writing about it prove space flight is impossible?

EDIT: And we know he liked to fuck young boys. But I don't think that is the answer to the question.

Here you have maybe the most easy question to answer. One does not need understanding of physics or math or engineering.

What does Clarke have to do with space flight?

So far you have provided us proof he has talked about it, and satellites. And yes, he has written about them as well. What you fail to provide us is the answer to how does this factor in with space flight itself. Was he an instrumental piece in what exact capacity? More exact: how does him talking and writing about it prove space flight is impossible?

EDIT: And we know he liked to fuck young boys. But I don't think that is the answer to the question.

More things you are somehow unable to see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Only wiki links, and you won't read them anyway...

But don't say I didn't try!

You are just digging your hole deeper.

You are utterly unable to answer the question.

Lol I said you couldn't see them and wouldn't read them!

So predictable with the lying and shitposting...

Quote from: rvlvr on February 08, 2018, 03:45:17 AM

Here you have maybe the most easy question to answer. One does not need understanding of physics or math or engineering.

What does Clarke have to do with space flight?

So far you have provided us proof he has talked about it, and satellites. And yes, he has written about them as well. What you fail to provide us is the answer to how does this factor in with space flight itself. Was he an instrumental piece in what exact capacity? More exact: how does him talking and writing about it prove space flight is impossible?

EDIT: And we know he liked to fuck young boys. But I don't think that is the answer to the question.

More things you are somehow unable to see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Only wiki links, and you won't read them anyway...

But don't say I didn't try!

To wit.

Quote from: rvlvr on February 08, 2018, 03:45:17 AM

Here you have maybe the most easy question to answer. One does not need understanding of physics or math or engineering.

What does Clarke have to do with space flight?

So far you have provided us proof he has talked about it, and satellites. And yes, he has written about them as well. What you fail to provide us is the answer to how does this factor in with space flight itself. Was he an instrumental piece in what exact capacity? More exact: how does him talking and writing about it prove space flight is impossible?

EDIT: And we know he liked to fuck young boys. But I don't think that is the answer to the question.

More things you are somehow unable to see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
Only wiki links, and you won't read them anyway...
But don't say I didn't try!

Papa Legba, nobody would ever say that you are not trying, you are a very trying total idiot!

Totally irrelevant to the facts that:

• Rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea level.
• Satellites are real.
• The Voodoo Priest is a total idiot!

So: